Danger to press freedom: Investigative journalist sentenced for quoting from court order

Provision § 353 d No. 3 of the German criminal code prohibits quoting from documents relating to ongoing criminal proceedings and thus violates the freedom of the press. Investigative journalist Carsten Janz was convicted on the basis of this provision – now we are taking his case to the Federal Constitutional Court.

Become a supporting member today

The GFF is bringing the case of investigative journalist Carsten Janz before the Federal Constitutional Court. Janz had published two short passages from a court order in an article in 2023. He was subsequently sentenced in two instances to a fine of 40 daily rates for prohibited communications about court hearings in accordance with Section 353d No. 3 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The case highlights how the criminal provision jeopardizes freedom of the press and puts pressure on journalistic work.

Benjamin Lück

Lawyer and case coordinator

“Carsten Janz was only doing his job as a journalist. It is unacceptable that he is punished solely for quoting from court rulings. This provision threatens critical reporting and freedom of the press – and that is precisely what we are now clarifying before the Federal Constitutional Court.

Show person

In December 2023, Carsten Janz reported on the news portal t-online about an ongoing investigation by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor General's Office in connection with a mass shooting. In his article, he quoted two short passages from a ruling by the Hamburg Regional Court, which declared a house search to be unlawful. First the Hamburg District Court and then the Hamburg Regional Court sentenced him to a fine of 40 daily rates in accordance with Section 353d No. 3 StGB.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT MUST CLARIFY FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE

In September 2025, the Hamburg Higher Regional Court rejected the appeal without giving reasons at the request of the Attorney General's Office. The court did not comment on the constitutionality of the provision. In October 2025, the GFF and Carsten Janz took the case to the Federal Constitutional Court to clarify this fundamental question.

Quotations from documents relating to ongoing proceedings are prohibited

The criminal provision prohibits the public communication of “the indictment or other official documents of criminal proceedings [...] in whole or in substantial part, in their wording” if they are part of ongoing proceedings. In practice, this means that it is forbidden to quote verbatim from such documents - Carsten Janz's case shows that this even applies to very short quotations. Paraphrases are possible in principle. However, in order to deal with court arguments, the wording is often important. The standard makes quotes in the wording impossible and thus unjustifiably restricts the freedom of the press.

Provision does not provide for any exceptions

The provision is intended to protect the personal rights of parties to proceedings and also to prevent lay judges or witnesses from being influenced in a subsequent main hearing. The fact that it does not provide for any exceptions for journalistic reporting is problematic in terms of fundamental rights. Both the European Court of Human Rights and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) emphasize in their case law that such considerations must always be weighed against the freedom of the press. The BGH has even specifically questioned whether Section 353d No. 3 StGB is constitutional.

GFF also represents Arne Semsrott

The GFF is also active in the criminal proceedings of FragDenStaat editor-in-chief Arne Semsrott, who was also found guilty of violating the standard by the Berlin Regional Court in October 2024. We have filed an appeal with him against this verdict and are jointly appealing to the BGH.