.jpg)
(symbolic photo)
The law firm activelaw has successfully defended itself before the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court against the prohibition of identifying reporting on behalf of an animal welfare organization. By means of a preliminary injunction issued by the Ellwangen Regional Court (Jagst) dated March 29, 2023, a rabbit breeding business and its owner had prevented the organization from continuing to disseminate an article in which investigative footage from the farm was reported, mentioning the name and location. The recordings showed, among other things, that employees of the company had beaten rabbits with a high bow on the ground and with an iron bar. Rabbits that survived this procedure were sometimes left lying down for a long period of time, although they still had signs of consciousness.
At the request of activelaw, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart overturned the interim injunction in a judgment of 30.08.2023 (file no. 4 U 54/23). The court stated, inter alia, that
“Reporting has considerable informational value, as there is a high, if not outstanding, public information interest in uncovering grievances in connection with animal husbandry. This is also shown by the fact that the protection of animals was defined as a state objective in Art. 20a GG. The indisputable — illegal — recordings made in the plaintiff's company, paragraph 1, revealed significant and shocking grievances in the plaintiff paragraph 1's business, because the recordings made documented dead, sick and injured animals, killings of employees by hitting the ground, killings with an iron bar, in which the animals were then left lying down for a long period of time even though they were still alive. ”
And further
“The footage shows shocking images that consumers don't want to see, but whose dissemination is necessary to stir up the public and achieve responsible treatment of animals — be they farm animals or laboratory animals. If there are such significant grievances in their companies, operators must accept it when they are reported and discussed in public — even with attribution — because of the considerable interest in them and the resulting discourses. ”
Attorney Dr. Sven Dierkes explains:
“The decision of the Higher Regional Court is gratifying. This is particularly against the background of the trend of some district courts to prohibit critical reporting on the basis of doubtful considerations while ignoring the right of freedom of expression under Article 5 GG. Negative examples of this trend include several decisions made by the Hamburg Regional Court in the Till Lindemann case and also the judgment of the Ellwangen Regional Court in question here. This had prohibited the reporting of the animal welfare organization, although the reporting was based on convincing research, took into account the operator's views and made it clear that the report did not want to prejudge anyone and did not want to prejudge due process under the rule of law.
Of course, identifying reporting on grievances in companies is always a particularly serious intervention and, in the worst case, can also jeopardize their existence. It must therefore not be done lightly. However, anyone who participates in business life cannot wait for only positive reports about him and justified criticism is particularly effective when it can also name horse and rider. As part of the necessary balancing of interests between the protection of the company on the one hand and the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press on the other, it was therefore only logical that the Higher Regional Court repealed the prohibition on identifying reporting. ”
