In February 2013, the law magazine Plädoyer took over a portrait of the lawyer and UBS board member Isabelle Romy from its French-language sister magazine Plaidoyer, which the editorial team adapted in some points for the German-speaking Swiss readership. The person portrayed complained to the Press Council that Plaidoyer had violated the rules of inter vivos because the editorial team had used an earlier version of the article instead of the text authorized by Romy.

In its statement, the Press Council points out that editorial offices are not obliged to resubmit already authorized quotes for authorization after translating them into another language. Nevertheless, it was fair to do so in order to prevent misunderstandings. Based on the conduct of the editors, the complainant had been entitled to assume that the version of the text she had edited would be used for publication. Comparing the two versions, the Press Council concludes,
that the editorial department had essentially adhered to this agreement. In any case, it would be going too far for the complainant to assume that she retained complete control over the content of the portrait beyond the proofreading and authorization of quotations.

Political campaign of a consumer magazine

Did the consumer magazine Bon à Savoir force a staff member to write favoritism articles for the popular initiative "Pro Service Public" and did it fire him because he complained to the Press Council about it? For the Press Council, neither the one nor the other is created.

In March 2012, Bon à Savoir joined other consumer magazines in launching the popular initiative "Pro Service Public. Since then, the magazine has reported on it in every issue. At the end of June 2013, an employee of "Bon à Savoir" complained to the Swiss Press Council about the one-sided reporting in favor of the initiative. The complainant, who was dismissed after the summer vacations, specifically raises the issue of whether the publisher can force a journalist to write such articles. The editor-in-chief of Bon à Savoir replied that the articles on the popular initiative were written by a group of volunteers, of which the complainant had also initially been a member. His wish to leave the group had been respected within a short period of time.
Moreover, Bon à Savoir had always been politically active. Finally, the complainant's dismissal had nothing to do with the Press Council complaint, but was rather due to ongoing differences of opinion about the editorial orientation of "Bon à Savoir".

The Press Council rejects the complaint. The reports on the popular initiative were not purely PR texts and were also marked with the appropriate logo. Readers would be able to recognize that this was a political campaign. The complainant also fails to substantiate his allegation that he was forced to write texts in favor of the initiative. Furthermore, it would be advisable for Bon à Saovir to set out the editorial line in an editorial statute. Irrespective of this, however, this already resulted from the character of the consumer magazine. With regard to the dismissal of the complainant, it was a matter of testimony against testimony. A connection between the termination of the complainant's employment and the press council complaint had therefore not been established. However, if such a connection should exist, this would be a serious breach of professional ethics.