Lawyer for Suspicious Reporting: When a Suspicion Becomes a Headline
The district attorney’s office is investigating—maybe the police were even at your door to conduct a search—and now a news outlet is asking for your statement. Or perhaps the article has already been posted online. A preliminary investigation or a search does not in any way authorize the press to identify you as a suspect. We make sure those boundaries are respected—before the report spreads.
Known for:
A search is not yet proof
A prosecutor finds herself under investigation: She is being investigated on suspicion of perverting the course of justice; her home and office have been searched; and she has been barred from performing her official duties for months. An online media outlet reports on the story—using a changed name, but with so many details that colleagues in the judiciary immediately know who is involved.
The Aachen Regional Court saw no problem with this. The Cologne Higher Regional Court did: In a ruling dated September 9, 2025 (15 W 88/25), it prohibited the identifying reporting. The initiation of a preliminary investigation is not sufficient evidence of suspicion—nor is a search. This is because a mere initial suspicion is sufficient for both.
Notably, after the publication, the person concerned had even thanked the editor for the comparatively responsible reporting. Nevertheless, her subsequent action did not constitute an abuse of the law. She had simply assumed she would have to accept the report—and only learned from her attorneys that, at that stage of the proceedings, identifying reporting was not permitted at all.
This is exactly what we see time and again in practice: Those affected consider reports on ongoing investigations to be beyond challenge. Often, they are not.
Preliminary suspicion under criminal procedure law does not constitute sufficient grounds for suspicion under press law.
What is "reporting on suspected cases"?
“Allegation-based reporting” refers to situations in which the media reports on an allegation that has not yet been proven—typically regarding a possible criminal offense, but also regarding serious professional or ethical misconduct. In principle, the press is permitted to do so. Reporting on wrongdoing is one of its core responsibilities, and no one can demand that newsrooms wait until a final judgment is handed down before publishing every story.
Things get tricky as soon as the report identifies the person involved. This is where two fundamental rights clash: freedom of expression and freedom of the press under Article 5, Section 1 of the German Constitution (GG) on the one hand, and your general right to privacy under Article 1, Section 1 and Article 2, Section 1 of the GG on the other—along with the presumption of innocence. An identifying report based on suspicion can have a public shaming effect that no subsequent acquittal can undo. Once someone appears in a search engine in connection with a suspicion, they won’t be able to shake it off anytime soon.
"Identifying" does not mean "by full name"
Many newsrooms assume that an abbreviation or a changed first name is sufficient. The courts see it differently. You are considered identifiable if even a portion of the readership—colleagues, clients, neighbors, or people in the industry—knows who is being referred to based on the circumstances provided. Occupation, position, place of residence, employer, a distinctive detail from a resume: In the Cologne case, the combination of job title, a search of the workplace, and months of absence from the office was sufficient.
Who It Affects
Entrepreneurs and CEOs
Investigations into fraud, embezzlement, or tax offenses are a goldmine for business media. Even the mere report of such an investigation can cause banks, investors, and business partners to pull out.
Creators, Artists, and Familiar Faces
If you have a wide reach, you’ll make the news faster. A rumor spreads across social media within hours—and partners don’t ask too many questions.
Professionals and Public Officials
Doctors, lawyers, civil servants, teachers: Their professional livelihoods depend on trust. That is precisely why, in these cases, just a few details are often enough to make them recognizable to those around them.
The Four Requirements for Permissible Reporting on Suspected Cases
In its established case law, the Federal Court of Justice has developed standards against which all identifying reporting based on suspicion must be measured. The Federal Constitutional Court has expressly endorsed these principles. If even one requirement is missing, the report is generally unlawful—and you can demand that it be stopped.
1
A minimum set of evidentiary facts
There must be concrete facts that support the validity of the suspicion and give it “news value” in the first place. Rumors, anonymous tips, or the mere fact that investigative authorities have taken action are not sufficient. The more serious the allegation, the more robust the evidence must be. In practice, most reports fail to meet this requirement—and this is the focus of current case law.
