Conviction of the Weltwoche deputy editor-in-chief for defamation in two instances. The case documents how confidential investigation files were instrumentalised and published in coordination with an accused person.
The Weltwoche deputy editor-in-chief repeatedly received confidential investigation files from the SVP politician. He published excerpts from witness statements, named the second suspect by full name, and accused Spiess-Hegglin of having fabricated a sexual offence to save her reputation. The Weltwoche reporting was vehemently and repeatedly instrumentalised by political circles as a campaign against Spiess-Hegglin.
Criminal complaint filed for defamation. Investigation files reveal that Weltwoche and the SVP politician "most likely acted in close coordination." Partially identical formulations were used in the Weltwoche article and the false accusation complaint.
Zurich District Court convicts the Weltwoche deputy editor-in-chief of defamation. In the trial, the focus is on the article containing confidential investigation files. After reviewing the case files, CH Media newspapers confirm that the Weltwoche campaign against Spiess-Hegglin appears to have been orchestrated.
The Weltwoche journalist is convicted again on appeal. Weltwoche accepts the ruling. Spiess-Hegglin receives compensation plus a portion of legal costs. Weltwoche bears three-quarters of the costs.
The Weltwoche case is not primarily a press law case – it is a documentation case. It proves how political and media actors can coordinate to act against a single individual: the then Zug SVP president Markus Hürlimann filed a criminal complaint for false accusation – and Weltwoche deputy editor-in-chief Philipp Gut published an article at the same time that conveyed the same message. Investigation files show that Weltwoche and the SVP politician "most likely acted in close coordination." Partially identical formulations were used in the Weltwoche article and the false accusation complaint. This is no coincidence. It is a pattern.
Philipp Gut published excerpts from confidential witness statements. These files from an ongoing criminal investigation were not publicly accessible – they were leaked to him. This repurposed the instrument of criminal proceedings itself as a weapon: internal information from an official investigation, which is meant to protect those involved in the proceedings, was deliberately used to damage reputation. Who passed on the files and through what channels is part of the documented finding.
In September 2015, Philipp Gut claimed in Weltwoche that Spiess-Hegglin had "deliberately falsely accused" an SVP politician of sexual assault – that the sexual acts were consensual and that the complaint was later fabricated to deceive her husband. In the first instance, Zurich District Court determined that Gut could not substantiate his allegations. He also could not prove that he wrote them in good faith. Both would have been necessary for acquittal under Art. 173 Swiss Criminal Code. The conviction for defamation was confirmed on appeal.
Parallel to the Weltwoche campaign, criminal proceedings for false accusation were underway against Spiess-Hegglin – initiated by the same SVP politician who had leaked the files to the Weltwoche journalist. The Zug Public Prosecutor's Office closed the proceedings with a clear finding: Spiess-Hegglin "had grounds to believe she was a victim of sexual assault" – and did not falsely accuse anyone. This finding stands. It is official. The Weltwoche allegations were not only unsubstantiated – they directly contradicted the result of the state investigation.
The case sharpens the boundary between permissible media criticism and criminal defamation. Art. 173 Swiss Criminal Code does not protect against criticism, opinion, or sharp commentary – it protects against false factual claims that are likely to damage a person's reputation, when the author can neither substantiate their truth nor prove good faith. Philipp Gut could do neither. The fact that the ruling stood in two instances sets a clear standard: even investigative journalism that is assured of political support ends where unsupported false claims about victims of sexual offences are presented as facts.
The Weltwoche case is part of an overarching pattern: Blick campaign, Weltwoche article, Tamedia defamations, cyberstalking – the attacks came from different directions, using different means, but with a common direction. The fact that the Weltwoche deputy editor-in-chief worked during the same period in which Blick produced over 150 articles about the same person and the Tamedia author began her research is a documented finding. Each case has its own legal framework. Together, they paint a picture of media power that extends beyond the individual case.