Cicero judgment
The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of February 27, 2007 ( BVerfGE 117, 244) on two constitutional complaints by the magazine Cicero is called the Cicero judgment . With the complaints, Cicero had complained about what he believed to be an unconstitutional interference with freedom of the press by the district court and the Potsdam regional court . The judgment in favor of Cicero is considered to point the way for the basic democratic order of the Federal Republic of Germany because it once again significantly strengthened the freedom of the media anchored there, in particular the freedom of the press.
facts
The magazine for political culture Cicero published in its April 2005 edition an article by the freelance journalist Bruno Schirra with the title “The most dangerous man in the world”, which dealt with the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi . The article quoted in detail from a top secret evaluation report by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) .
For example, long passages of text were cited from the evaluation report that described az-Zarqawi's appearance in more detail, and some information such as telephone numbers were also given. Due to the often very detailed information from the evaluation report, it can be assumed that the Bruno Schirra report must have been available not only in parts, but as a whole.
Procedure
After the publication of the article, the Potsdam public prosecutor initiated an investigation against the journalist Bruno Schirra and against the editor-in-chief of the Cicero , Wolfram Weimer , for aiding and abetting the violation of official secrecy in accordance with §§ 353 b, 27 StGB . In addition, the Potsdam public prosecutor's office initiated an investigation against the unknown informant for violating official secrecy in accordance with Section 353 b of the Criminal Code.
As part of the investigation, the Potsdam Public Prosecutor applied to the Potsdam District Court for a search order of the editorial offices of the Cicero as well as the living, business and ancillary rooms of the journalist Bruno Schirra in accordance with Sections 102, 105 and 162 (1) sentence 2 StPO . This search order was issued by the Potsdam District Court with a decision dated August 31, 2005. Subsequently, during the search of the editorial rooms, a hard drive, among other things, was confiscated from which the State Criminal Police Office made a copy.
Cicero appealed against the search order to the Potsdam Regional Court because it saw the local court's search order as an unconstitutional interference with freedom of the press . The Potsdam Regional Court rejected this complaint because it did not see any unconstitutional interference with freedom of the press.
In the meantime, the local court issued a seizure order on November 14, 2005, specifying the search order of August 31 for the copy of the hard drive. Cicero also appealed against this to the Potsdam Regional Court for the same reason. Before the regional court decided on this complaint, the regional criminal investigation office deleted the copy of the data carrier. The Regional Court therefore also rejected this complaint, as it considered the complaint to be irrelevant or settled by deleting the copy of the data carrier. After all, the complaint was directed against the confiscation of the hard drive or its copy.
The editor-in-chief of the Cicero lodged a constitutional complaint against the two resolutions . The First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided on both complaints on February 27, 2007.
Decision on the constitutional complaints
The First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided that the search order of the Potsdam District Court of August 31, 2005 constituted a serious, unconstitutional encroachment on the freedom of the press anchored in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 of the Basic Law . As a result, the Regional Court should have granted the appeal against this search order and should have revoked the search order. Since the Regional Court did not do this, the Federal Constitutional Court initially overturned the Regional Court's decision of January 27, 2006 as unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court initially determined that the freedom of the press also includes protection against the state's intrusion into the confidential press rooms. It also found that the search of the press rooms disrupted the editorial work and that this could be intimidating, which is why it also constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the freedom of the press.
For the second constitutional complaint against the decision of the Regional Court of February 24, 2006, the Federal Constitutional Court found that the decision of the Regional Court constituted an unconstitutional violation of the fundamental right of legal protection guaranteed in Article 19.4 of the Basic Law . It noted in this regard that it would have been the duty of the regional court to recognize the complaint as well-founded and not simply to declare it settled, since the fundamental right of legal protection expressly guarantees that one can avoid violations of fundamental rights by public institutions (e.g. courts). can proceed through the "normal" legal process. The regional court should have regarded the complaint as well-founded and should have revoked the decision of the district court of November 14, 2005 (specification of the search order). However, because the regional court declared the complaint to be settled and irrelevant, it left the complainant virtually “idle”. This represents an unconstitutional encroachment on the fundamental right to legal protection. Therefore, the Federal Constitutional Court also overturned the decision of the Regional Court of February 24, 2006.
The Federal Constitutional Court saw both constitutional complaints as fully founded and revoked a total of four resolutions: Both the search order of the district court of August 31, and its specification with regard to the copy of the hard disk of November 14, 2005 January 27, 2006 and February 24, 2006.
meaning
The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court is considered to be indicative. It strengthens the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany, for which the freedom of the media and in particular the freedom of the press is constitutive.
Individual evidence
- ↑ BVerfG, 1 BvR 538/06 of February 27, 2007, paragraph no. (1–82)
- ^ "Search of 'Cicero' was unconstitutional" , Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 27, 2007, accessed on October 31, 2011.
- ^ "Restoration of a Basic Right" , Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 27, 2007, accessed on October 31, 2011.
- ^ "Constitutional Court strengthens freedom of the press" , Spiegel Online, February 27, 2007, accessed on October 31, 2011.
- ↑ Thomas Darnstädt : "Don't let yourself be caught, journalist" , Spiegel Online, February 27, 2007, accessed on October 31, 2011.
- ↑ Annett Meiritz, Anna Reimann: "Victory for freedom of the press - clear boundaries required for investigators" , Spiegel Online, February 27, 2011, accessed on October 31, 2011.
- ↑ "'Cicero' raid was illegal" , Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, February 27, 2007, accessed on October 31, 2011.
- ↑ "Kauder wants to punish betrayal" , Focus, February 27, 2011, accessed on October 31, 2011.