Global Freedom of Expression

Kieser v. Germany

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication, Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    February 12, 2014
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Upheld, Convention Articles on Freedom of Expression and Information not violated
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Germany, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    International/Regional Human Rights Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation, Licensing / Media Regulation, Press Freedom

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Two German journalists published statements concerning a well-known publisher alleging that the publisher had been unjustly enriched as a result of Nazi-era seizures of Jewish property-owners’ assets. The publisher sued the journalists for defamation, claiming that the statements lacked a factual basis. The German courts agreed and the journalists lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). The ECtHR upheld the holding of the domestic courts.


The Applicants, Mr. Keiser and Mr. Tralau-Kleinert, are German nationals who published articles for an online newspaper entitled Neue Rheinische Zeitung (“New Rheinian Newspaper”). The Respondent is the German government.

In 2006, the Applicants published articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung alleging that a well-known German publisher’s family (“the publisher”) had benefited financially as a result of the Nazi-era policy of “aryanization” of Jewish property (nationalistic seizing of Jewish-owned property). The publisher sued the Applicants for defamation in domestic German courts, alleging that the statements made in the Zeitung article had no factual basis. The German courts agreed, finding that the article substantially interfered with the publisher’s personality rights. In September 2007, the Cologne Regional Court prohibited further publication of the article, and its decision was upheld on appeal.

The Applicants then lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”), alleging that by suppressing further publication of the Zeitung article, the German courts had violated their right to Freedom of Expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

Decision Overview

In reaching its decision, the ECtHR noted that the Applicants had failed to demonstrate a substantial evidentiary basis for the claims made in their article. The ECtHR further noted that the domestic courts had given the Applicants a full opportunity to present evidence substantiating the claims made in their article, yet the Applicants had failed to do so. The Court observed that, in light of such a failure, the claims made in the article moved into the realm of value judgments, and moreover, some of the claims amounted to mere statements of opinion. In light of the seriousness of the claims alleged, this amounted to an infringement on the publisher’s personality rights.

The ECtHR further observed the thoroughness with which the domestic courts addressed the issue, and noted that the domestic courts had given the Applicants sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claims and to prove the authority of their sources. The domestic courts therefore had not denied the Applicants a sufficient domestic remedy in finding for the publisher.

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the ECtHR found no violation of the journalists’ Article 10 Freedom of Expression.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The ECtHR sided with the German courts in convicting two journalists for defamation because the journalists had published statements that lacked a sufficient basis in fact. Although the case prevented further publication of the defamatory article, the case can be interpreted to protect the freedom of expression by protecting high standards of journalistic integrity. It also protects individuals who may be victims of malicious publications.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The judgments of the ECtHR have persuasive authority on the domestic courts of States Parties and on future ECtHR judgments concerning similar legal issues.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback