Reference

Media Law Glossary

Technical terms of Swiss media law, protection of personality rights and human rights protection explained

Protection of personality rights – Persönlichkeitsschutz (Art. 28 CC)

The right to protection of one's personality is enshrined in the Swiss Civil Code (CC). Art. 28 CC provides that any person whose personality rights are unlawfully infringed may apply to the court for an order against the person causing the infringement to cease and desist, and – where fault is established – for monetary compensation for the damage suffered. Infringements of personality rights may relate to honour, freedom, privacy or the intimate sphere. The protection of personality rights also extends to media companies – as legal entities they may bring actions where their corporate reputation or business interests are infringed.

Case reference: Ringier / Blick · Tamedia / Binswanger

Disgorgement of profits (account of profits) – Gewinnherausgabe (Art. 28a para. 3 CC)

Art. 28a para. 3 CC allows an injured person to reclaim the profits that the person causing the infringement generated through the infringement of personality rights. This is a preventive legal instrument: it is intended to remove the economic incentive for media companies to profit from reporting that infringes personality rights. Jolanda Spiess was the first to successfully invoke this instrument against Ringier AG. The Cantonal Court of Zug awarded the disgorgement of profits at first instance in 2025, a landmark ruling with precedential significance for Swiss media law. The Higher Cantonal Court of Zug (Obergericht) confirmed the disgorgement of profits at second instance on 19 June 2026 – upholding the principle and the calculation method, while reducing two calculation figures; the ruling is not yet legally final, and an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court remains possible.

Case reference: Ringier / Blick – case dossier · Ruling of the Cantonal Court of Zug, January 2025 (PDF)

Super-provisional (ex parte) interim injunction – superprovisorische Verfügung

A super-provisional interim injunction (superprovisorische Verfügung) is a precautionary measure that a court issues without prior hearing of the opposing party where there is manifest and imminent danger. It is granted under strict conditions and must subsequently be confirmed in ordinary proceedings. In the Tamedia/Binswanger case, Jolanda Spiess obtained a super-provisional injunction before the Cantonal Court of Zug in 2020, which initially prohibited the publication of Michele Binswanger's book. The Higher Cantonal Court of Zug lifted the measure at second instance; the ensuing proceedings led to the complaint before the ECtHR.

Case reference: Tamedia / Binswanger · ECtHR proceedings

ECtHR – European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg protects human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Switzerland is a member state. The ECtHR may be seised where national courts have violated human rights. Jolanda Spiess has lodged a complaint with the ECtHR on the question of whether Switzerland arbitrarily denied access to justice (Art. 6 ECHR) and whether the right to respect for private life and the intimate sphere (Art. 8 ECHR) was violated.

Case reference: ECtHR proceedings – case dossier

Wilful defamation – Verleumdung (Art. 174 SCC)

Wilful defamation under Art. 174 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) is the knowingly false assertion or dissemination of facts that are capable of damaging a person's honour or reputation. Wilful defamation requires acting against better knowledge: the perpetrator must positively know that the assertion is false. Where they merely accept that it might be untrue, the offence may amount to defamation (Art. 173 SCC). In the Tamedia/Binswanger case, the journalist Michèle Binswanger was convicted of wilful defamation, confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Basel-Stadt in June 2025 and, at final instance, by the Federal Supreme Court on 2 June 2026 (judgment 6B_747/2025); the conviction is legally final.

Case reference: Tamedia / Binswanger – case dossier

Defamation – üble Nachrede (Art. 173 SCC)

Defamation under Art. 173 SCC is the assertion or dissemination of defamatory facts that damage a person's good reputation. Unlike wilful defamation, it need not be established that the assertion is false. The perpetrator nonetheless remains unpunished if they succeed in proving the truth of the statement or that they had good cause to believe it in good faith (Art. 173 no. 2 SCC). In the Weltwoche case, the deputy editor-in-chief was convicted of defamation.

Case reference: Weltwoche – case dossier

Perpetrator-victim reversal (DARVO) – Täter-Opfer-Umkehr

Perpetrator-victim reversal – known in research as DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) – describes a strategy in which perpetrators reverse responsibility: they deny their own conduct, attack the victim and cast themselves as the victim. In the legal context, this pattern emerges when convicted perpetrators in turn file lawsuits against their victims – not to enforce legitimate claims, but to intimidate, exhaust and silence the victim.

