Facts
In this case, it concerned an article published by a publisher, against which one of the affected parties demanded a right of reply. The High Court had rejected the order for a right of reply, as the affected party had already been given the opportunity to present his point of view in a detailed interview.
The affected party, Plaintiff 2, had subsequently appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. However, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court.
Considerations
According to the Federal Council's message, a right of reply can not only be refused if its content is inadmissible, but also in case of a manifest abuse of the request. This would be the case, for example, if a person were to use the right of reply for purely advertising purposes or to continue a dispute in the media that belongs elsewhere.
The Federal Supreme Court further stated that a right of reply can also be considered as manifestly abusive if the affected party has already been given the opportunity to present his point of view. In the present case, the defendant had granted the Plaintiff 2 space for a detailed interview after the…