Some Thoughts on the Decision of the BGH concerning Princess Caroline of Monaco
Professor Peter Schlechtriem
The following comments are prompted by the decision of the Federal Court of 15 November 19941 dealing with the right of privacy of the Princess of Monaco. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal ordering the defendant publisher of two illustrated periodicals to withdraw the publication of purely invented statements concerning the plaintiff and to correct certain other false allegations concerning contacts between the plaintiff and defendant's reporter. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of Appeal's decision to award the plaintiff DM 30,000 as non-pecuniary damages. In referring the question of quantification of damages to a new court for re-determination, the Federal Court advised it to pay Attention to the aim of deterrence and thus, in this context, to take into account the profits of the defendant. 2
For a long time I have advocated the view that the violation of the right to one's personality and its resulting, unlawful commercialization should give rise to a restitutionary measure of damages.3 This view has come to be shared by many scholars; and, most____________________
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Protecting Privacy:The Clifford Chance Lectures. Volume: 4. Contributors: Basil S. Markesinis - Editor. Publisher: Oxford University Press. Place of publication: Oxford. Publication year: 1999. Page number: 131.