The Kingdom of Marokko failed with a claim against a publisher who had alleged that Marokko was using “Pegasus” surveillance software. The German Supreme Court held that a souverain state does not have title to sue in a defamation claim.

1. Overview of the Decision

In its judgment of 24 February 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified a fundamental issue at the intersection of defamation law and international law: foreign states cannot assert civil law claims for injunctive relief against allegedly defamatory statements made by private actors under German law.

The Court dismissed the claim brought by the Kingdom of Morocco against the publisher of an online news article, holding that neither German tort law nor international law provides a basis for protecting the “reputation” or “honour” of a state in the same way as that of individuals or private legal entities.

The decision is highly relevant for media law, public international law, and cross-border litigation involving state actors.

2. Facts and Procedural Background

The claimant, the Kingdom of Morocco, sought injunctive relief against the operator of the news portal ZEIT ONLINE. The dispute arose from an article published in July 2021 concerning the “Pegasus” spyware scandal.

The article suggested that Morocco was suspected of using surveillance software to target high-profile individuals, including politicians and journalists. Morocco denied these allegations and argued that the reporting constituted false statements of fact that severely damaged its reputation.

Relying on German civil law, Morocco claimed a violation of its rights under:

  • § 823(1) BGB (infringement of protected rights),
  • § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with §§ 185, 186 StGB (criminal provisions on defamation),

and sought an injunction prohibiting further dissemination of the statements.

Both the Regional Court (LG Hamburg) and the Higher Regional Court (OLG Hamburg) dismissed the claim. The BGH upheld these decisions on appeal.

3. Legal Issues

The case raised three central legal questions:

  1. Can a foreign state rely on German personality rights protections?
  2. Do German defamation provisions (§§ 185 et seq. StGB) extend to foreign states?
  3. Does international law require states to protect the reputation of other states against statements by private actors?

4. Applicable Legal Framework

The Court examined the claim under German law, which was applicable based on:

  • the Rome II Regulation and alternatively Art. 40 EGBGB, and
  • a tacit choice of law by the parties in favour of German law.

Substantively, the Court analysed:

  • § 823(1) BGB (protection of “other rights”),
  • § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with criminal defamation provisions,
  • constitutional principles (Art. 1 and 2 GG),
  • and international law (Art. 25 GG).

5. Court’s Reasoning

5.1 No General Personality Right of States

The BGH reaffirmed that states are not holders of a general personality right. Unlike natural persons or private legal entities, a state does not possess “personal honour” protected under German civil law.

Accordingly, the alleged impairment of a state’s reputation does not qualify as a protected “other right” under § 823(1) BGB.

5.2 No Protection under Criminal Defamation Provisions

The Court further held that §§ 185–187 StGB do not protect foreign states:

  • These provisions protect individual honour and personality rights, not state reputation.
  • Even where § 194(3) StGB extends protection to public authorities, this applies only to domestic (German) institutions, not foreign states.

Additionally, the special provisions on offences against foreign states (§§ 102–104a StGB) do not cover reputational harm through media reporting.

5.3 No Claim Based on International Law

A key aspect of the decision is the Court’s detailed analysis of international law.

The BGH concluded that no rule of customary international law exists that:

  • grants states a right to demand the cessation of reputation-damaging statements by private individuals abroad, or
  • obliges states to protect the reputation of other states through legal action against private actors.

The Court relied on:

  • lack of consistent state practice,
  • absence of opinio iuris,
  • international jurisprudence (including ECtHR case law), and
  • comparative law (e.g., the UK “Derbyshire principle”, excluding defamation claims by public authorities).

Moreover, international human rights standards—particularly freedom of expression under Art. 19 ICCPR and Art. 10 ECHR—weigh against extending defamation protection to states.

6. Key Takeaways

  • Foreign states cannot invoke German civil law defamation protections to safeguard their reputation.
  • States do not possess personality rights comparable to individuals or corporations.
  • German criminal defamation provisions do not apply to foreign states.
  • International law does not require states to protect the reputation of other states against private speech.
  • The decision reinforces the primacy of freedom of expression in matters of public and political debate.

7. Practical Implications

This judgment significantly limits litigation strategies available to states seeking to challenge media reporting abroad.

For media organisations and publishers, the ruling provides legal certainty that critical reporting about foreign governments—within the boundaries of journalistic standards—does not expose them to claims by those states under German law.

For practitioners, the case underscores:

  • the importance of distinguishing between state actors and private legal persons, and
  • the limited scope of transnational reputation protection in civil litigation.

8. Conclusion

The BGH’s decision establishes a clear doctrinal boundary: state reputation is not a legally protected interest under German tort law, nor is it safeguarded by international law in the context of private speech.

This reinforces a liberal approach to public discourse, particularly where reporting concerns matters of international political relevance.