Facts
The present case concerns a claim for a right of reply pursuant to Art. 28g et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB). The plaintiff, Z AG, had submitted a right of reply to an article in the "Schweizerischer Beobachter" dated April 10, 1987. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich had considered this right of reply to be unsuitable.
The article in the "Schweizerischer Beobachter" had mainly dealt with the questionable business conduct of Marcel Stutz, who had entered the service of the plaintiff. In its right of reply, however, the plaintiff did not address the facts presented in the article, but merely discussed legal questions regarding the successor company and expressed its own opinion.
According to the principle of "facts against facts", the question of being affected in the assessment of the claim for a right of reply arises only with regard to the facts that are found both in the contested text and in the text of the right of reply to be included.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court that the right of reply submitted by the plaintiff was unsuitable. The plaintiff had merely expressed its own opinion in its right of reply, without addressing the facts presented in the article.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff had argued past the facts in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of its right of reply. In the fifth paragraph, it had indeed reproduced text from the contested article, but had only expressed its own opinion on it, without stating any facts contradicting the report.
Also, the…