Journalists file complaint with Germany constitutional court over phone wiretapping News
Martin Kraft, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Journalists file complaint with Germany constitutional court over phone wiretapping

Three journalist organizations filed a complaint against German authorities with the country’s Federal Constitutional Court, local media reported on Wednesday. The complaint regarded investigators’ wiretapping of phone calls between journalists and climate activists. This constitutional complaint came in response to two previous verdicts issued by Munich’s District Court and Munich’s Regional Court.

The three associations that filed the complaint are the Bavarian Journalists Association (BJV), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Society for Civil Rights (GFF). They claimed that investigators illegally listened to phone conversations between journalists and members of the group the Last Generation (Letzte Generation).  They argued that this measure constituted a violation of press freedom and a threat to democracy. The Last Generation is a group of climate activists who use direct action methods such as traffic blockades and vandalism of buildings, private boats and planes to protest against and raise awareness of climate change.

According to a press release published by the GFF, the Munich prosecutor’s office surveilled the phone line provided by the Last Generation to receive journalist inquiries. The surveillance lasted for months and affected 171 journalists who were not informed by authorities of this investigative measure.

Consequently, the three journalist’s associations filed a first complaint to Munich’s District Court which ruled that the surveillance measure was lawful. The associations filed a second complaint to Munich’s Regional Court which saw the wiretapping of phone calls as “a profound interference with press freedom.” However, the court considered that the surveillance measure was “proportionate” and rejected the complaint because of an ongoing investigation at the time against seven Last Generation activists over suspicion of supporting a criminal organization. This accusation was denied by the environmental group.

The Chairman of the BJV Harald Stocker criticized both rulings and stated in a press release that before approving a wiretapping operation, judges needed to weigh up the interference with press freedom. He explained, “If judges authorize the recording of confidential conversations with journalists, they must first exhaust other options and carefully examine and justify the benefits.” He also added, regarding the Regional Court’s verdict, that it wasn’t sufficient to recognize several months later that the wiretapping operation constituted an interference with press freedom and at the same time uphold the measure as lawful.

Furthermore, the BJV Managing Director Dennis Amour described the surveillance of journalists’ phone conversations as a “disproportionate” measure that the courts shouldn’t use to circumvent the protection of reporters bound by professional secrecy.

By raising this complaint, the concerned journalists want to ensure that in the future, all courts carefully consider the impact on press freedom and provide a documented assessment of alternatives before approving any surveillance measures.

As environmental protests escalated in many European countries, a July Human Rights Watch report revealed that governments have also intensified suppressive measures to quell activists’ dissent.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Anti-apartheid activist Stephen Biko died in police custody

On September 12, 1977, South African anti-apartheid activist Stephen Biko died in police custody after having suffered a massive head injury during interrogation following his arrest. The story of journalist Donald Woods' investigation into the circumstances of Biko's death was the basis of the 1987 film Cry Freedom. Read an address on Stephen Biko delivered by then-South African President Nelson Mandela on the 20th anniversary of Biko's death in 1997.

Supreme Court unanimously rejects state challenge Brown v. Board of Education

On September 12, 1958, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a state government challenge to Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, which had overturned segregation. In Cooper vs. Aaron, the State Government of Arkansas challenged the authority of the Court to implement desegregation. The Court responded by forcefully re-asserting its authority and the authority of the federal government over the states.