In the Spiess-Hegglin case, this pattern appears repeatedly: a stalker who was found civilly liable, with final effect, for infringement of personality rights sued Jolanda Spiess in 2025 for a cease-and-desist order and satisfaction – the Cantonal Court of Zug dismissed the claim in its entirety on 7 April 2026 and confirmed the right of stalking victims to report publicly on documented violence. Likewise, the Tamedia journalist Michele Binswanger, convicted of wilful defamation at second instance (appealed before the Federal Supreme Court), publicly frames the proceedings brought against her as an attack on the freedom of the press – although what is at stake is protection against false statements established by the courts. In both cases the structure is identical: the perpetrator sues, the victim is meant to fall silent.

Case reference: Cyberstalking – perpetrator-victim reversal · Tamedia / Binswanger

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking is the systematic pursuit, harassment or intimidation of a person by means of digital technologies. It encompasses repeated, unwanted contact, threats, insults and online surveillance. In the Spiess-Hegglin case, the cyberstalking campaign included the publication of intimate data and was closely intertwined with media framing. The perpetrators were convicted of pornography offences, wilful defamation and disregard of court orders.

Case reference: Cyberstalking – case dossier

Media omertà – Medien-Omertà

Media omertà describes the phenomenon whereby Swiss media corporations barely report critically on one another – in particular not on proceedings that concern them directly. A code of silence within the industry. In the Spiess-Hegglin case this is clearly evident: the landmark ruling on the disgorgement of profits against Ringier was played down or passed over in silence by large parts of the Swiss media landscape, while international media reported extensively. This structural omertà shields the industry from accountability.

Further reading: MEISTGEKLICKT – Protokoll eines Systemversagens (Limmat Verlag, 2024)

Intimate sphere – Intimsphäre

The intimate sphere (Intimsphäre) is the most personal area of life – physical integrity, sexuality, sexual life, the most intimate relationships and family. It enjoys the highest degree of protection under Swiss civil law (Art. 28 CC) and under international human rights law (Art. 8 ECHR). An infringement of the intimate sphere through media reporting is not justified by the fact that the information was already online beforehand. In the Spiess-Hegglin case, the infringement of the intimate sphere was a central issue before the ECtHR.

Case reference: ECtHR proceedings – case dossier

Landmark case – Leiturteil

A landmark case (Leiturteil) is a court decision that has precedential character and lastingly shapes the case law in a given field. The ruling on the disgorgement of profits against Ringier (2025) is a landmark case for Swiss media law: for the first time it opens up the possibility of reclaiming, from media corporations, profits derived from reporting that infringes personality rights, thereby creating a new economic incentive for media accountability. The ruling was handed down at first instance by the Cantonal Court of Zug; the Higher Cantonal Court of Zug confirmed it at second instance on 19 June 2026, though it is not yet legally final and an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court remains possible.

Case reference: Ringier / Blick – case dossier · Ruling (PDF)

Freedom of the press and protection of personality rights

Freedom of the press and the protection of personality rights stand in tension. Media freedom (Art. 17 of the Federal Constitution, Art. 10 ECHR) is not an absolute right – it finds its limits, among other things, in the protection of personality rights. A media company cannot, as a matter of principle, invoke freedom of the press in order to report in a way that infringes personality rights. The balance lies in the requirement that reporting must be of public interest and that the means used must not be disproportionate. The Spiess-Hegglin case shows that more than 167 articles on the Zug Landammann celebration – where the facts were unclear – were assessed as disproportionate and not of public interest.

Liability of the board of directors – Verwaltungsratshaftung (Art. 754 CO)

Members of the board of directors are personally liable under Art. 754 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) for damage caused by an intentional or negligent breach of duty. In the context of Swiss media law, the question arises whether directors of media companies can be held personally accountable where personality rights are systematically infringed within their company. The Tamedia proceedings raise this question structurally: can executives be held liable where reporting that infringes personality rights is tolerated or not stopped over a period of years?