OLG Schleswig-Holstein; 2020-02-26; 9 U 125/19
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGSH:2020:0226.9U125.19.00
Date: 2020-02-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0226(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person domiciled in Germany (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) filed an action against the operator of a social network domiciled in Ireland (hereinafter the ‘defendant’) in connection with the blockage of his user account after publishing a post.
The defendant blocked the plaintiff’s user account after the plaintiff published a link on the platform leading to an external newspaper article and commented on it. The defendant blocked the account of the plaintiff for 30 days citing the violation of the standards of the platform. The account was switched to the read-only modus during the blockage.
The plaintiff claimed that the blockage of his account and the removal of the respective post were illegal, and no violation of the terms of use and company standards took place.
The Landgericht Itzehoe (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), as the court seised under Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), dismissed the action stating that the defendant could rely on point 3.2 of the terms of use when blocking the account. The post violated the ban regarding credible violent intentions under part I. point I. of the company standards of the defendant.
The appeal lodged by the plaintiff with the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful.
The action of the plaintiff was found admissible, but not justified.
The freedom of speech of the platform users followed from Article 5(1)(1) of the GG (2). When assessing the legitimacy of the sanctions imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff, the user’s right to freedom of speech had to be weighed against the fundamental rights of the operator. A violation of freedom of speech was not given in cases where the sanctions have not been imposed arbitrarily and the user had not been blocked from using their account in a hasty and permanent manner.
The post of the plaintiff fulfilled the characteristics of hate speech under the company standards of the defendant. Contrary to the opinion of the plaintiff, it was not necessary for the post to be punishable under criminal law. Blocking the account for 30 days was a completely adequate measure.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany).