The plaintiff is the heir of a well-known, now deceased entertainer. The entertainer felt his personal rights were violated by articles published in the defendant's magazines, which, among other things, discussed his grief over his deceased daughter and his health condition, and therefore sued the defendant for monetary compensation. His lawsuit was filed with the court via fax one day before his death, but was not served on the defendant until several weeks later.
The Regional Court dismissed the lawsuit, which was continued by the heir. The plaintiff's appeal was unsuccessful. The appellate court left open the question of whether the challenged publications could even justify a claim for monetary compensation under § 823 para. 1 BGB in conjunction with Art. 2 para. 1, Art. 1 para. 1 GG. It held that such a claim, due to its highly personal nature, is in any case not inheritable. The VI Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible, among other things, for the protection of general personal rights, rejected the plaintiff's appeal on points of law.
The decisive factor against the inheritability of a claim for monetary compensation due to a severe violation of personal rights is the function of the claim itself. When monetary compensation is awarded, the idea of satisfaction is paramount. The aspect of satisfaction regularly loses significance if the violation of personal rights occurs during the lifetime of the injured party, but the party dies before their claim for compensation is fulfilled. Consequently, the claim generally does not continue beyond the death of the injured party. The concept of prevention does not justify a different outcome, as it alone cannot support the granting of monetary compensation.
The Senate could leave open whether a different rule applies if the injured party dies only after the claim for monetary compensation becomes pending, as in the present case, the deceased had passed away before the lawsuit was served. The retroactive effect stipulated in § 167 ZPO does not apply. It is limited to cases where the service is intended to preserve a current deadline or to restart or suspend the statute of limitations. The mere pendency of the lawsuit does not lead to the inheritability of the claim for monetary compensation.
Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of April 29, 2014 – VI ZR 246/12
Lower Courts:
Regional Court (LG) Berlin of June 21, 2011 – 27 O 145/11
Higher Regional Court (KG) Berlin of May 3, 2012 – 10 U 99/11
Source: Press Release of the Federal Court of Justice
Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2014
Attorney Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
Specialist Attorney for Information Technology Law
Email: info@goldberg.de