2
No Prejudgment
The report must not give the impression that you have already been convicted of the crime. It must remain clear to the reader that this is merely a suspicion. One-sided, sensationalized, or exaggerated portrayals are not permitted, and exculpatory circumstances must be included in the text. A headline that presents suspicion as fact is enough to make the entire report open to criticism.
3
Opportunity to Comment
Before publication, the editorial staff must, as a general rule, hear your side of the story—and do so in enough detail that you can understand what allegations are being made. A deadline of just a few hours or a vague request generally does not fulfill this obligation. If you issue a statement, its essential content must be included in the report. How you respond to such a request often determines how things proceed from there.
4
A matter of grave importance
The matter must be one where reporting it is justified by a genuine public interest in the information. In the case of a person who is not in the public eye, and in the case of an allegation of minor significance, this balancing of interests often favors the person concerned. The situation is different for the CEO of a DAX-listed company.
Why Investigations Alone Are Not Enough
The key to current case law lies not in press law, but in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The public prosecutor’s office and the police must take action even when the level of suspicion is very low. That is precisely what makes a preliminary investigation such weak evidence of a publicly raised suspicion.
§ 152(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) · Principle of Legality
§
“Unless otherwise provided by law, it is obligated to take action regarding all prosecutable criminal offenses, provided there is sufficient factual evidence.”
IN PLAIN LANGUAGE
The public prosecutor’s office must launch an investigation as soon as there are initial concrete indications—what is known as “initial suspicion.” A criminal complaint with reasonably plausible content may be sufficient for this purpose. Under criminal procedure, a search also requires only such an initial suspicion. The preliminary investigation does not determine whether the suspicion is confirmed. Therefore, the statement “The public prosecutor’s office is investigating” is not, in and of itself, a free pass for a report that includes your name.
Three levels of suspicion—and only one matters to the press
In cases of suspicion, people tend to lump everything together. The courts make a clear distinction between what entitles law enforcement to take action and what entitles the press to report in a way that identifies individuals.
Initial suspicion
§ 152(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The lowest threshold. It is sufficient to initiate a preliminary investigation and to take measures such as searches. However, it is not sufficient on its own to produce a report that identifies you.
Reasonable Suspicion
Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
A conviction must be likely. Only then will the court open the main trial following the filing of charges. The opening of the trial is a much stronger hook for the press.
Minimum Requirements Under Press Law
Case Law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG)
It’s not a rigid standard, but rather a matter of concrete evidence: What facts has the editorial staff uncovered that actually support your suspicion? That depends on the gravity of the allegation and the public interest.
The most dangerous equation in press law is therefore: Search = substantiated suspicion. It doesn’t hold up. The correct sequence is: Search → Initial suspicion → not yet sufficient minimum evidence. What must be added beyond that is a matter of the individual case—and this is precisely where we come in.
What Can Count as Evidence—and What Cannot
There is no definitive list; case law always decides on a case-by-case basis. However, practical experience provides an indication of the general trend. Greater weight is given to circumstances that go beyond mere investigative measures and shed light on the allegation itself: documents that the editorial staff has reviewed and verified; consistent statements from multiple independent informants; the filing of an indictment or the court’s opening of the main trial; statements made by the person concerned; or a public announcement by an authority that specifically names the person concerned.
By contrast, the mere report that an investigation is underway, the fact of a search, a criminal complaint—which anyone can file, including an angry competitor or an ex-partner— general statements such as “There are irregularities,” and information from a single source with a recognizable vested interest. Criminal complaints arising from a dispute are a classic example: Anyone who wants to escalate a conflict publicly files a complaint and then informs the press. In the worst-case scenario, the editorial staff then uncritically adopts the complainant’s perspective.
