The magazine “Super Illu” may use publicly known facts about Michael Schumacher’s state of health to report on his therapeutic measures and aids.
However, it is not permitted to report on the possible physical condition using merely striking descriptions.
This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice in its ruling from November 29, 2016 (case reference: VI ZR 382/15).

Reporting on Schumacher’s state of health

Former Formula 1 world champion Michael Schumacher suffered life-threatening head injuries in a skiing accident at the end of 2013 and was in a coma for a long time.
The magazine “Super Illu” then reported extensively on Schumacher’s state of health in the summer of 2014.
Under the title “Schumi’s Angel”, his state of health was analyzed and various therapies and treatment methods for coma patients were presented.

Following the reporting, Schumacher defended himself against the statements in the magazine and claimed injunctive relief against the publisher.
The detailed and speculative reporting on his state of health constituted a significant invasion of his privacy and his general right of personality.

OLG Cologne: Entire reporting inadmissible

The Cologne Higher Regional Court (judgment of 08.06.2015 – 15 U 45/15) initially upheld Schumacher’s claim in full.
According to the Higher Regional Court, the reporting by “Super Illu” went far beyond the permissible abstract reporting.
The “striking description of concrete, serious restrictions” was inadmissible.
Especially as the communication with his wife at his bedside had a considerable impact on his privacy.

BGH: Only parts of the reporting inadmissible

According to the BGH, the reporting on the communication with his wife was inadmissible.
Furthermore, “Super Illu” should not have mentioned which behaviors Schumacher had to relearn after his fall.
This statement would have shown the reader Schumacher’s (supposed) absolute helplessness in vivid detail.
Schumacher did not have to accept all these speculations in the context of a verbal report.

Reporting on facts disclosed by the person concerned is permitted

However, the BGH was also of the opinion that partial reporting – in deviation from the judgment of the Cologne Higher Regional Court – was permissible.
Thus, the magazine was allowed to report on all facts that Schumacher himself had communicated to the public.
In this context, it was therefore not limited to quoting the statements, but was permitted to comment on them.

As a result, the statements on the treatment options for coma patients were not contestable and admissible.
Meanwhile, most of the statements made by “Super Illu” were limited to the information provided by Schumacher’s entourage and their doctors.
Even if this invaded Schumacher’s privacy, they did not constitute unlawful acts of infringement.
In this case, the magazine’s right to freedom of expression takes precedence.

A fine line between permissible and impermissible reporting

The ruling of the Federal Court of Justice makes it clear that the press is not limited to reproducing quotes, at least as far as reporting on the health of celebrities is concerned.
Rather, facts already known to the public may be commented on and evaluated.
Even if this partially affects privacy, freedom of the press and freedom of opinion can take precedence.

However, detailed reporting on facts that encompass the narrow area of privacy and intimacy remains inadmissible.
This includes, in particular, communication and relationships with relatives.
The BGH’s differentiation with regard to the individual statements in the newspaper article makes it clear that the individual case must always be considered.
Depending on the style of writing and commentary, a permissible quote can become an impermissible expression of opinion.
Extreme caution must be exercised here in particular.