In its ruling of May 23, 2017, the Federal Court of Justice (case reference: VI ZR 261/16) decided that claims for monetary compensation due to a violation of personal rights do not pass to the heir.
Not even if the claims are still pending or have even become pending during the deceased’s lifetime.
Widow asserts claims for monetary compensation from her husband
The widow of the deceased soldier John Demjanjuk asserted her deceased husband’s monetary compensation claims in the proceedings.
He fought for the Red Army in the Second World War before being taken prisoner of war by the Germans.
He was first accused by the United States in the 1970s of having been involved in the mass murder of Jews in concentration camps as a collaborator of the National Socialists.
A corresponding criminal trial in Israel ended with an acquittal, however.
However, a good 40 years later, he was also charged in Germany as part of “Operation Last Chance II”.
In Germany, the Munich II Regional Court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment for 16 counts of complicity in the murder of 28,060 Jews.
Both parties then lodged an appeal, but no further decision was made because John Demjanjuk died in 2012.
Before his death, John Demjanjuk spoke out against reporting that violated his personality
The trial was one of the last major Nazi war crimes trials and was therefore omnipresent in the media – but not always accompanied by neutral reporting.
As a result, even before his death, Demjanjuk took legal action against headlines such as: “In court, he plays the bedridden old man. Demjanjuk sings and laughs in prison.”
A verdict was not reached before his death, which is why his widow continued the proceedings as the plaintiff.
No entitlement to monetary compensation for the heir
In the trial, the BGH emphasized that the claim for monetary compensation for violation of personal rights could not be transferred to the plaintiff due to a lack of inheritability.
The claim was not inheritable even if it had already been made pending prior to the occurrence of the inheritance.
The reason for this is that lis pendens is not a special criterion that allows an exception to non-inheritability.
No case of forced commercialization of the general right of personality
Even the idea of prevention does not lead to a different legal assessment in the present case, because ultimately it is not a case of forced commercialization of the general right of personality.
Such an exception is only permissible if the reporter foresaw the imminent death of the injured person and sacrificed his right of personality for the sake of reporting.
In the case of John Demjanjuk, however, the delay in the proceedings was not caused by the reporter.
Legislator refrains from inheritability
Furthermore, the BGH continues to hold that the deletion of the old Section 847 para.
1 sentence 2 BGB does not indicate any intention on the part of the legislator to make the claim for monetary compensation for infringement of the general right of personality hereditary.
Preventive function still does not support an inheritable claim for monetary compensation
In the case of a claim for monetary compensation due to a violation of general personal rights, the main focus is on the satisfaction function – in contrast to compensation for pain and suffering.
The idea of prevention and the preventive function alone cannot support such a claim.
However, it is precisely this fundamental idea of satisfaction that loses its function as soon as the plaintiff dies in the course of such a lawsuit.
This is because a deceased person can unfortunately no longer feel any satisfaction after their death.
The situation is only different if the plaintiff in such personal injury proceedings dies after the decision has become final.
Only then does the legally recognized claim also pass to his or her heirs.