Trial over satire by Jan Böhmermann: Ex-BSI boss gets justice, but no money

In 2022, in the show “ZDF Magazin Royale” by the satirist Jan Böhmermann, Schönbohm was accused of being too close to a club with alleged contacts with Russian secret services.

Schönbohm was then removed from his post. The Higher Regional Court now prohibited the broadcaster from disseminating and claiming certain specific statements that were made in “ZDF Magazin Royale” and later on zdf.de.

Satire must be measured against the standards of freedom of expression

“The Senate is convinced that the statements made during the broadcast should be understood by the audience to mean that the plaintiff had conscious contacts with Russian intelligence services,” as the OLG announced. This represents an untrue statement that violates Schönbohm’s general personal rights, which is why the corresponding statements should be refrained from.

Even a satirical statement must be measured against the standards of freedom of expression when it comes to the factual core of the statement.

However, the Senate rejected the demand for monetary compensation of 100,000 euros. Schönbohm had demanded this sum because he had been significantly denigrated in public by the broadcast and had also lost his office. Due to the particularly serious nature of the personal injury, this should be compensated for through monetary compensation.

Injunctive relief should have come quicker

But for this to happen, Schönbohm would have had to assert the injunctive relief sooner after the broadcast of the program, the Higher Regional Court now explained. In this way he might have been able to prevent his removal as BSI President. His lawyer also unnecessarily publicly maintained the allegations in the room in an interview.

In a recent statement, ZDF emphasized again that an understanding of the criticized formulations to mean that the plaintiff had consciously had contact with intelligence services from Russia or other countries was not intended and would be incorrect.

After the ruling by the Munich I Regional Court, the passage in question was removed from the program and it was transparently pointed out. An appeal against the verdict was not permitted.