Timing is also crucial. The editorial staff must have had the supporting evidence before publication. Evidence presented only during the trial offers only limited redemption for a report—and in the Cologne trial of February 2026, no new evidence was presented during the proceedings. For you, this means: The case often hinges on the question of what the editorial staff actually knew. That’s exactly what we’re working to determine.
Contact
How to Reach Us
Choose the option that works best for you—we'll get back to you quickly.
Schedule an appointment
Right in our calendar – choose your preferred date
What'sApp
Quick Questions, Quick Answers
Phone
Available directly Mon–Fri
Write to us about what's on your mind
Current Case Law: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Higher Regional Court of Cologne
Between fall 2025 and spring 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court and the 15th Civil Division of the Cologne Higher Regional Court—which handles press law cases—significantly tightened the legal standards. Cologne is by no means a minor player in this regard: The Senate is one of the most important adjudicating bodies in Germany when it comes to freedom of expression, and many press cases end up right here.
Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of November 3, 2025 – 1 BvR 573/25 · Wirecard Coverage
Der SPIEGEL had been ordered by the Munich Higher Regional Court to cease publishing text and image-based reports related to the Wirecard scandal. Its constitutional complaint was successful: The Federal Constitutional Court overturned the decision and remanded the case.
For those affected, the decision is nevertheless important, as it confirms two fundamental principles. First, requiring a minimum threshold of factual evidence is not constitutionally objectionable. Second, according to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the mere initiation of a preliminary investigation is generally insufficient as a basis for publishing a suspicion—the court also expressly endorsed this.
At the same time, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe draws a line in the other direction: the press’s duty of care must not be overstretched. The admissibility of a report does not depend on the suspicion reaching a certain degree of probability. The more serious the allegation, the higher the standards for evidence—but the greater the public interest in the matter, the more weight freedom of the press carries on the other side. In the case of a scandal involving billions and the participation of executive board members, this balancing of interests turns out differently than in the case of a private individual.
Cologne Higher Regional Court, Order of September 9, 2025 – 15 W 88/25 · A search is not sufficient
The case of the prosecutor described at the beginning. The Senate clarifies: The mere initiation of a preliminary investigation is not sufficient to meet the minimum standard of evidence—and the same applies to the search of residential and office premises, because these, too, require only an initial suspicion.
Even the public prosecutor’s office’s statement that “irregularities” had been identified was of no help to the editorial staff. While the press may place greater trust in official statements, However, information that was not intended for the public and merely refers to irregularities in general terms does not constitute evidence that substantiates the suspicion.
Regarding the proceedings themselves: The affected party issued a warning letter on August 14, 2025, and filed the motion for a preliminary injunction on August 18, 2025, after the deadline had expired. The Regional Court dismissed it, but the Higher Regional Court issued the preliminary injunction upon immediate appeal—without an oral hearing, because the article was still accessible.
Cologne Higher Regional Court, Judgment of February 19, 2026 – 15 U 161/25 (unpublished) · Reporting on Suspected Criminal Activity Following a Search
This decision has not been published. We are familiar with it from a professional training session in which it was presented by the Senate, and we are summarizing the key points presented there.
The Senate considers reporting based on suspicion to be unlawful because there was a lack of a minimum threshold of factual evidence. It is generally accepted that the initiation of a preliminary investigation is not sufficient, and even a search requires only an initial suspicion. With regard to the due diligence requirements, the Senate—expressly with reference to the Federal Constitutional Court’s Wirecard decision—takes the public interest into account. That interest was minimal in this case because the plaintiff was not in the public eye.
There were no concrete findings regarding the alleged offenses, and no further factual evidence was presented during the trial. Of particular practical relevance: A press release from the authority was not sufficient as evidence—because the plaintiff was not named in it. Anyone who makes the connection to the individual on their own cannot rely on the official source.
