Lawyer for press law: injunctions and counter-statements

When reporting, injunctive relief or counter-statements set the pace

Quick start: what is your matter about?

Your contact: Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM

Partner, certified specialist lawyer for copyright and media law and for IT law (Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht, Fachanwalt für IT-Recht).

Send press law enquiry

What happens after your enquiry?

After your enquiry, we get back to you within 24 hours on working days. The first contact is free of charge. Before any costs arise, we tell you so explicitly.

1. A short description is enough. Send the article or draft, screenshots, the URL, the list of questions and the deadline. A short timeline helps with the initial assessment.
2. Receipt and initial sorting. We assess the enquiry on the basis of the project described, the documents and the apparent goal. Deadlines and dates should be clearly recognisable.
3. Suitable starting point and cost range. We clarify whether an initial consultation, a service package or a specific mandate is the next step. As soon as the scope of the review is clear, we tell you the cost range – before work begins.

Typical cases from our practice

The following scenarios are abstracted and simplified. Which solution holds up always depends on the specific facts and the contractual situation.

What you will have at the end

When you need us

Mandates in press law are rarely abstract. There is usually a specific trigger, a short window for response and the question of whether an attack, a defence or a preventive review is the better line.

Press enquiry or list of questions under deadline pressure

Before publication, the response strategy is often decisive. Not every reply makes sense, and not every non-response is tactically wise. Relevant in press law are wording, completeness, documentation and the question of how strongly the answer will later shape the framework of the publication. If you have received a press enquiry, our press and communication check sorts out deadline, allegations and options for action.

Statement of fact already published

If an article is online, printed or already being shared, the proper classification of the statement counts. Whether a statement is to be understood as a fact, a value judgement or an ambiguous combination often decides whether injunctive relief, counter-statement, correction or no claim at all is in the foreground.

Reporting on suspicions with high reputational risk

Especially with compliance allegations, internal investigations, proximity to criminal investigations, insolvency rumours, conduct of managing directors or corporate officers and allegations against exposed persons, the legal situation quickly turns on the quality of research, the hearing of the person concerned, the sources and the condensing of language.

Naming, identification or pointed headline

Many disputes arise from the identifying presentation and less often from the overall dossier. Anyone who is named, shown or made recognisable through context, although this is not necessary for the public interest in information, often has considerably better points of attack than with the mere existence of a critical topic.

Image reporting and the right to one's own image

A photo may seem harmless on its own and yet become impermissible in the published context. Crop, caption, teaser, occasion, archive reference and placement change the legal assessment considerably.

Urgent proceedings, injunctive relief, counter-statement

When reporting is to be stopped, supplemented or corrected, the choice of claim is no formality. In urgent legal protection, documentation, urgency, precision of the application and a tactically clean order of steps all count.

When press law is the right focus

Press law is not every digital disruption to one's reputation, nor is it the umbrella page for every communication problem. The focus lies where the legal assessment of the publication itself carries the case.

The page is right when these questions above all are at stake

• Is a statement of fact true, unproven or merely suggestively worded?
• Is it permissible criticism, an ambiguous statement or an attackable condensation?
• Was reporting on suspicions researched carefully enough and was the person concerned given an adequate hearing?
• Is naming, use of images or identifying reporting really necessary?
• Which response is more likely to hold: injunctive relief, counter-statement, correction, addendum, settlement or advance review?

Deliberate distinction from neighbouring pages

If platform rules, account suspensions, notice-and-action procedures or community standards form the focus, social media law or reputation protection is usually the more precise path. If the commercial weak point lies in rights of use, approvals or buy-outs, licensing & rights clearance, copyright law or publishing law go deeper. And if a matter must deliberately be handled broadly across publication, platform, reputation and exploitation, media law remains the overarching framework.

What matters most legally in press law

Good press law work begins with a precise classification of the statement, the publication format and the colliding fundamental rights positions. Only then does it become clear which claim is viable and where only legal noise would be created.

Statement of fact, value judgement and ambiguous statement

The first core question is almost always: what is actually being said? Statements of fact are capable of proof. Value judgements enjoy broad protection as long as they do not tip into Schmähkritik (abusive criticism), formal insult or hidden facts. Ambiguous statements, pointed headlines and suggestive overall presentations are particularly delicate. They often decide the success or failure of a claim.

Reporting on suspicions and journalistic diligence

Reporting on suspicions is not only about whether a suspicion is “interesting”. Decisive are a minimum body of supporting facts, robust research, a hearing of the person concerned, a fair rendering of their statement and language that does not mix suspicion and established fact. Anyone who works carelessly here often creates considerable points of attack.

