Violation of personal rights – Your rights in case of violation of general personal rights

A violation of personal rights occurs when the general right of personality (Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 GG) or one of its particular manifestations is unlawfully impaired by the conduct of a third party – for example, through defamatory statements, unauthorized publication of images, false statements of fact, or unauthorized dissemination of data.

Data subjects are generally entitled to claims for injunctive relief, removal of personal data, revocation of consent, right of reply, access to information, damages, and – in cases of serious infringement – monetary compensation. In addition, they have rights to erasure and damages under data protection law pursuant to Articles 17 and 82 of the GDPR.

For preliminary legal protection, the following applies: Depending on the Higher Regional Court district, action must be taken within approximately one month of becoming aware of the infringement and the infringer; otherwise, the procedural urgency is lost. Early legal advice is therefore strongly recommended.

The term "violation of personal rights" refers to any unlawful infringement of the general right of personality (GPR) or one of its specific legal manifestations. The general right of personality protects a person's personality in its self-determination, their private life, their social standing, and their physical and mental integrity – and thus ultimately that which constitutes a person's uniqueness.

Unlike many other legal positions, the general right of personality (APR) is not exhaustively codified by statute, but rather structured as a so-called framework right. Its specific scope of protection is determined in each individual case by weighing it against conflicting fundamental rights – in particular freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of art (Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Basic Law). This case-by-case balancing means that identical statements or image publications can be lawful in one context but unlawful in another.

In practice, the spectrum of personal rights violations ranges from insults via WhatsApp messages to unauthorized publication of photos on social networks, derogatory Google or Jameda reviews, secret recording of telephone conversations, and deepfake videos that use artificial intelligence to place a real person in a completely fabricated context.

Legal basis: The general right of personality

Constitutional anchoring

The general right of personality has its dogmatic foundation in Article 2 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court has consistently recognized it as an independent fundamental right, comprehensively aimed at protecting personality. It complements the specific freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law and protects, in particular, those aspects of personality not already covered by more specific fundamental rights.

The Federal Constitutional Court has specified the scope of protection in a series of landmark decisions: In the Soraya decision (BVerfGE 34, 269), monetary compensation for serious violations of personal rights was constitutionally grounded; in the Lebach judgment (BVerfGE 35, 202), the right to rehabilitation was recognized as an expression of the general right of personality; and in the census judgment (BVerfGE 65, 1), the right to informational self-determination was established. This line of jurisprudence continues to shape civil law practice to this day.

Civil law protection: Section 823 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB)

Under civil law, the general right of personality is protected as an "other right" within the meaning of Section 823 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB). This dogmatic basis opens up tort claims for those affected, in particular for damages and – by analogy with Section 1004 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the BGB – for injunctive relief and removal of the infringing material. The established case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has continuously developed and clarified this protection since the so-called "Letters to the Editor" ruling (BGHZ 13, 334).

Special legal provisions

In addition to the general right of personality, there are specific legal provisions that normatively define individual facets of personality:

• Right to one's own image – §§ 22, 23 KUG (Art Copyright Act), punishable by § 33 KUG;
• Right to a name – Section 12 of the German Civil Code (BGB);
• Criminal law protection of honor – Sections 185 et seq. of the German Criminal Code (insult, defamation, slander); these provisions are also protective laws within the meaning of Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code;
• Data protection law – GDPR and BDSG, in particular Art. 17 GDPR (deletion), Art. 15 GDPR (access) and Art. 82 GDPR (compensation);
• Photojournalism within the press – supplemented by state press laws (in Saarland: Saarland Media Act – SMG) with right of reply.

If these special rules apply, they regularly exist alongside or supersede the general right of personality in their respective regulatory area.

The three protective spheres (sphere theory)

To structure the balancing of interests, the courts have developed the so-called sphere theory. It distinguishes three concentric spheres of protection, each afforded different levels of protection:

Privacy

The sphere of intimacy encompasses the last inviolable area of private life – in particular sexuality, health, inner thoughts, feelings, and mental and emotional states. It is fundamentally and absolutely protected and not subject to balancing against other fundamental rights. Intrusions are therefore almost always unlawful. Of particular practical relevance are unauthorized intimate photographs, the disclosure of medical information, and the disclosure of sexual preferences.

Privacy

Privacy extends to domestic spaces, family and partnership relationships, but also to matters typically classified as "private" by their nature—for example, personal financial behavior, vacation habits, or personal views outside of public roles. Intrusions into privacy are not inherently unlawful; rather, they must be weighed against conflicting fundamental rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of the press. However, the intruder bears a considerable burden of justification.

social sphere

The social sphere encompasses a person's conduct in public – particularly their professional activities, public appearances, and other actions where they consciously interact with their environment. Protection is weakest in this area; significant intrusions are generally acceptable, for example, when they serve to shape public opinion. However, these boundaries are crossed when reporting contains untrue factual claims, stigmatizes the individual, or constitutes defamatory criticism.

