{"id":8433,"date":"2026-07-10T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/hass-im-netz-mandatsverfahren-streitwert-bleibt-auch-im-folgeverfahren-massgeblich\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T08:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T08:00:00","slug":"hass-im-netz-mandatsverfahren-streitwert-bleibt-auch-im-folgeverfahren-massgeblich","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/hass-im-netz-mandatsverfahren-streitwert-bleibt-auch-im-folgeverfahren-massgeblich\/","title":{"rendered":"Hate speech lawsuit: Amount in dispute remains decisive in subsequent proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court clarified that the value in dispute of EUR 5,000 provided for in the hate speech mandate procedure does not cease to apply at the end of the simplified procedure, but also applies in the ordinary procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Hate Speech Act, through the summary proceedings procedure under Section 549 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), enables swift action against certain violations of personal rights online. In this specific case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for injunctive relief and simultaneously requested the issuance of a cease-and-desist order. The defendant raised objections, which is why the proceedings were subsequently continued in ordinary court proceedings. During the appeal proceedings, one of the questions that arose was whether the statutory value in dispute of EUR 5,000 under Section 59a of the German Code of Civil Procedure (JN) applies only to the initial summary proceedings or also remains relevant for the subsequent ordinary proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court clarified that the value in dispute of EUR 5,000 is decisive for the entire proceedings concerning the asserted claim for injunctive relief pursuant to Section 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This remains unchanged even if the defendant raises objections and the proceedings are subsequently continued through ordinary legal channels. The legally stipulated value in dispute thus remains valid in the subsequent proceedings as well. The decision therefore provides clarity, particularly regarding the assessment of costs and appeals. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the admissibility of statements made online must always be assessed based on the specific circumstances. When examining the content of a statement pursuant to Section 1330 of the Austrian Civil Code, particular consideration must be given to its meaning, any factual core, and the distinction between factual assertions and value judgments. Even sharp or vehement criticism can be permissible, provided it is based on a specific set of facts and does not exceed the limits of permissible freedom of expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision primarily brings procedural clarity: The value in dispute of EUR 5,000 applies not only to the actual mandate proceedings but also remains in effect if ordinary proceedings follow objections. In practice, this means that the value in dispute does not increase or change simply by switching to a different procedure. However, when assessing the alleged violation of personal rights, the specific content and context of the respective online statement remain decisive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Supreme Court 26.05.2026, 6 Ob 52\/26d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court clarified that the value in dispute of EUR 5,000 provided for in the hate speech mandate procedure does not cease to apply at the end of the simplified procedure, but also applies in the ordinary procedure.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aktuelles"],"acf":{"datum_fur_beitrage":"10.07.2026"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lsr.at\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}