In its appeal judgment of 3 March 2017, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (case reference: 4 U 166/16) ruled that a press report published last year by the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the subject of the “Panama Papers” was largely admissible.
The court emphasized that the potentially unlawful acquisition of the files did not prevent publication as a whole.

Comprehensive and identifying press report on the Panama Papers

In an article from April 5, 2016, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported, both online and in the print edition, about “The Phantom”: a former private investigator who used a letterbox company to evade taxes.

The former private investigator described above took legal action against the publication of the article by means of a temporary injunction.
In particular, he complained about the identifying reporting and the unlawful acquisition of the material for reporting.

The published article described his property, named his place of residence and showed a picture of his forged passport.
The rumor was also spread that he had tried to bribe police officers.

Unlawful procurement not decisive

According to the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, however, the private investigator cannot invoke the unlawful procurement of the material, as this does not constitute a criminal offense to his detriment.
No infringement of his rights could be established as a result.

Mentioning the place of residence together with a description of the property is not permitted

The detective’s property was described in detail in the article, in particular the location was mentioned and an excerpt from the land register was published.
This meant that the “secret agent” could be easily identified by the public.
The description of the property inhabited by the detective undoubtedly constituted a violation of the general right of personality.
This also did not have to take second place to the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

For example, the Süddeutsche could have reported on the private detective without giving his exact place of residence.
A simple description of the property would have been sufficient to describe the wealth.
According to the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, the mention of the place of residence and the illustration of the land register excerpt do not necessarily serve to clarify the wealth.

Rumors of attempted bribery are a violation of personal rights

The reporting that the plaintiff had tried to bribe police officers also violated his general right of personality.
It was a defamatory allegation of fact, the truth of which the magazine had to prove.
However, Süddeutsche was unable to do so.

Publication of the forged passport permitted

The publication of a forged passport, on the other hand, did not infringe the private investigator’s right to his own image or his right to informational self-determination.
The reason for the OLG’s decision is that the “cover identity” had already been published previously by other media.
The detective could also be easily identified by images from generally accessible sources.

Overall, the judgment deals with a large number of violations of personality rights by a press report.
It is commendable that the Higher Regional Court deals comprehensively with each individual infringement and prohibits them in a differentiated manner or deems them permissible.