Hamburg Court Dismisses Lawsuits Against Correctiv Over Potsdam Meeting Report

The Hamburg Regional Court has rejected two lawsuits filed against the investigative journalism platform Correctiv and five of its staff members regarding their reporting on a controversial gathering known as the Potsdam meeting. The legal challenge was initiated by Ulrich Vosgerau, a participant in the event, and Gernot Mörig, who organized the meeting. Both sought to prohibit certain statements made in Correctiv's report, which had drawn significant public attention and led to widespread demonstrations across Germany against right-wing extremism and exclusion.

At the center of the legal dispute was Correctiv's article titled "Geheimplan gegen Deutschland" (Secret Plan Against Germany), which alleged that the Potsdam meeting included discussions around the concept of 'remigration'--a term used in far-right circles referring to the deportation or expulsion of migrants and, in this context, allegedly of German citizens with migrant backgrounds. The concept was reportedly introduced by Martin Sellner, a known figure in Austria's Identitarian Movement.

The plaintiffs argued that the Correctiv report misrepresented the meeting's discussions, particularly objecting to the characterization of the 'remigration' proposal as a 'master plan for the expulsion of German citizens.' They sought to prevent Correctiv from making such statements in their coverage.

The court, however, found that the readers of the Correctiv article could distinguish between factual reporting and the editorial interpretation or commentary provided by the publication. The presiding judge, Kristina Feustel, stated that it was clear from the report which sections were direct recounting of the meeting's proceedings and which were broader analyses or evaluations by the authors. Therefore, the court concluded that the article did not claim that the participants had literally used terms like 'expulsion' or explicitly advocated for the removal of German citizens from the country.

Furthermore, the court determined that neither Vosgerau nor Mörig were entitled to demand the removal of the contested statements. Their request for an injunction was denied on the grounds that the reporting did not breach their rights and did not constitute an unlawful assertion of fact. The judgments are not yet legally binding and may be appealed.

The Correctiv investigation, published in January 2024, brought national attention to the Potsdam meeting, which took place in November 2023 and included members of both the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in addition to far-right activists. The revelations prompted hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets across Germany, protesting against racism and the perceived normalization of extremist ideas.

The Hamburg court's rulings underscore the importance of differentiating between factual claims and editorial perspectives in journalistic reporting, particularly in coverage of politically sensitive and polarizing topics. The case highlights ongoing debates in Germany about the boundaries of investigative journalism, freedom of the press, and the responsibilities of media outlets in informing the public about developments in the political landscape.