Monday, October 25, 2021
Dispute over book about former chancellor
Court holds out the prospect of failure
The legal dispute over a book about the former Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl is entering a new round before the Federal Court of Justice. If Maike Kohl-Richter is right, she will receive compensation in the millions. But it doesn’t look like that. The writer of the “Kohl Protocols” is pleased.
In the dispute before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) over a book about former Chancellor Helmut Kohl and violated personal rights, things are looking bad for his widow Maike Kohl-Richter. After the trial in Karlsruhe, it is hardly to be expected that she will receive the millions in compensation that her husband fought for shortly before his death, or that she would be awarded even more money. The presiding judge Stephan Seiters said in a preliminary assessment that a claim to it is not inheritable. So far, he sees no reasons for an exception – especially since the decision of the Cologne regional court was not yet final. The BGH wants to announce a judgment at the end of November.
The background is the bestseller “Legacy: The Kohl Protocols” from 2014. Kohl’s ghostwriter and former confidante Heribert Schwan was supposed to write the memoirs of the former CDU boss and met the former chancellor for more than 100 days in 2001 and 2002 Home in Ludwigshafen. Kohl talked about his life and time in office, and the historian and journalist recorded around 630 hours of conversation. After three of four planned volumes, however, the two fell out. Schwan published the book on his own initiative.
In it he quotes Kohl with derogatory judgments about politicians such as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and ex-CDU General Secretary Heiner Geißler. Kohl used a “slang” and “drastic” choice of words, said Judge Seiters. 116 passages are so controversial that the BGH is also negotiating their distribution. This includes, among other things, incorrect quotations and formulations that could be taken out of context.
Right to compensation not hereditary
Kohl demanded at least five million euros plus interest from Schwan, co-author Tilman Jens and the co-defendant publisher. The Cologne Regional Court awarded him one million euros in 2017 for violating general personal rights – the highest compensation in German legal history. After the 87-year-old died, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne ruled that the claim to this monetary compensation was not hereditary. Kohl-Richter is now taking action before the BGH and is making the same claim as her husband.
The question that now plays a role in both cases – the quotations and the money – is that of protecting personality and human dignity beyond death. This is much more narrowly defined than during his lifetime, that much became clear during the negotiation. But will Kohl’s reputation be permanently damaged if a statement that is not reproduced in the detailed context suggests that he saw no danger from the right? The question also arises, for example, whether one – or the bereaved – has to accept an indiscretion or whether it still weighs like a serious breach of trust.
As for the monetary compensation, Kohl-Richter’s lawyer argued that the debtors were in default after the Cologne judgment. He spoke of “age discrimination” when people could not rely on old age that their heirs would get paid money. The other side called this a “legal somersault mortale”. Judge Seiters had said that the money was about satisfaction that the dead could not get.
“Bright spot in unsavory argument”
In response, Schwan spoke of a “ray of hope in my unsavory argument with the Kohl heiress”. “The greedy Kohl widow will probably end up financially empty and will have to reimburse considerable legal costs,” he wrote to the German press agency. The sixth civil senate sees only part of the text passages really questionable. In the case of others who had a blocking notice, however, it was not clear why a publication would affect postmortem human dignity, explained Seiters. This could mean that the BGH will refer back the proceedings and the OLG will have to evaluate individual or all quotations.
The case is complex: for example, Schwan is not affected by the BGH hearing with regard to the passages. In his case, the OLG rejected the appeal because he had agreed to maintain secrecy with Kohl on the occasion of the “memoir talks”. Schwan’s complaint that the OLG did not allow an appeal to the BGH was unsuccessful. The procedure is over. It looks different in the case of co-author Jens. Because the journalist died last year, the legal disputes with his heirs are reportedly interrupted on both points.
It is also not the first time that the BGH has dealt with the issue. A good year ago Kohl-Richter achieved a partial success against Schwan: He has to give her information about what still exists on tape or typed out of the conversations with the former chancellor. However, the Kohl page can no longer get hold of documents from the Chancellery that Schwan may have in his possession. Schwan lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgment, as his lawyer announced. That has not yet been decided. Nevertheless, Kohl-Richter had already requested information that Schwan also gave.