Practical advice

In legal analysis, the precise classification of the facts into one of the three spheres is almost always the decisive turning point: it largely determines how high the burden of justification lies on the side of the intervening party and how far the balancing of interests can favor the affected party.

Typical case groups at a glance

Defamatory statements

Insults (§ 185 of the German Criminal Code), defamation (§ 186 of the German Criminal Code), and slander (§ 187 of the German Criminal Code) are both criminal offenses and protective statutes within the meaning of § 823 para. 2 of the German Civil Code. Under civil law, they trigger the full range of claims based on personal rights – from injunctions and retractions to monetary compensation if the statement constitutes a serious infringement of personal honor.

Untrue factual claims

False statements of fact are generally not protected by Article 5 Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law, as deliberately or demonstrably untrue statements of fact do not contribute to the formation of public opinion. The affected party can demand that they be stopped and – if any effects remain – that they be retracted.

Right to one's own image (§§ 22, 23 KUG)

According to Section 22 of the German Copyright Act (KUG), images may only be disseminated or publicly displayed with the consent of the person depicted. Section 23 of the KUG exhaustively regulates the exceptions, in particular images from the realm of contemporary history, images of persons as incidental figures, and images of gatherings and processions. However, these exceptions also do not apply if a legitimate interest of the person depicted is violated (Section 23, Paragraph 2 of the KUG). Since the Caroline of Monaco decision and its subsequent rulings, the German Federal Court of Justice has examined the right to one's own image within a graduated protection framework that takes into account the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights.

Right to one's own spoken word

The right to one's own spoken words protects against secret audio recordings and their subsequent distribution. This right is supported by criminal law under Section 201 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). Civil law gives rise to claims for injunctive relief, removal of the recording, and damages, particularly when secretly recorded conversations are published against the will of the other party.

Right to a name (§ 12 BGB)

The right to one's name protects against the unauthorized use of one's own name by third parties. It is particularly relevant in the digital sphere with regard to domain registrations, fake profiles on social networks, or the commercial exploitation of the names of well-known individuals.

Right to informational self-determination

The Federal Constitutional Court developed the right to informational self-determination from its census ruling (BVerfGE 65, 1). Today, this right is largely specified by the GDPR and finds its enforcement under civil law, among other things, through Article 17 GDPR (right to erasure), Article 15 GDPR (right of access), and Article 82 GDPR (compensation, in particular for non-material damages).

Statement of fact or expression of opinion? – The crucial decision

In disputes concerning freedom of expression, the distinction between a statement of fact and an expression of opinion is the crucial factor. It determines what fundamental rights protection the speaker enjoys and what requirements must be met for the admissibility of the statement.

• Factual claims Statements are subject to proof – they can be either true or false. False statements of fact do not enjoy fundamental rights protection and can regularly be prohibited.
• Expressions of opinion They are characterized by an evaluative, opinion-formulating element. They are protected by freedom of expression (Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law) and are generally permissible even if they are sharply, polemically, or exaggeratedly formulated.

The limits of freedom of expression are only exceeded in the case of so-called abusive criticism – that is, when the statement is no longer about the issue at hand, but solely about defaming the person. The courts are deliberately cautious in recognizing abusive criticism; freedom of expression carries considerable weight here (see, most recently, the so-called Künast ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court). Formal insults and attacks on human dignity represent a special case, where the balancing of interests always favors the protection of personal rights.

Violations of personal rights on the internet

In the digital realm, the issue has developed its own dynamic. The reach, perpetuation, and anonymity of perpetrators make online legal violations particularly burdensome and procedurally challenging.

Social media (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X/Twitter)

Violations of general personal rights occur in a variety of forms on social media platforms: from derogatory comments and the unauthorized publication of private photos to coordinated campaigns (so-called "shitstorms"). Legally relevant, in addition to the general APR regulations, are the liability privileges of the Digital Services Act (DDG) and the provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065), which govern in particular the notification procedure ("Notice and Action") and the obligations of the platforms towards users. Users have rights to information and deletion against the platform; against the direct infringer, they have full APR rights.

Review portals (Google, Jameda, Kununu)

In a series of rulings, the Federal Court of Justice has outlined the legal obligations of rating portals. Businesses and professionals – particularly doctors, lawyers, and tradespeople – can take action against false statements of fact and defamatory criticism in reviews by asserting a right to review against the portal operator. Upon receiving a substantiated complaint, the portal must examine the review and, if the reviewer fails to provide sufficient evidence for the alleged business relationship, delete the review. In cases of obviously unlawful reviews, there are immediate rights to have them deleted.

