Munich: Richter freedom freedom of the press in criminal proceedings!

Munich: Richter freedom freedom of the press in criminal proceedings!

München, Deutschland - The Munich Administrative Court has decided that journalists are not entitled to the names of defenders in current investigation. This decision, which was announced on June 18, 2025 (Az. M 10 E 25.3465), is based on the client secret in accordance with the Federal Lawyers' Ordinance (BRAO), which is considered crucial for the protection of the legal confidentiality, LTO . In the specific case, a journalist had asked about the name of the defense lawyer of a suspect in a homicide. However, the public prosecutor refused to provide information and referred to the client secret.

The administrative court argued that the preservation of legal confidentiality in the interest of the rule of law is essential. This decision is in contrast to a decision by the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court, which had affirmed the press in similar cases. While press freedom in Hamburg was considered more important, the Munich court clearly sees the client secret in the upper hand without having to accept a violation of the freedom of the press.

The dark sides of the right to information

But what exactly is behind the press law claim that is firmly anchored in Germany by Article 5 (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 press, as is carried out by law firm Herfurtner . In practice, however, the applicant, i.e. the journalist, must demonstrate a legitimate interest in the desired information. Information can only be provided under certain circumstances, whereby the protection of personal rights and the risk of public order represent relevant reasons for exclusion.

An example of this is an earlier case in which a journalist searched information about police operations on his residence. Although the Munich Administrative Court provided the applicant's data protection on the freedom of the press in this context, the court confirmed the importance of public relations and the claim that the press is entitled to. This shows that in the case of press law information claims, a weighing up between the right to informational self -determination and the freedom of the press is always necessary.

wait until the main hearing

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

The decisions of the courts show how sensitive the balance between freedom of the press and the rights of individual personal protection rights is. 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, take legal steps into account, as the Bavaria legislation suggested.