Violation of celebrity hairdresser through report in Bild newspaper?

May the Bild newspaper, within the scope of press freedom, name the employer of an arrested employee? A Berlin celebrity hairdresser saw himself as violated in his personality rights by the factual reporting of the boulevard newspaper and sued the daily newspaper.

The businessman, who gained notoriety as a hairdresser to numerous celebrities, operates several hairdressing salons at various locations throughout Germany. The Bild newspaper had reported in an editorial article about the arrest of an employee of the celebrity hairdresser on suspicion of attempted serious predatory extortion as follows:

"Branch manager of U. W. (name of the claimant) arrested with 'Hells Angels'"

The businessman considered this identifying reporting to be a violation of his general personality right and sued the boulevard newspaper. The first two instances ruled in favour of the celebrity hairdresser, so that the Bild newspaper brought about a decision from the appellate court.

Court decision

By means ofUrteil vom 13.1.2015 – Az. VI ZR 386/13 – the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decided in favour of the press representative, as the reporting was not unlawful.

In weighing the businessman's right to protection of his social recognition, his business reputation and his personal data against the Bild newspaper's right to freedom of opinion and media freedom, press freedom of the media operator outweighs it in this case. The weighing between conflicting interests in factual assertions depends in particular on the truthfulness of the reporting. In this sense, true factual assertions must, as a rule, be accepted even if they are disadvantageous to the person affected.

Here, the impugned reporting concerned the celebrity hairdresser only in his professional sphere and did not cause his social exclusion. The press publication therefore did not constitute a serious violation of the general personality right required for a conviction.

Conclusion

With this decision, the BGH once again makes it clear that true factual assertions in the context of factual reporting are generally to be accepted. Only in exceptional cases, where the violation is very severe for the holder of personality rights, can the obligation to tolerate publication be rejected.