Federal Court of Justice Decision on the Legal Standing of Foreign States
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the issue of whether a foreign state can take civil action against media companies due to reporting in German newspapers. The focus was on two cases in which a state claimed rights in connection with press publications in Germany. With judgments dated February 26, 2026 (Case Nos. VI ZR 415/23 and VI ZR 416/23), the BGH developed guidelines on the procedural status of foreign states in the context of press reporting.
Source: urteile.news, article “Foreign State Cannot Sue Over Reporting in German Newspapers (02/26/2026)”, available at: https://urteile.news/BGH_VI-ZR-41523-und-VI-ZR-41623_Auslaendischer-Staat-kann-nicht-gegen-Berichterstattung-in-deutschen-Zeitungen-klagen~N35789.
Subject Matter of the Proceedings and Procedural Background
Dispute Over Injunction and Other Press Law Claims
The starting point of the proceedings was that the plaintiff state wanted to act against publications in German newspapers. The case involved press law-based claims, typically asserted for alleged infringements of general personal rights or the protection of social reputation claims. The dispute, therefore, did not concern a governmental measure in public law but the civil enforcement of claims against private media companies.
Distinction Between the State Sphere and Private Law Enforcement
In such scenarios, it is routinely questioned whether and to what extent a state can even hold those legal positions that serve as the basis for press law injunctions or counter-statements. This procedural and substantive legal classification was central to the decisions.
Key Statements of the BGH on the Legal Standing of a Foreign State
State as Claimant in Press Law
The BGH clarified that a foreign state cannot be easily considered as having the standing to sue regarding the challenged reporting. The decisive factor is whether the state has, in a specific context, a legal position comparable to personal protection, which can be enforced civilly against press entities. According to the judgments, the prerequisites for civil claims against media companies were lacking.
Significance of Press Freedom and Constitutional Framework
The legal assessment stands in tension between protection against unlawful interferences and the press freedom guaranteed by the Basic Law. The BGH took into account the fundamental rights aspect of reporting as a crucial framework for examination. The decision also shows that civil enforcement of claims cannot be assessed in isolation from the constitutional role of free media.
Contextualization of Reporting on States and State Actions
Reporting as Part of Public Opinion Formation
Reports about states, state institutions, and state actions regularly relate to public opinion formation. In this area, the demands on civil constraints of publications are particularly high. The decisions emphasize that civil court oversight of press reporting always requires careful balancing.
Notes on Diligence, Factual Core and Ongoing Proceedings
Wherever reporting connects to factual events, press law proceedings typically focus on the existence of a reliable factual core, adherence to journalistic diligence requirements, and – when related to criminal or regulatory investigations – presenting under the presumption of innocence. These principles form the framework within which courts judge the admissibility of publications. Whether and to what extent this is met in individual cases depends on the specific publication and its context.
Importance of Judgments for Cross-Border Disputes
The judgments illustrate that cross-border conflicts between state actors and media companies involve procedural and substantive legal peculiarities. For companies, investors, and wealthy individuals, the decision can also be indirectly relevant when reporting involves international matters and the question arises as to who can assert which claims in German courts.
Procedural Perspective
Disputes over publications are often characterized by short response times, complex decision-making balances, and significant reputational and economic impacts. Those considering the judicial enforcement or defense of claims in similar situations will also regularly need to consider the strategic side of the proceedings – including jurisdiction, application design, and the legally sound preparation of the subject matter. An overview of our service range can be found at MTR Legal under Litigation.
