YouTube does not prevent reporting of a traffic accident, even if the perpetrator is identifiable, since the Annonymitätsinteresse is inferior to the public interest

The public interest in information can be identified reporting
Motor vehicle accident with involuntary manslaughter by YouTube
justify uploaded videos. The person concerned will then be no cancellation claim
against the operator of the Internet platform YouTube.
This has the 3. Civil Senate of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm by orders
from 07.08.2013 and 23.09.2013 decided, and thus the first instance
Confirmed decision of the District Court of Muenster.

Im November 2008 caused the with diplomatic immunity in Russia
as a teacher working in Moscow plaintiff in a traffic accident, in the two
Russian students were killed. Due to the diplomatic status of the
Plaintiff's action in Russia was not verfogt. The plaintiff could not
Sanctions Russian authorities to return to Germany. In Germany
the applicant was for this act in 2009 to one year imprisonment
on probation, a fine of 5.000 € and a one-month
Condemned ban.

The act and its legal treatment were repeatedly the subject of Russian
Press reports. Unknown user they are addressed in videos and
invited them to the powered by the defendant Internet platform YouTube
high. The videos show reports in Russian Save with German subtitles.
They contain u.a. a photo, call the former name of the
Applicant and a previous address. The deletion of requirement for the applicant all
Videos, the defendant refused.
The 3. Civil Senate of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm, the defendant's right
given and denied a cancellation claim of the plaintiff. By reporting
will and with the name and designation of pictorial representation
the applicant in his relationship with the environment (Social sphere) affected, in
which he was portrayed negatively as irresponsible road users.
However, this impairment of his right to privacy was not unlawfully.
This follows from a goods- and balancing of interests between the
Rights and interests of the parties involved.
In an identifying reporting of offenses were the anonymity interest
touching of the perpetrator and his right to rehabilitation.
Speak to the extent of the plaintiff,, that the events after the end of the
Probation from his felony convictions now over
two years had been completed. Charged to the plaintiff was taken into account,
that he caused the reporting by its own behavior
have. Common ground that he had committed a criminal offense. Then he must in addition to the
accept criminal sanction, that the public with the fact
grappling. In that regard, in favor of the defendant, the public interest in information
Note. This outweighs principle at a
current reporting. In the case of the plaintiff were the offending
YouTube videos no later than early 2010 uploaded to the Internet platform
been. At this time the case had yet been currently. An das
Criminal proceedings had at the time a connected medial acclaimed Civil Procedure.
Moreover, the fact constitutes no small offense, because two
People had come to death. It was an event of contemporary history,
in which the offender particularly in the context of current reporting
could be named.
Against the legality of the reporting also not talking, that
the plaintiffs contend, the videos would give a false facts of the case again,
because being warned that, he was driving drunk. Although had a reporting
will not be tolerated with untrue statements of fact.
In the present case the applicant is not required, the contested statement as
be true binding on, even if they had not been proved. The uploaded
Videos were from any third party and would not be checked.
In contrast to press reports, there were in started by layman
Videos no increased confidence in their accuracy. It follows
the so called. Lay principle, to which the defendant may rely. Dealing
a layman in a video with a public contact
Matter, he could in terms of widespread allegations of fact with the video
invoke the protection of justified interests.
He did not need to prove, that the true facts, but only explain,
that they were carefully recheriert. These requirements are not, in this
Fall genügt be, because the underlying Videos Russian
Press coverage of a drunk driving go out and the plaintiff
these reports have not contradicted.
The coverage was not so illegal, because they are still in
Years 2012 was seen at YouTube. With temporal distance to the offense
While taking to the interest of the offender, no longer confronted with his crime
to be. However, there is also an interest of the public, historical
To investigate events of significance.
As far as reporting on its publication was lawful
was, should the reports in online archives further held ready for retrieval
will, if the right to privacy of the person concerned is not due
outweigh the circumstances of the case. The latter meet in the present
Case not to. The reporting should be expressly recognized as Altmeldung.
The rehabilitation of the applicant it does not preclude, because only
older photographs were used and the plaintiff before the action was brought
has changed its name.
Decisions of the 3. Civil Division of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm from
07.08.2013 and from 23.09.2013 (3 You 71/13), not legally (BGH VI ZR
472/13)

Please rate

For more information: