Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Miersch/Maxeiner v. Germany

Geography
Year
2013
Document Type
Litigation

About this case

Filing year
2013
Status
Dismissed
Court/admin entity
GermanyHalleAdministrative Court
Case category
Suits against governments (Global)Access to information (Global)
Principal law
GermanyLaw Establishing Federal Environment Ministry
At issue
Challenge to Environment Agency's public characterization of two journalists as “climate change skeptics.”
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
01/26/2017
Higher Administrative Court of Sachsen-Anhalt (in German)
Decision

Summary

In August 2013, two journalists who had written various articles across different outlets questioning prevailing theories on climate change, brought suit in the Administrative Court of Halle. They requested the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) to cease and desist from publishing certain statements in a brochure, which referred to the journalists by name and identified them – amongst others – as “climate-change sceptics”. The journalists based their claim on a breach of their rights to privacy enshrined in Article 2 of the Basic Law (Germany’s constitution). In late November 2015, the court ruled that the federal privacy protection laws did not prevent the Agency from publishing the brochure. Although the court recognized the validity of the journalists’ rights to privacy in general, it concluded that they were not affected in the present case. The court also noted that the Environment Agency was not restricted to neutrality in its publications. To the contrary, the court stated that the Agency’s task is to educate the public on environmental issues and to conduct scientific research, which necessarily presupposes that it – objectively – also deals with third party publications in an evaluative manner, to be able to inform the public about them. The High Administrative Court of Sachsen-Anhalt rejected the journalists' appeal of the lower court's decision in March 2017, as it could not find “serious doubts” as to the validity of the decision.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Risk
Impacted group
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance