Roommates in a shared house had complained to their landlady about their roommate. She then sent him a letter with the following content: "Due to complaints about strong odors and vermin in the stairwell, we would like to carry out an inspection of your apartment. Our employee, Mr. K., will inspect the apartment on Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 10 a.m..” During the inspection, the apartment was actually found in a dilapidated state.
The landlady then asked the flatmate to clear out and clean the apartment, which he did. He then asked the landlady, among other things, for information about which roommate was said to have complained about him. The landlady did not reveal the name for privacy reasons and suggested "let the matter rest". The roommate then complained. However, both the regional court and the higher regional court shared the landlady's assessment that she did not have to provide any information about the name.
In this case, however, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) saw things differently and cited various reasons. One of them is as follows: “In order […] to also assert possible rights against the whistleblower from whom the incorrect data originates, and thus 'tackle the error at the root', the plaintiff needs information as to who provided the information. Since the statements 'strong odor nuisance and vermin in the stairwell' […] are statements that damage reputation, the alleged untruth of this statement is at least a reasonable claim […] against the whistleblower to refrain from making the statement”.
Source and further information: BGH/judgment of February 22, 2022 – VI ZR 14/21
© Fotolia
