It was an exercise in the fine art of whispering. In October 2013, the newspaper World published an article about “The Stasi woman at Gysi’s side”. What was meant was Ruth Kampa, then managing director of the left-wing faction in the Bundestag. The woman, whose many years of work for the Stasi was made public at the time, was considered the “top spy in the GDR” by the newspaper. Above all, however, it was associated with the disappearance of the SED party assets. “There is currently no evidence that Kampa was involved in possible criminal activities,” admitted the newspaper. Nevertheless, the paper suggested Kampa’s involvement in the difficult to understand handling of the assets. Kampa went to court and demanded a counter-statement. She was right. On February 3, 2014, the paper printed her reply: “I had nothing to do with the whereabouts of the SED assets after 1989.”
Now, nine years later, the European Court of Human Rights has drawn a line under this lawsuit. The reply was legal. The fact that Kampa the World initially refused to comment does not change that. A complaint from the Axel Springer publishing house was dismissed.
Springer had viewed the order to print Kampa’s replica as a violation of his freedom of speech. The Strasbourg Human Rights Court, on the other hand, attested the careful work of the German judiciary, namely the Berlin Superior Court. Here stands the protection of private life against freedom of speech. Neither of the two positions has general priority, both rights deserve “the same respect”. In the specific case, the Court of Appeal carried out a detailed and well-considered examination of the article, which showed no signs of arbitrariness. Also, the answer – measured against the thoroughly detailed explanations in the article – is by no means disproportionate. So no reason for the court to interfere in the fine-tuning of the national judiciary.
Asking the person concerned does not give journalists a license
The main point of contention in this case was whether Kampa was somehow to blame for the article because she – from the World confronted with the allegations – had not answered their questions about their participation in companies with alleged SED assets. The court held that Kampa’s refusal to answer the publisher’s questions was not a valid argument.
The court held that it is part of journalistic ethics to give those affected the opportunity to defend themselves before an article is published. But “the fact that the person’s allegations were disclosed in advance does not give the press unrestricted freedom to publish uncorroborated allegations,” the court writes. This also does not undermine the right of reply.
The Court thus makes it clear that asking the person concerned does not give the journalist a license if there is no answer. Nevertheless, allegations must be backed up with careful research. And those who remain silent as a person affected can still express themselves in the end – by counter-statement.