The Boll Case
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Constitutional Court
54 BVerfGE 208 (1980)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In November 1974, terrorists murdered the President of the Berlin Court of Appeals (the president). A television journal on the TV station Freies Berlin (the TV station) (defendant) reported on the president’s state funeral. A television commentator, X (defendant), discussed the political climate surrounding the president’s murder. X spoke critically about Heinrich Boll (plaintiff) in his remarks. X argued that Boll shared in the responsibility for the murder because Boll had called the federal state a “dung heap.” In response, Boll sued X and the TV station for defamation and sought 100,000 deutsche marks in damages. The regional court dismissed the suit, and Boll appealed to the regional appeal court. The regional appeal court reversed, awarding Boll 40,000 deutsche marks. The regional appeal court found that the remarks infringed on Boll’s personality right guaranteed in Article 1(1) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (the Basic Law). The regional appeal court concluded that Boll had been harmed by the commentary because X’s statements imputed certain statements to Boll that he did not make. X appealed to the Federal Republic of Germany Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the regional appeal court had violated X’s right to freedom of opinion guaranteed under Article 5(1) of the Basic Law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.