Enlarge image
“Correctiv” book “The AfD Complex”: Non-profit research
Photo: Hendrik Schmidt/dpa
On January 10th of this year, a revelation by the research network “Correctiv” shocked the Republic. Reporters had discovered that plans for large-scale "remigration" were discussed at a meeting of right-wing extremists, right-wing conservatives and AfD officials in November in a villa on Lehnitzsee in Potsdam. This is a euphemistic term for the deportation of millions of immigrants and Germans with a migration background.
Since the report, a battle has been raging over the interpretation of this meeting and the content discussed there, which is also being fought out in court. In two cases, the Hamburg Higher Regional Court heard several points that had not previously been objected to in the regional court. And in the second instance the decision was entirely in favor of “Correctiv”.
Victory in court
For example, the constitutional lawyer Ulrich Vosgerau, who prevailed in the first instance on one of three points, failed in his appeal against the regional court's decision. Among other things, he had unsuccessfully chalked up passages that were about himself. And the question of whether his statements were reproduced correctly.
Enlarge image
Guesthouse in Potsdam
Photo: Jens Kalaene/dpa
The higher regional court has now rejected his complaint. Accordingly, the article neither gave rise to "an inaccurate impression" of the research request to Vosgerau, which his lawyer from the Höcker law firm had claimed - nor were his answers "reproduced in an inadmissible shortened manner." The judges do not see the “distorted picture” of his answers that Vosgerau complained about.
No pillory effect
The participant Klaus Nordmann also completely failed in his appeal against the first instance decision before the Higher Regional Court. Among other things, he had unsuccessfully defended himself against appearing by name and as a “major AfD donor” in the “Correctiv” report. The court's decision now states that the term is "also and especially permissible in the context of reporting."
The applicant also has no claim against “Correctiv” to “refrain from mentioning his name in the context of reporting.” According to the presiding judges, there can be “no question of a pillory effect.” In the court's opinion, Nordmann would also have to accept possible negative effects of the reporting, if they even existed in his case.
Both decisions are provisional; Vosgerau and Nordmann can still file a so-called main action.
Particularly important for journalists is a paragraph in which the judges pick apart the opposing side's narrative. “Correctiv” itself had made it clear that the “idea created by manipulatively staged evaluations” of the expulsion of German citizens based on racist criteria was “wrong,” the lawyer for the Potsdam participants claimed. Not true, says the Higher Regional Court.
“The court made it clear that we did not take back anything from the core at the time and that both complaints were unsuccessful,” write the “Correctiv” creators on LinkedIn. “What we wrote is there.”
rai