Background of the proceedings
The Federal Constitutional Court recently had to address the extent to which the verbatim publication of private diary entries, previously seized in the course of a criminal investigation, is compatible with the protection of the general right of personality under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Basic Law. The decision must be viewed in the context of the long-debated tension between the public’s interest in information and the individual’s right to privacy.
In the present case, a complainant challenged court decisions that permitted a media outlet to almost completely reproduce certain passages from her seized diaries. She argued, in particular, that the publication infringed upon her personal rights and her right to informational self-determination.
Legal assessment and constitutional balancing
Significance of personality rights and freedom of expression
The general right of personality protects private life and, in particular, guards against the unlawful dissemination of highly personal data. Opposed to this is the press’s right to freedom of opinion and media (Art. 5(1) of the Basic Law), which enables the public to be informed freely and thoroughly. The weighing of these colliding fundamental rights essentially determines the court’s assessment.
In its recent decision, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasized the primacy of balancing interests on a case-by-case basis. Publication of originally private records not intended for the public may be permissible if there are compelling reasons for a public interest in information. The decisive factor is whether the reproduction, in content or extent, exceeds what is necessary.
Judicial assessment in the specific case
The court made clear that the published diary passages were related to events that were of significant public interest in ongoing discussions. The seizure and use of the diaries in the investigation had been lawfully reviewed; their subsequent publication in the media must be assessed according to the standards balancing personal rights and freedom of the press.
Ultimately, the constitutional complaint was dismissed as unfounded due to lack of violation of specific constitutional rights. The Federal Constitutional Court saw no indications that the contested decisions disregarded the complainant’s fundamental rights in an unconstitutional manner.
Significance for the handling of seized documents and media reporting
Seizure as a basis for later publication
The publication of content that originally came into official possession through criminal procedural measures is subject to specific legal requirements. While seizure does not establish a public right of access to the information, it may nonetheless be significant for reporting within the context of press duties of care and taking into account the balance of personal rights.
Limits on the publication of diary contents
In the case of private diary entries in particular, the affected individual has a heightened interest in confidentiality. However, the court points out that even in sensitive cases, publication of the wording may be permissible if the reporting serves public opinion formation about matters of social relevance and does not disclose private matters in a way that is disproportionate to the informational benefit.
Conclusion and practical considerations
The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court makes it clear that the assessment of the permissibility of press publications involving sensitive private content can never be conducted in a schematic manner. What matters is a careful case-by-case examination that takes into account both the protection of private life and the functioning of a free press.
For companies and private individuals affected by media publications or who are confronted with the use of documents obtained during proceedings, it is of great importance to know the legal boundaries between public interest and the confidentiality protected by privacy law.
Anyone seeking legal protection in similar situations, or who is uncertain about permissible publication contents or the protection of their own privacy, may contact the lawyers at MTR Legal.
