”
Decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main
\n\n
The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main had to address the question of whether a German-language subsidiary of a Russian media group can obtain an injunction prohibiting a former employee from publishing certain content. According to the court’s decision, such a prohibition was not enforceable in the specific dispute at hand. Key to this was a balancing of the affected legal positions, in particular with regard to rights of expression and publication on the one hand and corporate interests and personal rights on the other.
\n
Procedural background
\n
Parties and subject matter of the dispute
\n\n
The subject of the proceedings was a conflict between a company from the media sector and a former employee. The company sought judicial protection against a publication. The former employee intended to make content publicly accessible which, in the company’s view, should be refrained from.
\n
Procedural posture and classification
\n\n
The matter was brought by way of interim legal protection. At this stage of proceedings, decisions are regularly made on the basis of a summary review. A final clarification of the facts typically occurs only in proceedings on the merits. To the extent that factual circumstances were disputed, this must be taken into account in the legal assessment; this does not entail a determination in the sense of a final finding of fact.
\n
Legal standards of review
\n
Balancing of conflicting legal positions
\n\n
The court had to weigh the opposing interests. In particular, the protection of corporate interests and any personal rights potentially affected on the one side were set against the constitutionally shaped positions of the publisher on the other. In such constellations, it is regularly decisive whether the requested prohibition is necessary to safeguard higher-ranking rights and whether less intrusive means are available.
\n
Requirements for a claim for injunctive relief
\n\n
A prohibition of publication requires specific connecting facts capable of supporting a legal violation. Insofar as an application for injunctive relief is based on allegedly unlawful content, it must also be examined whether this content is to be classified as statements of fact or as value judgments and whether, where applicable, legitimate interests—such as in the area of corporate or personal rights—are impaired in a relevant manner. In interim proceedings, urgency and making the requirements credible also play a central role.
\n
Key findings of the decision
\n
No enforceable publication ban in the specific case
\n\n
The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main did not consider the requirements for the requested prohibition to have been met in the specific constellation. The court’s balancing of interests went against the company; the aim of prohibiting the former employee from publishing was not achieved.
\n
Significance of the circumstances of the individual case
\n\n
The assessment was driven by the specific circumstances. This relates in particular to the content, context, and reach of the intended publication as well as the intensity of a possible interference with protected positions. The decision illustrates that applications for injunctive relief in the publication sphere regularly require careful substantiation and a sound basis for an interference with publication rights to be considered.
\n
Practical classification of the conflict areas of publication and protective rights
\n\n
Conflicts concerning publications often lie at the intersection of the right of expression, protection of corporate interests, and issues of copyright and media law. Especially in expedited proceedings, the delineation between permissible and impermissible content is highly dependent on the individual case. Where proceedings are not concluded, the following applies: a court decision in interim legal protection does not require a final clarification of the facts; the presumption of innocence or the prohibition of anticipatory attributions of guilt must be observed when presenting disputed facts. The source of the decision presented here is reporting on the proceedings before the OLG Frankfurt am Main (Case Nos. 11 U 115/21 and 11 W 32/21) of 20 May 2022.
\n
Conclusion
\n\n
Anyone who, in connection with publications, rights of use, or the defense or enforcement of claims, has questions regarding the legal classification will find at MTR Legal a point of contact for a structured review of the copyright-law aspects; further information on legal advice on copyright law is available via the link provided.
“
