If family members are in the Chat services blaspheme about other relatives, that can interfere with the house’s blessing to a legal dispute, The higher regional court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main had to deal with a man’s suit for injunctive relief, tried to defend themselves against the statements of his mother-in-law on WhatsApp. However, the court dismissed the action.
The man demanded from the court a Declaration that his mother-in-law is not allowed to spread numerous statements about him. Background of the lawsuit is a dispute of a man with his wife in the year 2016. According to his own statement, the man had taken his son in this connection at the neck or the neck and from behind pushed so that it goes faster out of the room, explained the court. This incident, filmed the wife and the Video of her mother.
The right compared to Related free-to-pronounce
The mother-in-law of the man have posted a “Protocol on abuse,” in which you have a number of behavior of the man listed. Along with the Video you sent the list to the according to the chat service WhatsApp to her sister and asked you, the Material of their common mother. At the same time, the mother-in-law criminal filed a complaint against the man for child abuse and showed the Video to police officers as well as employees of the youth welfare office.
contrary to numerous statements of the “Protocol” of him wanted to approach the man in court. The district court, and in the second instance the higher regional court rejected his complaint, however. Because calls within the family are particularly protected In this personal space – a “insult-free sphere” – could speak without judicial consequences with the closest Relatives. The law portal “legal” quoted the verdict: The closest family circle in front of the honor guard.
As the mother-in-law messages have a close and good contact to the addressee of your WhatsApp, you have the law, the plaintiffs say, was the court of appeal. A claim for injunctive relief against the police and the youth welfare office do not insist anyway.
reference: 16 W 54/18