|
Demand for Boycott against Scientology advertising is permissible.
- Federal Constitutional Court thinks "insufficient weight" was given
- to
freedom of speech and reverses earlier judgment.
-
- Source
: Süddeutsche Zeitung No. 250, Tuesday October 30, 2007, page 38
- By Ekkehard Müller-Jentsch
In the legal dispute that has been continuing for years between the Junge
Union (Young Union, the youth organisation of the CDU) in Munich and
Scientology, the JU has managed to recoup earlier losses : The Federal
Constitutional Court reversed the judgment of the Higher Regional Court
In Munich that had gone against the JU.
The reason given by the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe was that the
judges in Munich had given "insufficient weight" to the JU's right to
freedom of speech. The case will now be brought before the Higher
Regional Court once again.
In summer 2000 the JU had issued a press release warning against the
books written by Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. These books
are distributed in Germany by "New Era Publications". This publishing
house had adver- tised Hubbard's book"The Fundamentals of Thought" on the
billboards and advertising pillars of a major Munich advertising
company.
In response, the JU published a press release with the following headline
:
"Scientology is publicly advertising once again in Munich - from now on
the Junge Union will always publish the names of the advertising
companies and is calling for a boycott." At the same time the individuals
running the city were asked to take action against this advertising
campaign.
The advertising company, which had hired numerous sites for their
billboards on walls and in open spaces, climbed down under the pressure
after various property owners had threatened to terminate their contracts
for use of the sites. The company also feared that other clients might
cancel their contracts and take their business elsewhere if it was to
continue with the advertising campaign for the Scientology book.
That was why the advertising company terminated its contract with New Era
Publications withoutnotice. As a result the publishing house applied for a
prohibitive injunction against the JU and the court initially found in its
favour : in the opinion of the Regional Court Munich I, which was later
upheld by the Higher Regional Court, the pressure exercised by the JU was
tantamount to economic pressure.
This was considered to constitute interference in the business operations
of the plaintiff, i.e. the publishing house. However, the Higher Regional
Court felt that, in principle, it was permissible to warn against the
ideology propounded by Scientology. Nevertheless, the limits of
permissibility had been exceeded if the arguments put forward were not just
spiritual, but also economic in nature.
The JU, represented by Evelyne Menges, a Munich-based lawyer, immediately
appealed on the basis of unconstitutionality. The 1st Chamber of the First
Division, headed by the President of the Constitutional Court, Jürgen
Papier, then ruled unanimously to quash the judgment and to refer it back to
the Higher Regional Court.
This was on the grounds of the contested press release being a statement
of an opinion that was protected under the constitution, despite the call
for a boycott. The decision taken in Karlsruhe stated that the civil courts
had "given insufficient weight to the appellant's freedom of speech".
(File number: 1 BvR 292(02).
Tobias Weiß, chairman of the Munich JU, commented on the decision of the
constitutional judges as follows : "It is a sensational success to learn
after more than five years at last that the earlier court decisions were
wrong." He added that the JU will be very active in future, too.
"Scientology cannot scare us off by lawsuits - this decision will only
confirm us in our political mandate."
|
