Schumacher achieves partial success against SUPERillu

Does press reporting on the state of health of public figures constitute a violation of general personality rights that must be ceased? The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now decided on Michael Schumacher's lawsuit against the publishers of the magazine SUPERillu.

Michael Schumacher sued the publishers of the magazine SUPERillu for an injunction because they had published details about his state of health after Schumacher's management announced that Schumacher had regained consciousness from his coma.

In an issue of the illustrated magazine, an article by SUPERillu was published in which the state of health of Michael Schumacher was speculated upon. In the report, the author claimed, amongst other things, that the former Formula 1 champion could only communicate with his wife through his eyes. Furthermore, he would have to relearn swallowing, walking and speaking. Following the description of Schumacher's symptoms, the publication reported on medically appropriate rehabilitation measures for the treatment of coma patients.

Michael Schumacher felt his personality rights violated by these statements and sued the publishers of SUPERillu for an injunction.

Decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on reporting on the state of health of a public figure

Withjudgment of 29.11.2016 – Az. VI ZR 382/15 – the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) prohibited the depictions by SUPERillu that Schumacher had, as a result of the accident, lost elementary abilities such as swallowing, walking and speaking, at least temporarily, since these statements would disclose concrete information about the mental state caused by the skiing accident, which the athlete had not shared with the public nor wished to share. This constitutes a violation of Michael Schumacher's general personality rights, as the protection of privacy also encompasses information about a person's state of health.

However, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) made clear that the press must not generally be prohibited from reporting on the state of health of prominent figures. Thus, Schumacher must tolerate reporting regarding medically appropriate rehabilitation measures for the treatment of coma patients. For in this respect, there exists a legitimate public interest in information.

Conclusion

The question of violations of general personality rights is always decided by weighing freedom of the press against the protection of privacy. Public figures such as Michael Schumacher must thereby accept greater restrictions on their privacy than someone who does not stand in the public eye.