2024-04-19 13:40:38
Former “Bild” editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt accused the government of having transferred hundreds of millions of euros to the Taliban. The case ended up in court.
In the dispute over criticism of the federal government, the former “Bild” editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt prevailed with a constitutional complaint at the Federal Constitutional Court. Reichelt had appealed to Germany’s highest court against an interim injunction from the Berlin Court of Appeal, which prohibited him from making critical statements about the federal government.
The Federal Constitutional Court said on Tuesday in Karlsruhe that the decision of the Chamber Court violated Reichelt’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. It misses the meaning of the attacked statement and its character as an expression of opinion. In principle, the state also has to withstand harsh and polemical criticism. The case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal and must be reheard there.
370 million euros to Taliban
Reichelt wrote on the online platform X in August 2023 that Germany had paid 370 million euros in development aid to the Taliban in the past two years. The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) submitted an application for an interim injunction.
The Berlin Court of Appeal then banned Reichelt, who now works for the “Nius” portal, from disseminating or publishing the statement. It is an “untrue statement of fact” that is likely to endanger the public’s trust in the work of the federal government. The average reader understands the statement to mean that the money from the federal government went directly to the Taliban.
“It was about getting the facts right.”
According to the BMZ, the federal government’s development policy measures in Afghanistan are implemented exclusively outside the government via the World Bank, UN organizations and non-governmental organizations. There are therefore no financial commitments to the Taliban regime.
“Of course, the Development Ministry can withstand the harshest and polemical criticism,” said a BMZ spokesman on Tuesday. “For us, this process was expressly not about protecting ourselves from criticism, but rather about ensuring that the facts are correct.” That is the basis for an honest debate. “We note this ruling with respect and will not pursue litigation in this matter any further.”