German Federal Court of Justice on the Pegasus-Software Scandal: States Do Not Have a General Right of Personality

Key Takeaways

• German court rejects states' personality right claim
• Decision applies German private international law, not Rome II
• States cannot sue journalists for reputational damage in Germany
• Ruling aligns with French Cour de Cassation precedent
• Strengthens press freedom against foreign governmental pressure

Pulse Analysis

The German Federal Court of Justice’s ruling marks a pivotal moment for media law in Europe, establishing that sovereign states cannot invoke a general right of personality to claim damages from journalists. By anchoring the decision in German private international law rather than the Rome II Regulation, the court sidestepped complex jurisdictional debates and affirmed the applicability of domestic tort principles. This approach underscores the court’s preference for legal certainty when dealing with cross‑border defamation claims involving state actors.

From a substantive perspective, the judgment clarifies the limits of German tort law under §823 BGB, confirming that the statutory protection of personality does not extend to foreign governments. The court’s extensive review of international jurisprudence—spanning the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and national courts—demonstrates a consistent reluctance to recognize state‑level personality rights in civil actions. Consequently, the decision narrows the scope for extraterritorial liability and reinforces the principle that press freedom outweighs a state’s desire to protect its reputation.

The broader implications resonate beyond Germany. Aligning with the French Cour de Cassation’s 2024 ruling, the judgment contributes to a growing European consensus that defamation claims by foreign states against private media are untenable. This convergence strengthens the legal shield for journalists reporting on sensitive topics such as surveillance technologies, while signaling to governments that attempts to silence critical reporting through civil litigation will face robust judicial resistance. The case thus serves as a benchmark for future disputes involving state‑sponsored reputation claims in the digital age.