Thurgau court confirms muzzle for observers
The consumer magazine *Beobachter* remains prohibited from publishing a whole series of allegations against a Thurgau-based construction company. The Arbon District Court has confirmed this in two rulings. At the same time, it has lifted a distribution ban on the December 2006 issue of *Beobachter*.
The consumer magazine Beobachter is still prohibited from publishing a whole series of allegations against a Thurgau construction company. This was stated by the Arbon District Court in two rulings. At the same time, it lifted a distribution ban for the Beobachter from December 2006. At that time, the construction company had obtained a super-provisional injunction against the magazine because it had published a critical article. However, the distribution ban imposed remained largely ineffective because the issue in question was already in circulation (see
). Two months earlier, the Beobachter had already been banned by the court from publishing accusations against the construction company in its magazine. The magazine then published the incriminated allegations indirectly: it posted the full wording of the superprovisional injunction on the Internet. It listed the statements that were not allowed to be printed. In the order published on Tuesday, the court described this approach as "cunning".
The observer now has to pay around CHF 10,000 for the construction company's legal fees following two rulings that are not yet legally binding. He also has to pay around 3,000 francs in court costs. The court also meticulously lists on more than five pages which statements the Beobachter is still not allowed to print.
In one of the two rulings published on Tuesday, the president of the Arbon court also defends himself against accusations against him personally. The observer had accused the court president of having personal relationships with the opponents in the proceedings. However, an application for recusal by the observer was rejected by the Thurgau High Court in 2007.
). Two months earlier, the Beobachter had already been banned by the court from publishing accusations against the construction company in its magazine. The magazine then published the incriminated allegations indirectly: it posted the full wording of the superprovisional injunction on the Internet. It listed the statements that were not allowed to be printed. In the order published on Tuesday, the court described this approach as "cunning".
The observer now has to pay around CHF 10,000 for the construction company's legal fees following two rulings that are not yet legally binding. He also has to pay around 3,000 francs in court costs. The court also meticulously lists on more than five pages which statements the Beobachter is still not allowed to print.
In one of the two rulings published on Tuesday, the president of the Arbon court also defends himself against accusations against him personally. The observer had accused the court president of having personal relationships with the opponents in the proceedings. However, an application for recusal by the observer was rejected by the Thurgau High Court in 2007.
