Joachim Steinhöfel against the Federal Republic of Germany: “The defeated government has no respect for fundamental rights”
Media lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel repeatedly clashes with German authorities. Is the Federal Office of Justice now seeking revenge? A conversation.
Lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel is one of the most prominent media lawyers in this country. He specializes in difficult, sensitive cases, and his success rate is exceptionally high. One of his most recent high-profile disputes concerns the Federal Office of Justice. Although the higher federal authority lost a legal battle against Steinhöfel, it refuses to comply with judicial decisions. Another dispute will be heard on Thursday.
Berliner Zeitung: Mr. Steinhöfel, you have been arguing with the Federal Office of Justice for more than two and a half years. There's a history to this. In 2022, you called Baden-Württemberg's anti-Semitism commissioner, Michael Blume, "anti-Semitic" on Twitter. Why?
Joachim Steinhöfel: Blume's antisemitic excesses are extensive. Blume has called British Major General Orde Wingate, who enjoys national hero status in Israel due to his political and military involvement in the 1930s, a 'murderer' and 'war criminal.' Former Israeli US Ambassador Michael Oren and other Israeli officials subsequently called for his resignation. The Simon Wiesenthal Center listed Blume on its 2021 list of the "Top Ten Worst Antisemitic Incidents." He was particularly criticized for supporting content that compared Zionists to Nazis or perpetuated antisemitic stereotypes. A Holocaust survivor criticized Blume for echoing the antisemitic accusation regularly leveled against Jews that "the Jews must blame themselves for antisemitism." On X, Blume distributed an antisemitic caricature by a "Palestine portal" about the Israeli journalist Benjamin Weinthal. Blume retweeted the anti-Semitic imagery depicting the misuse of the Israeli flag. "Blume is a 'useful idiot' of the anti-Semites," Prof. Dr. Michael Wolffsohn declared in the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung."
X (formerly Twitter) deleted the tweet, and they took action against it, arguing that it was a "polemical expression of opinion." Who won?
I first obtained a preliminary injunction against X and subsequently also won the main proceedings. The Regional Court found that there were "sufficient connecting factors" for labeling Blume an anti-Semite.
Is your tweet still public or has it been deleted?
The tweet is online.
Baden-Württemberg has an anti-Semitic anti-Semitism commissioner. We also remember that the state premier is a fan of wimps. pic.twitter.com/yHbN011XfT
— Steinhoefel (@Steinhoefel) September 30, 2022
You requested access to the files at the Federal Office for Justice (BfJ) to find out which people were involved in requesting the tweet to be deleted. Were you able to find out their names?
Since the Federal Office of Justice ignored an unappealable court decision... not yet.
For the record: You went to the Bonn District Court and requested access to the files at the Federal Office for Justice. The court granted you access. But the agency blocked your request. Correct?
The Federal Office of Justice has announced through an incompetent and subordinate employee that it will not grant access to the files for the time being, despite the final decision.
You then informed the public about the incident on X. You wrote in a tweet: "I have won a legally binding case against the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Office of Justice, according to which I must be granted access to the files. An incompetent clerk there (linked to profile) now believes she can ignore this decision." You called the officer who wrote you the email a "subordinate" and "incompetent clerk." You also published a profile picture of the officer wearing a headscarf.
I've linked to the LinkedIn profile created and made public by the caseworker herself, in which she also names her employer and shows a photo. The public has a right to know who in an agency subordinate to the Ministry of Justice believes they can ignore a court decision.
Following your protest on X, the Federal Office for Justice filed a complaint against you with the Hanseatic Bar Association, claiming that you had defamed the BfJ's advisor, whose profile they had made public. They accuse you of slander and insult, and demand disciplinary action. How did you respond to the accusation?
With a request for an injunction against these violations of personal rights. The state, directly bound by fundamental rights, is prohibited by the general right to personal rights from making derogatory remarks about a citizen without justifiable cause, such as making disparaging comments about an opinion held by that citizen. Even more drastic was the state's attempt to take legal action against the legitimate expression of opinion. This was as impertinent and intrusive as it was legally ridiculous.
Has the Hanseatic Bar Association decided on sanctions against you?
Of course not. My statements are not only clearly permissible and accurate, they are also protected by freedom of expression.
You won more than a dozen cases against the Federal Republic of Germany in 2024. Do you see the Federal Office for Justice's fight against you as an act of revenge by the Federal Republic?
That's speculative, but you can probably see it that way. The score in the cases I won against the Federal Republic of Germany in 2024, all the way up to the Constitutional Court, is 16:0. This is, of course, particularly humiliating. It's proof that the defeated government has no respect for the fundamental rights of citizens and journalists.
As you mentioned, you have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Federal Republic of Germany. This will be heard before the Higher Administrative Court for North Rhine-Westphalia on Thursday. What does the motion entail, and when can we expect a decision?
I demand that the state prohibit various statements in the complaint addressed to the Bar Association. These include the allegation of committing "crimes" of insult and defamation and the demand that I be "held accountable under professional law." The Bar Association, of course, failed miserably in this regard.
How do you assess the Federal Office for Justice's actions against you? An agency directly subordinate to the Ministry of Justice believes it must ignore final court decisions and then files a completely hopeless complaint, approved by the agency's top management, against the lawyer who caused this defeat in court. This demonstrates that the incompetence lies not only with the subordinate employees, but also with the agency's top management.
Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]
Berliner-zeitung
