The law firm activelaw has successfully prevented two clients from being silenced by a court decision.
The clients had reported critically about a company that came into focus due to criminal investigations against employees.
The company requested that the article be banned as long as identification was possible, which activelaw successfully prevented.
The Cologne Regional Court ruled (not yet legally binding) that reporting could not be prohibited across the board and that individual statements to be prohibited should have been specifically named.
The verdict is contrary to a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, which is why the Federal Court of Justice may have the last word.
The verdict is contrary to a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, which is why the Federal Court of Justice may have the last word.
Success in press law
activelaw successfully resisted an attempt to silence them in court for two clients. As part of an article, the clients had critically reported on incidents in a company. The incidents led to criminal investigations and the issuance of criminal warrants against two employees of the company, at least one of whom is legally binding.
The company and its shareholders have proposed to ban the entire article as long as it allows them to be identified.
activelaw objected that reporting that would identify the company and its shareholders could not be prohibited per se. Because there is considerable public interest in the events that have been reported, which must be attributed to the so-called social sphere. The company and its shareholders could therefore only have individual statements banned. However, only if these statements are untrue and are not privileged by the principles of suspicious reporting. However, the plaintiff must specifically state such statements. If he fails to do so, the action is inadmissible if it should be directed against individual statements or unfounded if a general prohibition of identifying reporting was sought.
In its (not yet final) judgment of 08.05.2024 (ref. 28 O 507/23), the Press Chamber of the Cologne Regional Court has now followed this. In doing so, the court made it clear that an action under Section 253 (2) No. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only sufficiently specified if it specifies the claim made in such a specific way as to clearly define the scope of judicial decision-making power. However, there is no need to determine the scope of the judicial review if the further distribution of an identifiable article was requested, but not all of the statements made in the article were inadmissible and the prohibition should be derived, if necessary, from an overview of all individual statements contained in the article.
The decision of the district court is understandable and correct. It is also groundbreaking. In parallel proceedings, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart had granted an application for a preliminary injunction, which was also aimed at the overall prohibition of an identifiable article. It did not say a word on the question of whether such a prohibition applies if the article consists largely of admissible statements. That is simply unconstitutional. Because of the freedom of opinion protected by Article 5 GG, an unspecific prohibition of identifiable reporting is only considered if identifying the person concerned for overriding reasons, such as the protection of privacy, would be inadmissible per se. It cannot regularly be granted when — as here — criticism of events in a commercial enterprise is involved. The Cologne Regional Court has therefore — with reference to an advisory order issued by the Cologne Higher Regional Court — quite rightly ruled differently from the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. Should the Cologne Higher Regional Court join the decision in the event of an appeal, however, the Federal Court of Justice is likely to have the last word. For even though the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart does not deviate from its legal opinion in the main proceedings, there would be different legal views between two higher regional courts on the requirement to specify requests for injunctive relief, which would allow an appeal in accordance with Section 543 (2) No. 2 Alt. 2 Code of Civil Procedure.
The decision of the Cologne Regional Court underlines the importance of press freedom and sets clear limits against general bans on identifying reporting. It ensures that companies and their shareholders cannot easily prevent critical reporting. If confirmed by the Cologne Higher Regional Court, this landmark decision could have a formative effect on future press law cases and may require clarification before the Federal Court of Justice.
.jpg)
