In its decision of August 3, 2017, the OVG Berlin Brandenburg ruled that a claim for information under press law can also exist against the Federal Chancellery surrounding Angela Merkel (Ref.: OVG 6 S 9.17; OVG 6 S 12.17).
The entire Federal Chancellery was therefore obliged to provide information about the content of certain files.
Chancellery around Angela Merkel must provide information
In one of the two proceedings, the Chancellery’s appeal against the previous decision of the Berlin Administrative Court (judgment of 13.03.2017 – 27 L 502.16) was unsuccessful.
It had obliged the Federal Chancellery to disclose information about the much-discussed Böhmermann case under the title “defamatory criticism” against the Turkish president.
No grounds against a general right to information under press law
The court reasoned that the Federal Chancellery had not put forward any convincing arguments against the basic obligation to provide information.
Accordingly, it was also unable to put forward any interests worthy of protection that would stand in the way of a general right to information under press law.
In the appeal proceedings before the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, the Federal Chancellery also did not succeed in presenting any interests of the Federal Chancellery worthy of protection against the general right to information under press law.
No right to information regarding knowledge of initiated criminal proceedings
In the second proceedings, however, the Federal Chancellery’s appeal was successful.
It opposed the legal opinion of the VG, which had ordered the Federal Chancellery to provide information.
It was supposed to provide the press representatives with information on whether Chancellor Angela Merkel was aware of criminal charges brought by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for betraying secrets.
This was reported by the political online blog “netzpolitik.org”.
According to the OVG’s press release, the reason for the decision was that the press representative was unable to credibly demonstrate the urgency of his request, especially as he had already received the information informally beforehand.
In principle, claims for information can be denied
However, the court also makes it clear in its statements that information can certainly be refused.
However, only if the disclosure of the information would have a negative impact on international relations.
However, it is not sufficient to merely make a general reference to incidents that have led to foreign policy tensions between two states in the past
Both resolutions are incontestable.