The line is thus clear: The Federal Constitutional Court protects the press from excessive requirements, while the Cologne Higher Regional Court protects those affected from reports based solely on criminal proceedings. The two go hand in hand—what matters is what was investigated in each individual case and who is affected.
Do you have a press inquiry on your desk?
Before you reply—talk to us.
The letter to the editor is often the most important document in the entire process. A single poorly worded sentence can make or break a story. During a no-obligation initial consultation, we’ll determine whether we can take on your case and discuss the cost of our services.
Where are you right now?
The options available to you depend primarily on one question. Before publication, the goal is to prevent the report from being released in its planned form. Afterward, the goal is to get it taken down from the internet as quickly as possible.
THE CRUCIAL QUESTION
Has the report about you been published yet?
Yes—the article is available online or in print
- – Save the entire article: Take a screenshot including the date, URL, headline, images, and social media teaser
- – Do not call the editorial office yourself to “set the record straight”
- – Do not post comments under the article or make any posts about the matter
- – The clock is ticking: For emergency legal protection, the courts expect prompt action
We will then pursue a cease-and-desist order through a formal warning and a preliminary injunction, and, if necessary, a right of reply and removal from search engines.
No—just a press inquiry so far
- – Save the request, including all questions and the specified deadline
- – Do not comment spontaneously over the phone, not even “just briefly”
- – Do not hand over any documents until it is clear what effect they will have
- – A deadline that’s too tight isn’t a reason to panic—it’s a bargaining chip
Then it's a matter of issuing a coordinated statement and—where necessary—making it clear to the editorial staff what they are not allowed to publish in this form.
Procedure
From the press inquiry to the ban
Four steps—and at every stage, you'll know exactly where we're at.
Save
Inquiries, deadlines, articles, images, teasers, social media posts. Without complete documentation, you won't have the basis for any future requests.
Classify
What evidence does the editorial staff actually have? Are you recognizable? Were you given a fair hearing? Where does the text cross the line into prejudgment?
Issue a warning
The editorial staff is given a short deadline to issue a cease-and-desist letter. Before publication, a notice under press law can halt the report.
Enforce
If the editorial staff does not comply, a motion for a preliminary injunction will be filed—if necessary, all the way up to the Higher Regional Court.
Send us the link to the article or the press inquiry—we'll get back to you shortly.
Why Every Week Counts
Press law is a matter of urgency. In practice, the right to injunctive relief is almost always enforced by means of a preliminary injunction, because proceedings on the merits can take months—and during that time, an unlawful article continues to be read, shared, and indexed by search engines. The downside: If you wait too long, you show the court that you’re clearly in no hurry. Then there’s no basis for the injunction, and the fast track is blocked.
In the Cologne case involving the prosecutor, four days elapsed between the cease-and-desist letter and the application for an emergency injunction. That’s no coincidence—it’s a matter of strategy. How lenient courts are regarding time limits varies from court to court and case to case—you shouldn’t count on it.
Added to this is the ripple effect. A report alleging infringement rarely stands alone. Other media outlets pick up the story, blogs and forums take it up, and comments take on a life of their own. The sooner the first report is stopped, the easier it is to challenge the subsequent reports. If you wait weeks to respond, you’ll be fighting a dozen sources instead of just one.
"A search—and tomorrow it'll be in the paper?"
If you act quickly, you're up against one item. If you wait, you're up against a dozen.
What the Press Is Allowed to Do - and Where the Line Is Drawn
Honesty means recognizing that not every critical report is illegal. Freedom of the press is a precious right, and the Federal Constitutional Court has just emphasized that the demands placed on newsrooms must not be excessive. Otherwise, abuses would no longer be reported at all. A good defense, therefore, begins with a realistic assessment.
