The Karlsruhe Constitutional Court has ordered that Katherina Reiche, a CDU politician, must remove a video from the Instagram profile of the Ministry of Economics, which she oversees. The video contained antisemitic associations targeting the Left party. The court made this expedited ruling by a vote of six to two.
The court stated that if Reiche fails to comply with the interim order and the disputable reel remains on the Ministry’s profile, a later arbitration suit might succeed, but the continuous spread of the “serious negative attributions” made in the reel would cause the appellant a severe, irreparable disadvantage concerning her right to equal participation in the political contest. This concerns the current discussions regarding government formation in Berlin.
The ruling specifically questions whether Reiche crossed the boundaries set by the duty of factual accuracy through her “potentially derogatory formulations” and “sharply worded and at least polemical accusations.”
The court clarified that Reiche remains free to express herself as a party politician or private citizen during the proceedings, regardless of the main case’s outcome, under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Furthermore, she is not barred from objectively pointing out current or emerging dangers to Germany’s industrial and investment location-as she assesses-while in her governmental capacity. However, she must comply with constitutional requirements and refrain from the specific designations and evaluations of the Left that appeared in the reel.
The Left party welcomed the quick judicial decision. Janis Ehling, the party’s Federal Chief of Staff, told the “Spiegel” that the CDU minister’s widespread campaign against the Left “is simply collapsing like a house of cards.” Ehling argued that instead of using her office for factual political debate, Reiche tried to discredit the Left through targeted insinuations. He criticized the minister, saying that “a minister misusing political power for such a smear campaign is profoundly disgraceful and raises serious questions about her understanding of her office.”