Deepfakes and AI-generated violations of personal rights

One area that has gained considerable practical relevance in recent years due to the rise of generative AI systems is deepfakes – that is, image, video, or audio content generated or manipulated with artificial intelligence that places a real person in a non-existent context. Depending on the specific circumstances, this can constitute a violation of the right to one's own image (Sections 22, 23 of the German Copyright Act (KUG) analogously or directly), the right to one's own words, the right to honor, and regularly also a violation of the GDPR. Since the amendment of the German Criminal Code (StGB), Section 201a Paragraph 2 StGB (violation of the most personal sphere of life through image recordings) is also applicable in certain situations; in addition, there are supplementary requirements of the AI Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), which establishes transparency obligations for providers and operators of AI systems.

Cyberbullying and hate speech

Systematic digital harassment – particularly in closed chat groups, but also in public forums – is legally classified as a combination of various individual offenses: insult (§ 185 StGB), defamation (§ 186 StGB), stalking (§ 238 StGB), and violation of personal privacy through image recordings (§ 201a StGB). Civil action can be taken to seek injunctive relief, monetary compensation, and damages; filing a criminal complaint is also generally advisable.

Your claims in detail

If your personal rights have been violated, you are entitled to a differentiated range of claims, which can be asserted cumulatively depending on the individual case:

Claim for injunctive relief (§ 1004 BGB analogous in conjunction with § 823 BGB)

The right to an injunction aims to prohibit future, similar infringements. It requires a risk of initial infringement or repetition; the latter is indicated, according to established case law, by any infringement that has already occurred. The risk of repetition can generally only be eliminated by submitting a cease-and-desist declaration subject to a penalty clause. In practice, the right to an injunction is the most powerful tool available to the affected party because it has a preventive effect and can be enforced in court within a few days by means of a preliminary injunction.

Claim for removal

While an injunction is directed towards the future, a removal claim eliminates the ongoing consequences of the infringement – for example, by deleting a post, a photo, a review, or a video publication. It can also include removal from search engine caches and internet archives.

Right of withdrawal and correction

In cases of untrue factual assertions whose effects are still ongoing, a retraction or at least a correction can be demanded. The prerequisite is generally that the statement continues to have an impact and that the retraction is suitable to neutralize these effects.

Right of reply

In the case of publications in the press – including journalistic and editorial telemedia – a right of reply may exist according to the relevant state press laws (in Saarland: Section 10 SMG). The right of reply is subject to strict formal and substantive requirements; in particular, it must concern factual assertions, be personally signed by the affected party, and be asserted without undue delay.

Right to information

The right to information is of central importance in digital law enforcement: it enables the identification of infringers acting anonymously or pseudonymously. The legal basis for this is found, among other things, in Section 21, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German Data Protection Act (DDG) (formerly Section 21, paragraph 2 of the German Telemedia Act (TTDSG)) and Article 15 of the GDPR in specific situations. Prior to legal action, a court order is generally required, in which the court orders the platform to disclose inventory and usage data.

Claim for damages

Based on Section 823 Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (General Rights of the Data Subject) and – depending on the circumstances – Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the BGB in conjunction with the relevant protective laws and Article 82 of the GDPR, the data subject can demand compensation for material damages (lost orders, therapy costs, legal costs). According to recent case law of the European Court of Justice, non-material damages under Article 82 of the GDPR are not subject to any threshold of materiality, but can also be awarded in cases of minor infringements – such as the loss of control over personal data.

Monetary compensation (compensation in money)

Monetary compensation differs dogmatically from traditional pain and suffering damages and, in addition to compensating for non-material losses, serves a specific purpose of redress and prevention. According to established case law of the Federal Court of Justice, it requires a serious violation of personal rights that cannot be adequately remedied in any other way. The amount is determined by the nature, intensity, and duration of the violation, the degree of culpability, the extent of dissemination, and, where applicable, the infringer's economic interest in the publication.

GDPR-specific requirements

At the data protection level, the rights of erasure (Art. 17 GDPR), rectification (Art. 16 GDPR), access (Art. 15 GDPR), and compensation (Art. 82 GDPR) are added. Of particular practical relevance is the "right to be forgotten," which the CJEU developed in the Google Spain decision (C-131/12) as a right to be delisted from search engine results and has further defined in subsequent decisions – namely the case law on the "right to be forgotten I and II.".

Balancing this with freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of art

Every examination of a potential violation of personal rights culminates in a comprehensive balancing of interests. On the side of the infringing party are, in particular, freedom of expression (Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, Alternative 1 of the Basic Law), freedom of information (Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, Alternative 2 of the Basic Law), freedom of the press (Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law), and freedom of artistic expression (Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law). On the side of the affected party are the general right of personality, possibly supplemented by human dignity (Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law), the protection of the family (Article 6 of the Basic Law), and the fundamental right to the confidentiality and integrity of information technology systems.

