The plaintiff is a Russian businessman. In addition to a flat in Moscow, he also has a residence in Germany. The defendant, who attended school with the plaintiff in Moscow, now lives in the USA. The parties met at a class reunion with other classmates who had remained in Russia at the plaintiff's flat in Moscow. Afterwards, the defendant published a report in Russian and Cyrillic script from the USA on the internet portal http://www.womanineurope.com/, which is operated by a provider based in Germany. In the report, she commented, among other things, on the plaintiff's living conditions and physical appearance.
The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against several statements, monetary damages and information about the period of time and the internet addresses through which the statements to be injuncted were retrievable. Both lower courts denied the international jurisdiction of the German courts and dismissed the action as inadmissible.
The VI. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible for the protection of the general right of personality, rejected the plaintiff's appeal. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The German courts have international jurisdiction to rule on actions for impairment of personality rights by publications available on the internet, if the contents complained of as infringing the right objectively have a clear connection to Germany in the sense that a collision of the conflicting interests - the plaintiff's interest in respecting his right of personality on the one hand, the defendant's interest in the design of its internet presence and in reporting on the other hand - has actually occurred or may occur in Germany according to the circumstances of the specific case, in particular due to the content of the specific report. Such a clear domestic reference cannot be derived from the content of the challenged statement. The travel description, written in Russian and in Cyrillic script, describes a private meeting of the parties in Russia. The described circumstances from the plaintiff's private sphere are primarily of interest to those involved in the meeting. With the exception of the plaintiff, they do not have their habitual residence in Germany. The mere fact that the plaintiff accessed the report at his residence in Germany does not establish a clear domestic connection, even if individual business partners should have become aware of the challenged statements. The location of the server in Germany also does not give rise to an action by the defendant that would give rise to the jurisdiction of German courts.
Judgment of the BGH of 29 March 2011 - VI ZR 111/10
Lower courts:
LG Köln - 28 O 478/08 - Decision of 26 August 2009
OLG Cologne - 15 U 148/09 - Decision of 30 March 2010
Source: Press release of the BGH
Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2011
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
Specialist lawyer for information technology law (IT law)
E-mail: info@goldberg.de
