Term “Lost Place” in the Conflict Between Factual Assertion and Expression of Opinion
The legal assessment of the term “Lost Place” in describing a dilapidated castle was the subject of a recent decision by the Munich District Court (judgment of May 17, 2022, file no. 142 C 14251/20). The designation of a historically significant building as a so-called “Lost Place” raises particular questions regarding the permissibility of the wording in the context of personality rights and property protection.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The dispute was between the owner of a ruined castle and a non-profit organization. The latter had presented the castle online as a “Lost Place” as part of their public relations work. The owner saw this as a degradation and sought an injunction as well as a correction of the designation. According to the plaintiff, the term “Lost Place” was suitable to diminish the value and reputation of the listed site, as it created the impression of complete decay and lack of owner care.
Fundamental Classification of the Term “Lost Place”
The courts consider it necessary to differentiate between assertions of fact and value judgments. The decisive qualification depends on whether the disputed statement concerns a concretely verifiable circumstance or is predominantly shaped by subjective assessments. In the present case, the court determined that the term “Lost Place” is to be understood not as an objective fact but as an evaluative description.
From the court’s perspective, the term “Lost Place” primarily suggests a site that has fallen into oblivion due to loss of function, lack of use, or structural decay. Nevertheless, the user retains some interpretive leeway. Crucially, the term is not subject to a uniform or normative definition and is used multifacetedly in common language, sometimes also in tourist or artistic contexts.
Legal Assessment by the Munich District Court
Freedom of Expression Versus Personality Rights
The decision of the Munich District Court is essentially based on balancing the freedom of expression pursuant to Article 5(1) of the German Basic Law and the general personality rights of the owner. The court agreed with the view that the designation of an architecturally and historically significant building as a “Lost Place” is based on the perception of the external condition and is therefore attributable to the right to free expression of opinion.
Against this background, the claim for an injunction could not be justified, as it was not evident that the wording asserted an untrue, defamatory, or deliberately disparaging fact. Rather, the court assumed that the public is capable of forming its own assessment, especially when the overall presentation also refers to the actual condition and historical significance of the place.
Definition of the Term in the Context of Reporting
The criticized portrayal addressed the history and current condition of the castle, including a comprehensive classification. Even considering monument protection aspects, the court found no reason to assume distorted or misleading reporting. Instead, it was argued that the term “Lost Place” in the context understood here is not to be interpreted as a synonym for neglect or expropriated cultural assets. An impermissible attribution of irresponsibility or negligence on the part of the owner could not be established.
Distinction From Statements Subject to Cease and Desist Claims
Balancing Test Regarding Protective Rights
In the area of injunction claims, jurisprudence always examines the legitimate interests of the parties. A prerequisite for a possible warning is the existence of a legal infringement, especially in the area of corporate personality rights or in cases of formally incorrect factual reporting. In the present case, no such infringement was found, as the criticism was limited to the use of a term that was uncomfortable from the owner’s perspective but neither untrue nor defamatory.
Significance for Owners and Reporters
The decision clarifies that the linguistic framework in dealing with visible structural decay of cultural assets allows broad terms and freedom of expression in wording. The use of designations like “Lost Place” is not subject to claims for injunction as long as it is comprehensible in the factual context and not used with conscious disparagement.
Conclusion and Outlook
The judgment of the Munich District Court contributes to clarifying that evaluative terms such as “Lost Place” are permissible within the framework of factual opinion exchange, provided they are based on externally recognizable circumstances and are not intentionally used in a defamatory or misleading manner. This important balance must be especially observed in the context of industrial property protection as well as corporate and personal rights. In case of uncertainties concerning permissible formulations or actions against potentially damaging statements, a thorough examination of the legal situation is recommended. For further questions on this topic, MTR Legal Attorneys are happy to assist in the area of legal advice on copyright law.
