Deleted SRF News commentary is a case for the SRG ombudsman's office after all

In the specific case, a woman wrote to the SRF News article "Germany abolishes free Corona tests" published in 2021 that she wished the same for Switzerland. So far, she had managed well without a test or vaccination.

The editorial team deleted the post because it believed it violated the rules for social communication behavior - the so-called netiquette. The writer initially objected to the deletion with the SRG ombudsman's office. However, the latter did not feel responsible. The Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (UBI), which was subsequently called upon, was of the same opinion.

In the present case, the Federal Court did not have to decide on the deletion of the commentary or its content. Rather, it was a matter of clarifying whether the SRG ombudsman's office is responsible for the complaint at all under the Federal Radio and Television Act RTVA or whether the complainant should not have turned to a civil or criminal court.

Bound by fundamental rights

The federal judges held that SRG has a public mandate from the state and is therefore bound by fundamental rights. By deleting the commentary, the SRG had interfered with the freedom of opinion of the persons concerned. Therefore, legal recourse must be open, as provided for in the guarantee of legal recourse.

The majority of the panel of judges came to the conclusion that no appropriate legal remedy could be invoked at all before a civil or criminal court. The deletion of a comment is not a violation of personality and a person concerned is also not injured in his honor.

The Federal Court concluded that the ombudsman's office had jurisdiction, even though this required an interpretation of the relevant legal provisions of the RTVA. The court overturned the decision of the lower court - the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television - and referred the case back to the ombudsman's office for a substantive assessment. (SDA)