Counterstatement: K-Tipp rebuffs the Federal Court
The consumer magazine K-Tipp had its appeal against a right of reply rejected by the Federal Supreme Court. The French-Swiss consumer magazine Bon à savoir, on the other hand, was partially successful. The case revolves around a comparison of health insurance plans.
In this comparison in the two consumer magazines, the health insurance company Sympany/ÖKK was named the worst performer in terms of policyholder satisfaction in September 2010. The respective articles were also published on the Internet. The health and accident insurer ÖKK did not want to accept this. It demanded a counterstatement, as the two insurers are two independent companies. However, Sympany also used to be called ÖKK.
The two magazines refused to issue a counterstatement, but corrected the article based on the facts. The corrections appeared in the letters to the editor sections of the print editions. On the Internet, K-Tipp published the correction in the comments section, while Bon à savoir published it directly under the incriminated article.
ÖKK took the matter to the district court of Landquart GR. The court ordered the magazines to publish a counterstatement - both in the printed and online editions. The cantonal court of Graubünden confirmed the verdict. The magazines appealed against this to the Federal Supreme Court. The correction rendered the counterstatement superfluous. In the ruling published on Wednesday, the Lausanne judges dismissed K-Tipp's appeal in so far as they upheld it. Bon à savoir was partially upheld - its correction on the Internet satisfied the requirements.
Published in the wrong category
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the corrections should have been made in the same section in which the incriminated articles had appeared. The ÖKK had therefore not forfeited its right to a counterstatement. However, the Lausanne judges conceded that the two newspapers made the correction within the appropriate period, namely in the following issue.
The correction was also made on time on the Internet, but in the K-Tip under the "Comments" section and therefore in the wrong place according to the Federal Court. Bon à savoir was proved right with its correction in the Internet edition. In this case, the Cantonal Court of Graubünden must decide anew on the costs and compensation of the appeal proceedings.
K-Tipp must pay ÖKK CHF 3,000 in compensation and bear the court costs of CHF 2,000. In the case of Bon à savoir, ÖKK and the magazine will bear half of the court costs and no compensation will be paid. (SDA)
