No identifying court reporting

Public court proceedings are open not only to citizens but also to the press. However, if the press wishes to report on a trial under the defendant's name, limits are placed on press freedom by the general right to personality. In particular, in criminal proceedings, identifying reporting can have serious consequences for the defendant. The admissibility of naming the defendant can therefore be excluded in certain cases.

The matter in dispute concerned planned reporting on a trial whose basis was a criminal offence that was recorded as part of the programme 'Tatort Internet'. This report was to contain the defendant's first name, the first letter of the surname, professional designation and origin. Proceedings were initiated in advance against the publication by means of an interim injunction, which resulted in agreed settlement of the main proceedings.

Court's Decision

The LG München (Order of 30.08.2011, Az.: 9 O 13876/11) concluded in the context of the costs order that identifying reporting could be prohibited, and indeed already prior to publication. The question to be decided was whether the public's interest in information regarding the specific identification of the person outweighed the defendant's general right to personality. In this regard, the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's standing in public life, any possible connection of his conduct with his public activities, as well as his private circumstances were to be taken into account.

In the underlying case, the court saw the restriction on reporting as justified and proportionate, since although the criminal offence was not insignificant, it was not a serious one, it was furthermore committed in the defendant's private life, and the defendant would already have to accept considerable negative private and professional consequences from the broadcast of the programme 'Tatort Internet'. Moreover, these prejudicial effects would also extend to the defendant's family, who likewise had an interest in preventing identifying reporting. Finally, there was also no evidence of an interest on the part of newspaper readers in identifying the person of the defendant.

The court also found that a danger of first-time commission of the offence, to which strict requirements are generally to be applied, was present, since the respondent had already reported on proceedings against another defendant who was likewise filmed as part of the programme 'Tatort Internet'. Furthermore, the respondent regularly reports on proceedings which, as here, are the subject of public interest.

Conclusion

Identifying reporting is not possible in all cases, even in the context of reporting on criminal proceedings. Here too, substantial grounds are required in order to affirm that the public's interest in information, which is necessary for naming the defendant, outweighs the defendant's right to personality.