Key criteria for weighing the interests include, in particular: the affected sphere of protection; the informational value and the public interest in the information; the manner of presentation; the behavior of the person concerned (public role, self-disclosure); the truthfulness of the statement; the intensity and duration of the impairment; and – in the online context – the technical reach and perpetuation of the publication.

Procedural enforcement: warning letter, preliminary injunction, lawsuit

Warning letter and cease and desist declaration with penalty clause

The classic first step is a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer. In this letter, the infringer is requested, within a specified timeframe, to submit a legally binding declaration to refrain from further infringement, if necessary to declare a retraction, to provide information, and to reimburse the incurred legal costs. If the legally binding declaration to refrain from the infringement is sufficiently broad, it eliminates the risk of repetition and is therefore a key instrument for an out-of-court settlement.

Preliminary injunction

If the infringer fails to respond or responds inadequately, the option of initiating preliminary legal proceedings (Sections 935 et seq., 940 of the German Code of Civil Procedure) is available. In cases involving defamation, decisions are regularly made without oral hearings and, if necessary, without prior consultation with the opposing party, due to the urgency of the matter. Important: In many Higher Regional Court districts, the urgency is denied after approximately one month from the date of knowledge; therefore, swift action is essential.

Main action

Parallel to or following the preliminary proceedings, a main action for injunctive relief, removal, revocation, disclosure, damages, and monetary compensation can be brought. This is particularly advisable if monetary claims (damages, monetary compensation) are to be asserted that are generally not adjudicable in preliminary proceedings.

Flying court

In cases of online violations of personal rights, the jurisdiction established by Section 32 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (unlawful acts) generally applies as a so-called "forum shopping" – the plaintiff can file suit anywhere where the infringing information is accessible as intended. This allows, to a certain extent, forum shopping in favor of courts specializing in media law (e.g., Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin).

Criminal charges

In addition to taking legal action – particularly in cases of insults, unauthorized recording of images from the most private sphere, threats, or cyberbullying – filing a criminal complaint with the police or public prosecutor's office is recommended. For offenses requiring a formal complaint (such as those under Section 185 of the German Criminal Code), the complaint must be filed within three months of becoming aware of the offense and the perpetrator (Section 77b of the German Criminal Code).

Costs and value of the object

Lawyers' fees are governed by the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG) and are primarily based on the value in dispute. In cases of personal rights violations, this value is regularly assessed according to established court practice as follows:

• Simple to moderate defamation, unauthorized publication of images in a private setting: €5,000.00 to €10,000.00;
• serious injuries, significant range, career-related consequences: €15,000.00 to €30,000.00;
• Intrusions into privacy, campaign-like violations, significant reach: €30,000.00 to €50,000.00 and more.

Legal fees incurred in the event of an injury must be reimbursed by the infringer as part of the claim for damages (material damages). In most cases, legal expenses insurance also covers these costs; often, a coverage request is the first step after the initial consultation. For clients with low incomes, legal aid and assistance with court costs may also be available.

Five immediate measures to take in case of an acute injury

If you are directly affected by a violation of your personal rights, you should follow these five steps:

• Secure evidence. Take screenshots of the infringing content – ideally including the URL, date, and time. Additionally, archive the content using services like archive.org to ensure it is documented as evidence even after deletion.
• No confrontation on the issue. Do not respond publicly to abusive comments or reviews. Any public reaction can increase the scope of the violation and weaken your future legal position.
• Check the platform message. In parallel, use the platform's reporting and complaint functions (Art. 16 DSA). These do not replace legal action, but can lead to a swift removal.
• Adhere to the urgent deadline. Short deadlines apply for preliminary legal protection – usually one month from the date you become aware of the issue. Seek legal advice promptly.
• Arrange an initial legal consultation. An initial assessment clarifies which claims are viable, what burden of proof you bear, and which strategy (warning, preliminary injunction, criminal complaint, GDPR complaint) is most effective in the specific case.

Attorney Renz advises and represents clients nationwide in cases of personal rights violations. The Renz Law Firm in Saarbrücken specializes in civil law, intellectual property law, IT and AI law, copyright law, and data protection law. By combining these areas of law, cases at the intersection of personal rights, data protection, and new digital technologies—particularly deepfakes, AI-generated content, and complex online defamation cases—can be handled in an interdisciplinary and up-to-date manner.

You can easily receive an initial assessment of your case – either by phone or via the contact form. Often, it becomes clear within a few hours whether preliminary legal protection is necessary, what evidence needs to be secured, and what steps should be taken immediately.