Frederik Paulsen says that he was the victim of a smear campaign and sued against newspapers of the TX-Group. This lawsuit has now been dismissed.
the essentials in brief
- Frederik Paulsen sued for defamation against newspapers of the TX-Group.
- The Zurich District Court dismisses the Vaud billionaire’s lawsuit.
- Paulsen said that he was the victim of a smear campaign.
The newspapers of the Zurich media company TX-Group did not run a campaign against a Vaudois billionaire: The reports on Frederik Paulsen did not harm his personality, the Zurich District Court stated.
The plaintiff is completely unsuccessful and the lawsuit will die, according to the 114-page judgment published by the Zurich District Court on Friday. Paulsen, who had made his fortune as heir to a pharmaceutical company founded by his father, took the position that he was the victim of a smear campaign.
Paulsen demands deletion of the article
In the TX-Group newspapers it was reported, among other things, that the Swedish citizen, in his role as Russian honorary consul, had undertaken various trips to Russia with Swiss politicians.
There was no interest in the reporting, his personality had been injured, Paulsen registered. He demands the deletion of the relevant articles from all archives and the surrender of the profit made by the reporting.
The District Court of Zurich now states that the articles dealt with very serious political and economic issues, “which there is a public interest in illuminating”.
In a note in brackets, it counts “Connections between politics and business; Granting advantages and financial benefits to politicians; Use of soft power in international politics; Flat rate taxation; Tax exemption; Tax justice; Tax optimization; Offshore Constructs ».
Paulsen is a person of public interest
Paulsen had argued in court that he himself rarely sought the public. He almost never appeared in the tabloid press. The Zurich court held that he was still to be regarded as a person of public interest.
He is very wealthy and chairman of the board of a large, global corporation with its headquarters in the canton of Vaud, according to the judgment. He was also an official of Russia, with explorations of the Poles and the public and appeared as a patron. “His privacy is closer than that of an unknown contemporary,” the court notes.
The ruling, which was sent to the parties on Thursday, is not yet final. An appeal can be filed with the Zurich Higher Court within 30 days.
More on the subject: