Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe Rules in Favor of Boris Becker: Personal Rights Violated by Deceptive Recordings
The civil dispute between plaintiff Boris Becker and defendant Oliver Pocher arose from an approximately 15-minute segment. This segment was broadcast on October 29, 2020, in the RTL television program "Pocher – gefährlich ehrlich" ("Pocher – dangerously honest"), hosted by the defendant.
In the program, the plaintiff was presented with a "fake" fashion prize, the "Fashion Brand Award." This award was allegedly from a fictitious magazine for a fashion line operated by the plaintiff.
Background of the Personal Rights Dispute
The plaintiff believed that the use of video recordings, obtained through deception, violated his personal rights. Consequently, he filed a claim against the defendant with the Regional Court of Offenburg. The claim sought to stop the distribution and delete the recorded film and image material.
The Regional Court dismissed this action in its judgment of November 15, 2022. It argued that in this specific case, the defendant's freedom of expression and broadcasting took precedence over the plaintiff's general right of personality.
Higher Regional Court Overturns Initial Ruling
The plaintiff appealed this ruling to the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court sided with the plaintiff in a judgment handed down today. The defendant is now prohibited from further distributing the disputed image sequences. Furthermore, he must delete these sequences if they are published on his own website.
Reasoning Behind the Higher Regional Court's Judgment
In support of its decision, the 14th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court stated that the plaintiff had not given effective consent for video publication to the use of the produced image sequences. This was because the plaintiff had been deliberately misled by the defendant regarding the purpose of the recordings.
While the plaintiff was led to believe he was receiving a serious, genuine prize for his fashion label, the actual purpose was to expose him. The program aimed to show how the plaintiff was induced to accept a "donation sum" incorporated into the trophy without his knowledge.
No Justification as "Contemporary History"
The use of the image sequences without the plaintiff's consent would only be justified if the disputed images were classified as "contemporary history." However, after weighing the plaintiff's right of personality against the defendant's freedom of expression and broadcasting in media disputes, this classification could not be assumed.
The public interest in the plaintiff's personal and economic situation was considerable when the program aired. This was largely due to ongoing insolvency proceedings and reports on criminal investigations.
However, this public interest did not obligate the plaintiff to accept every form of image use, regardless of how it was obtained. The production and presentation of the image sequences were characterized by the defendant's deception of the plaintiff, a point widely emphasized by the defendant himself.
The plaintiff was degraded to an object by this deception. He was manipulated into actively participating in ridiculing his own person. Moreover, since the broadcast's content only marginally dealt with the insolvency and its consequences, the plaintiff's right of personality had to be given priority.
Legal Proceedings and Outlook
The Senate has not allowed an appeal against its ruling. Nevertheless, the judgment is not yet legally binding. An appeal against the non-admission of the appeal could be lodged with the Federal Court of Justice within one month.
Court Details
Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, Civil Senate in Freiburg, judgment of November 28, 2023, file number: 14 U 620/22
Lower court: Regional Court of Offenburg, judgment of November 15, 2022, file number: 2 O 20/21
Conclusion
This ruling by the Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe reaffirms the strong protection of personal rights, especially when deception is involved in obtaining image and video material. It highlights that even significant public interest does not justify all forms of media coverage, emphasizing the importance of consent and ethical journalistic practices.