On this page, statements in the media are scrutinized to determine whether they are legally correct. This is intended to encourage students to critically reflect on assertions and reproduced statements. This is one of the indispensable skills of future lawyers, as they should be committed to differentiation and objectivity. The reproduction and critical illumination of such articles is not associated with any evaluative statement; this is solely for teaching purposes.

BaZ of 8 September 2017 The BaZ journalist claims that there is no legal basis for requiring Swiss citizens (what about foreign residents?) to delete Facebook accounts and the like. Is this true? [Correct answer possible after the 3rd semester at the latest]

Blick, April 13, 2016In a criminal case, a lawyer is obliged to pay compensation to a third party. In a video interview with Blick, the lawyer promises that he "will have to collect the money from me personally." How many mistakes are there in this lawyer's statement?

TA of April 5, 2016In the context of the so-called Panama Papers, reasons are given which would constitute legal motives for a letterbox company, including a lack of interest in transparency in the marriage (sic!). However, this is not always advisable, because if the spouse finds out that "part of the assets are being concealed, they can claim them for themselves." Correctly stated legal consequence of concealment?

NZZ, April 4, 2016
In an article on the revision of the Reproductive Medicine Act, it is argued, among other things, that the professional activities of wives mean that men have to do more to help out. Furthermore, "in the event of a separation, they are often in a worse position than the wife. There is the threat of years of maintenance obligations and the partial loss of the children." Right or wrong?