The press is allowed to do that on a regular basis
- – Report on the incident itself, as long as the person remains unidentifiable
- – Place greater trust in official statements
- – Decide, based on their own journalistic criteria, what is in the public interest
- – Report in a way that identifies individuals when there is significant public interest and well-substantiated suspicion
Things are getting tight for newsrooms here
- – The report is based solely on preliminary investigations or searches
- – The authorities did not name you; the editorial staff is drawing the connection on its own
- – You were not given a chance to respond, or were given too little notice
- – The headline or image suggests that you are guilty
- – You are not in the public eye
What if the case is later dismissed?
If the suspicion turns out to be unfounded, a report that was originally permissible does not automatically become unlawful. However, case law grants you the right to have the editorial staff subsequently inform you that, after the facts have been clarified, the suspicion is no longer being upheld. For archived articles that are permanently available online, it comes down to a balancing of interests: If the report was inadmissible from the outset, it remains so in the archive. If it was admissible, case law from the Federal Constitutional Court often allows it to remain—but not necessarily unchanged in every case. It’s worth taking a closer look here, especially if the report still appears at the top of search results years later.
Right of Reply, Cease-and-Desist, Removal—Which Is the Right Choice?
A right of reply gives your side of the story space in the same publication, but does not prevent the original report from being published. A cease-and-desist order stops the report from being published in its current form. Removal from search engines ensures that the article no longer appears when someone searches for your name. Often, a combination of both is the right approach—which one depends on what is causing you the most harm.
Attorney Patrick Rehkatsch
Attorney Specializing in Copyright and Media Law · Founder of REHKATSCH RECHTSANWÄLTE
“A suspicion spreads quickly and is hard to contain. That’s why we act before a story takes hold.”
For more than 20 years, Patrick Rehkatsch has represented clients in press and media law; the firm has handled approximately 5,000 cases during this time. Based in Cologne, he is familiar with the case law of the Senate at the Cologne Higher Regional Court responsible for press law from his own practice—and also follows it firsthand through professional development courses.
Frequently Asked Questions About Suspicion-Based Reporting
Regarding the incident, yes; regarding you as an identifiable individual, only under strict conditions. The press needs a minimum amount of factual evidence, must not prejudge you, must hear your side of the story beforehand, and the matter must be of significant importance. According to case law, the mere fact that an investigation is underway is generally not sufficient.
Not on its own. In 2025 and 2026, the Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled that a search—just like the initiation of a preliminary investigation—requires only an initial suspicion. That alone does not constitute a sufficient minimum body of evidence for an identifying report. The decisive factor is what specific evidence the editorial staff has in addition to that.
Often, yes. It’s enough if some of the readers can identify you based on the information provided—such as your profession, position, location, or distinctive details. A changed name or initials won’t protect the editorial staff if the rest of the text makes it clear to those around you who you are.
There is no obligation to respond. However, remaining silent has consequences: The editorial staff may note this, and your perspective will be missing from the report. Conversely, a thoughtless response could provide the evidence that the editorial team has been lacking. Therefore, the rule is: Don’t respond spontaneously; instead, coordinate your statement—this is often the most important step in the entire process.
As soon as possible. A preliminary injunction requires that the matter be urgent—and the courts assess this in part based on how long you yourself have waited. If you hesitate for weeks, you risk losing the opportunity for prompt legal protection. Therefore, it’s best to contact us immediately after receiving a press inquiry or after the publication.
During a no-obligation initial consultation, we’ll determine whether we can take on your case and what the consultation will cost. The initial consultation starts at €250 plus VAT. If you successfully enforce your claim for an injunction, the losing party—typically the editorial office—will bear the costs of the legal proceedings.
In that case, you can generally request that the editorial staff issue a subsequent statement clarifying that the allegation is unfounded. If the original report was unlawful, you can also request that it be removed. For archived articles, the decision depends on a case-by-case assessment.
It can be one component. With a counterstatement, you present your view of the facts in the same medium—without having to prove that the report was false. However, it does not prohibit the report itself. An injunction is the more effective remedy against an impermissible report based on suspicion. Learn more on our page about right of reply.