Munich: Judges restrict press freedom in criminal proceedings!

Munich: Judges restrict press freedom in criminal proceedings!

The Munich Administrative Court has decided that journalists have no right to the names of defense lawyers in ongoing investigations. This decision, which was announced on June 18, 2025 (ref. M 10 E 25.3465), is based on client confidentiality in accordance with the Federal Lawyers' Act (BRAO), which is considered crucial for maintaining legal confidentiality, reports LTO. In this specific case, a journalist asked for the name of the defense attorney for a suspect in a homicide. However, the public prosecutor refused to provide information and referred to client confidentiality.

The administrative court argued that maintaining legal confidentiality is essential in the interests of the constitutional administration of justice. This decision is in stark contrast to a decision by the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court, which had affirmed the press's right to information in similar cases. While freedom of the press was considered more important in Hamburg, the Munich court clearly sees client confidentiality as having the upper hand without having to accept a violation of freedom of the press.

The dark sides of the right to information

But what exactly is behind the right to information under press law, which is firmly anchored in Germany by Article 5 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Basic Law? This standard is intended to ensure access to information for journalists and media companies and is an essential element of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, as stated by Herfurtner law firm is executed. In practice, however, the applicant, i.e. the journalist, must prove a legitimate interest in the requested information. Information can only be provided under certain circumstances, with the protection of personal rights and the threat to public order being relevant reasons for exclusion.

An example of this is a previous case in which a journalist sought information about police operations at his residence. Although the Munich Administrative Court placed the applicant's data protection above freedom of the press in this context, the court nevertheless confirmed the importance of public relations and the right to which the press is entitled. This shows that when it comes to claims for information under press law, it is always necessary to weigh up the rights to informational self-determination and the freedom of the press.

Wait until the main hearing

Another interesting aspect of the current situation is that, according to the VG Munich, the press has to wait until the main hearing to receive information because the investigation is not public. This could make journalistic work significantly more difficult and leads to the question: How can journalists fulfill their role as information brokers in such cases if they are denied important information?

The courts' decisions show how sensitive the balance is between freedom of the press and the rights of individual personal protection rights. The discussion about the limits of the right to information remains exciting and shows that it will continue to be necessary for journalists to know their rights and obligations and, if necessary, to consider legal action, as is the case Bavaria legislation suggests.