Balancing freedom of the press and personality rights

Freedom of the press under Art. 5 Grundgesetz and the general right of personality stand side by side without a fixed hierarchy and must be balanced against each other in the individual case. Relevant are the content of the statement, occasion, public interest in information, position of the person concerned, prior conduct, self-disclosure, intensity of the intrusion and the sphere affected. That is precisely why absolute statements in this field are almost always unsound.

Corporate personality rights and connection to corporate officers

Press law does not only concern private individuals. Companies, shareholders, board members, managing directors and other exposed decision-makers can be considerably affected by commercially damaging reporting, misleading condensations or identifying allegations. Whether the attack hits the company, the person or both levels is central for building the claim and for litigation strategy.

Image reporting and control of context

With the right to one's own image, it is not enough to examine the photo in isolation. The legal weight often lies in the interplay of image, caption, teaser, occasion, archive use and accompanying text reporting. Particularly with publicly visible people, it is often too quickly assumed that every available image can be used in every context.

Before publication, precision counts more than volume

On the editorial side as well as on the side of those affected, pre-publication review is often the commercially best lever. A properly reviewed text, a narrow image context, a robust answer to a press enquiry or an early intervention not infrequently prevent later urgent proceedings or significantly improve their starting position.

Official reference points

• Art. 5 Grundgesetz (opens in a new tab) is the constitutional starting point for freedom of the press and its limits.
• Section 22 Kunsturhebergesetz (opens in a new tab) and Section 23 Kunsturhebergesetz (opens in a new tab) remain central for image reporting.
• The Medienanstalten (German state media authorities) on journalistic diligence in online media (opens in a new tab) provide a helpful official standard for editorial reviews.
• Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) on injunctions against image reporting (opens in a new tab) shows the continuing relevance of constitutional balancing.
• Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) on naming in a call for a demonstration (opens in a new tab) is particularly instructive on ambiguity, naming and the high threshold for financial claims.

Which claims and routes typically hold up

In press law, it is rarely the party that names as many claims as possible at once that wins. The commercially sensible line is the one that precisely targets the specific publication risk while being adapted to deadlines, provability and court practice.

Injunctive relief and preliminary injunction

When an unlawful statement, headline, image publication or essentially identical repetition must be stopped, the injunctive claim is at the centre. In urgent proceedings, urgency, precise wording of the requested prohibition, robust documentation and a clean distinction between risk of first infringement and risk of repetition count.

Counter-statement

The counter-statement is a powerful but strictly formal instrument. It typically requires a statement of fact and is not a substitute for every substantive disapproval. Even small errors in wording, compliance with deadlines or allocation to the core of the challenged statement can devalue an otherwise sensible demand for a counter-statement.

Correction, addendum and retraction

Many conflicts are not optimally resolved by building up maximum pressure alone. Especially with specialist media, industry portals, archives, press releases, interviews or linked online publications, a correction, a clear addendum or a revised version may be the commercially better goal.

Monetary compensation and damages

Financial claims are possible, but by no means automatic. Geldentschädigung (monetary compensation for non-material damage) generally requires a serious intrusion. Damages require a viable legal basis and often also a robust demonstration of specific commercial consequences. Anyone who starts here with exaggerated expectations often misses the stronger press law lever.

Pre-publication review and response strategy

Many press law mandates begin long before a lawsuit, with a draft, a delicate headline, a set of images or a list of questions. In such situations, legal advance review is often more effective than later escalation. For situations particularly close to a dispute, the line can be directly interlinked with litigation & litigation PR.

Handling of mandates before and after publication

On the publisher, editorial or company side, it is often about making a publication sound. On the side of those affected, it is more about containment, correction or stopping dissemination. In both directions, press law is very strongly shaped by medium, presentation and timing.

What is often misjudged

• Not every critical report is unlawful.
• Not every report on suspicions is impermissible, but the diligence requirements are high.
• Not every naming or use of images automatically gives rise to a payment claim.
• A counter-statement is not an all-purpose tool and often fails on formalities.
• Anyone who reacts too late often weakens their own position regarding injunctive relief and urgent legal protection.

How ITMR conducts reporting disputes

In press law in particular, the sequence is decisive. Good handling of mandates combines legal precision with an understanding of publication, control of deadlines, proper preservation of evidence and an eye for what is really to be gained commercially.

1. Properly capture the core of the statement and the publication format

Article, headline, subheadline, teaser, preview image, caption, audio or video excerpt, PDF, archive version and channels of dissemination are considered separately from the outset. Often the specific condensation is the actual point of attack, rather than the overall text.

2. Precisely select the claim and the target outcome

Injunctive relief, counter-statement, correction, addendum, settlement or advance review have different requirements and different commercial effects. Escalation is only worthwhile once the target outcome is clear.

3. Weigh urgency, evidence and procedural risk

In urgent legal protection, the perceived burden counts, and so does documented urgency. Response times, service, screenshots, sources and the wording of the application are decisive for success in many cases.

4. Consider follow-up issues from the outset

A successful injunction often does not yet fully resolve the case. Follow-up issues regarding archive versions, search results, further publications, the internal line of communication or further dissemination must be clarified early so that the dispute does not break out again elsewhere.

Obvious contacts at ITMR

For press law disputes over publications and reporting, the focus lies with Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM, with a media- and litigation-oriented focus and in-depth experience of injunctive claims under press law. Depending on the case, Emma-Marie Kürsch supports on image, copyright and publication-related topics and Otto Weidenkeller on digitally disseminated media and publication cases. For broader dispute scenarios, media law remains the overarching logic. For escalations concentrated on litigation, litigation & litigation PR can be the most relevant follow-up.

Continue to contact a press lawyer about acute reporting and coordinate a press enquiry or counter-statement now.

Situations in press law, step by step

These six articles cover the course of a press law dispute: from the enquiry before publication and the approach afterwards to the proceedings and the question of jurisdiction. Two case law atlases provide the organised body of decisions.

Press enquiry received: deadline, statement, strategy

The situation before publication. How to handle the list of questions, which deadline remains reasonable and when a statement does harm.

Taking action against a media report: claims and deadlines

The situation afterwards. Injunctive relief, counter-statement, correction and deletion compared, with the deadlines and the first step.

Warning letter and preliminary injunction in speech law

The procedural route. What a warning letter must achieve, when the urgent application holds and which deadlines jeopardise urgency.

Fliegender Gerichtsstand (forum shopping) in speech law

Where to sue. Which choice remains for online publications and which chambers take which line.

Case law atlas on speech law

Reference work. Key holdings from decisions of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Bundesgerichtshof and the Oberlandesgerichte (Higher Regional Courts), ordered by review step.

Case law on press enquiries

Reference work on the enquiry itself. Decisions on deadlines for statements, confrontation and the duty to research in chronological order.

Current in-depth articles and decisions

These articles discuss individual decisions. They supplement the situations above with the specific case: reporting on suspicions, naming, privacy and press law rights to information.

BGH: no blind trust of the press in the public prosecutor's office

Particularly relevant for duties to research, journalistic diligence and the classification of reporting on suspicions.

Liability of editors for reporting on suspicions

Explores personal and media law liability for inadequately substantiated reporting on suspicions.

BGH: damages for naming?

Helpful for classifying naming, ambiguity and the high hurdle for financial compensation claims.

No reporting on a relationship despite public visibility?

Important for balancing the public interest in information, privacy and possible self-disclosure.

Axel Springer's right to information under press law

In-depth article for publishers and journalistic media actors on information from authorities.

No right to information against the BND on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic

Shows the limits of access to information under press law and helps with a realistic forecast of claims.

When a publication or reporting cannot wait

Helpful are the specific article or draft, screenshots, the URL, the list of questions, the deadline, the complete publication context and a short timeline. The earlier these basics are organised, the more robust the press law assessment becomes.

Problem-specific entry points

• Have a press enquiry, advance review or delicate draft assessed at short notice
• Review injunctive relief, counter-statement or correction for an ongoing publication
• Switch to the broader umbrella topic of media law if the case concerns publication, platform and exploitation at the same time
• Switch to reputation protection if deletion and containment of digital attacks are in the foreground

Continue to request press law advice and go to the overarching practice area of media law.

Key terms

Tatsachenbehauptung (statement of fact)

Statement that is capable of proof.

Werturteil (value judgement)

Expression of opinion with broad protection, as long as it does not tip into abusive criticism.

Verdachtsberichterstattung (reporting on suspicions)

Report on an allegation not yet proven, which requires particular diligence.

Gegendarstellung (counter-statement)

Right to have one's own account of a statement of fact published.

Unterlassung (injunctive relief)

Claim that a specific unlawful statement be refrained from in future.

Pre-publication review

Legal review of an article before publication.

These terms explain the language used on this page. What matters is always the specific individual case.

Provisions and reliable sources

The following statutory provisions and regulations are cited on this page.

Frequently asked questions

The answers provide a robust initial orientation for professional mandates. Whether a course of action holds up nevertheless always depends on the specific core of the statement, the medium and the stage of proceedings.

Have a publication or reporting reviewed