Veronika and Sebastian Bohrn Mena have sued Schilling for a public retraction of a number of statements that they describe as “falsely factual”, “defamatory” and “damaging to his popularity”. The worth in dispute is 12,000 euros.
The court docket listening to is a primary listening to, which serves to debate the additional trial program and get it on observe. Based on her lawyer Maria Windhager, Schilling won’t seem, and it was unclear whether or not the plaintiffs would seem on the district court docket. A request to this impact from their authorized consultant Peter Zöchbauer was nonetheless pending as of early Thursday followingnoon.
Lawsuit contains three factors
The plaintiffs accuse Schilling of getting “unfold” false claims “to numerous third events” since 2022 and thereby “endangering” the plaintiffs’ “financial popularity”, which Lena Schilling denies. The lawsuit particularly covers three factors: Sebastian Bohrn Mena has been violent in direction of his spouse a number of instances and in numerous methods, on account of which Veronika Bohrn Mena suffered a miscarriage. Schilling can be mentioned to have retracted the declare that the Bohrn Mena couple are personally enriching themselves via a non-profit basis they based and run and are performing “just like the mafia”.
Lena Schilling pressured that she had “by no means made public” the incriminating allegations. So far as the alleged assaults are involved, she “realized of issues regarding them in non-public and solely mentioned such suspicions confidentially whereas sustaining the required neutrality and stability,” Schilling’s authorized consultant said in a written assertion.
Schilling’s assertion on the inspiration “sufficiently coated”
Concerning the conduct of Bohrn Menas in reference to their basis, Schilling’s lawyer Windhager states that because of the plaintiffs’ “questionable enterprise practices”, the assertion that they had been “personally enriching themselves via their work for his or her non-profit basis is supported by ample factual proof”. Personally enriching oneself via work in a non-profit group – within the sense of paid companies for this group – is “neither unlawful nor morally frowned upon. Consequently, the lawsuit proves to be unfounded on this regard both”.
Windhager concludes by saying that Lena Schilling is “to not blame for the talk that’s now being held publicly concerning the info in query”. Relatively, the plaintiffs themselves “enabled and fuelled the general public dissemination of the incriminating allegations”.
Bohrn Menas’ authorized consultant, Peter Zöchbauer, counters that Schilling “has ‘put out into the world’ the unfaithful, unsubstantiated accusations she herself invented and may have anticipated that “all additional reactions or their additional dissemination can be attributed to this”. On this respect, “particularly harmful motion” has been taken for the harm that has occurred for the reason that respective statements had been made. The accusations are “fully unfaithful” and their dissemination “culpable”.