In the case of the former chairman of the extreme right wing German NPD (“Democratic Party of Germany”), Udo Voigt, whose wife had booked a private vacation at a wellness resort in Brandenburg but they were denied access by the hotel director on the reason that Voigt’s extreme politcal views were detrimental to the image of the hotel and the other guests’ desire for comfort and relaxation (see IFTTA news of 23 November, 2010), the German Supreme Court (BGH) has for the most part upheld the judgements of the lower instance courts which had appoved the ban.The BGH pointed our that the domiciliary right was an adjunct of real estate property or possesion as well as a consequence of the principle of private autonomy. As a basic principle it was the free decision of each real estate owner or possesor to whom to grant access. However, with regard to the particular period of time of their vacation, Voigt and his wife by their confirmed booking had acquired a contractual right to stay at the hotel and therefore only could have been banned for very important reasons. As no evidence had been produced that Voigt on the occasion of previous hotel stays had upset other hotel guests with political statements, the hotel had failed to prove such important reasons.The ban was therfore approved with the exemption of the period for which the particular vacations had been booked.Source: BGH press release Nr. 32/2012 of March 9, 2012, available in German here>>.Case: V ZR 115/11, judgement of March 9, 2012
