- The judicial authority granted approval for Jerome Boateng's disclosure concerning Kasia Lenhardt.
The judgment was definitive - in favor of football star Jérôme Boateng. Five unfavorable remarks made by the ex-national team player about his former partner Kasia Lenhardt in an interview were deemed lawful, ruled the Berlin Court of Appeals in the second instance. The remarks weren't so serious that they should be prohibited, the judge declared.
The mother of the deceased ex-girlfriend, who passed away in 2021, attempted to compel Boateng to issue a cease-and-desist declaration in the lengthy legal dispute. The court rebuffed this attempt. As a result, the mother's cease-and-desist lawsuit failed in the second instance.
One statement had previously been prohibited by the Berlin Regional Court in November 2022. The court's decision on the five other statements hasn't become legally binding yet, but an appeal wasn't permitted. The mother still has the option of filing a complaint with the Federal Court of Justice.
During the interview, Boateng spoke about disputes in the relationship. Lenhardt was the second runner-up on "Germany's Next Topmodel" in 2012 and later dated Boateng. The interview was published shortly after their separation. In February 2021, her family announced her death through a lawyer. The police in Berlin confirmed an incident involving a lifeless person with no signs of external influence.
Boateng's remarks weren't "grossly offensive"
Judge Oliver Elzer stated that the mother was concerned about protecting her daughter's "claim to respect" even after her demise. While Boateng's remarks could be "upsetting", they were not "so serious" and "not so grossly offensive" that they should be prohibited, and the mother's case was unjustified.
The court elaborated: "For a violation of the right to respect after death, an insult to human dignity must exist." However, the contested statements did not contain such derogatory or degrading remarks about the deceased, and they did not violate her dignity.
The mother argued that Boateng's statements tarnished her daughter's image. "She wants to prevent statements about her deceased daughter that contain falsehoods," explained her lawyer Markus Hennig during the oral hearing a few weeks earlier.
Boateng now regards the interview as a mistake
Boateng's spokesperson Thomas Knipp stated after the decision that they were pleased with the outcome because it would put an end to the legal dispute. Boateng realizes that the interview was a significant mistake that he deeply regrets and apologizes for. Boateng's lawyer Stephanie Vendt had previously explained in court that the footballer did not intend to repeat the statements.
Judge Elzer emphasized during the oral hearing that the matter wasn't about guilt or innocence, or who was at fault, but about determining how far one can go in publicly expressing oneself about others - with the distinction that the affected person had passed away shortly after the statements.
The court proposed a settlement. Boateng would have had to issue a cease-and-desist declaration, and the plaintiff would have had to cover the costs of the current proceedings. However, this settlement was not reached.
Finally, a criminal trial involving Boateng made headlines. The Munich Regional Court reprimanded him for intentional bodily harm and imposed a fine of 40 daily rates of €5,000, subject to conditions. Much like a suspended prison sentence, the 35-year-old only has to pay the €200,000 if he violates his conditions. However, the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office is not satisfied with this verdict and has filed an appeal.
In contrast to the previous court's decision, the Federal Court of Justice in Germany could potentially overrule the court's decision not to prohibit Boateng's remarks, as the mother still has the option to file a complaint there.
Although Boateng spoke about disputes in his relationship with Lenhardt, who was a contestant on "Germany's Next Topmodel" and later lived in Berlin, the court ruled that his remarks were not "grossly offensive" enough to warrant a prohibition.
