No monetary compensation for heirs in the event of infringement of personality rights
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) recently ruled, in a consistent continuation and confirmation of its previous case law, that a claim for monetary compensation for violation of the general right of personality is in principle not inheritable.
Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl had sued two journalists and a publishing house for publishing a large number of alleged statements by him in a book. He claimed that the book violated his general right of personality in a total of 116 passages. He therefore demanded not only an injunction against the publication of the passages in question, but also monetary compensation of at least 5 million euros from the defendants.
After the District Court ordered the defendants to pay 1 million euros to the original plaintiff, the latter died during the appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the defendants. These proceedings were continued by his widow and sole heir (now the plaintiff).
However, both the Higher Regional Court and now the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) denied the plaintiff’s claim for payment of monetary compensation – in deviation from the decision of the Regional Court.
The main reason given for this was that the claim for monetary compensation – which can be considered in principle in the event of a serious violation of personality rights – cannot be inherited. This claim would first and foremost have a function of satisfaction, which, however, could no longer be fulfilled if the injured party had already died.
The BGH thus confirms its previous case law. In 2017, it had already ruled in another case that the heritability of such a claim for damages for pain and suffering was to be rejected even if the proceedings were already pending or became legally pending during the lifetime of the injured person: because the satisfaction of the injured person could only be achieved with the legally binding award of a claim. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the action is (not) filed or served. (BGH judgment of 23.05.2017 – VI ZR 261/16).
In this respect, the decision now issued by the BGH is consistent. Even if the original plaintiff Helmut Kohl lived to see the first-instance decision in his favor (unlike the plaintiff in the proceedings underlying the 2017 decision), this cannot make any difference to the heritability of the compensation claim; at least not if one attributes the dogmatic justification of such a claim decisively to a satisfaction function that can only occur with legal force.
With its most recent ruling, the Federal Supreme Court has once again clearly rejected the voices in the literature that demand that the decision of the injured party whether or not to take action against the infringement of the right of personality during his lifetime should also be taken into account for the heritability of such a claim for compensation (e.g. Teichmann in Jauernig BGB § 253 marginal no. 13).
Rechtsanwalt/Partner Rechtsanwalt/Associate