We remember: The "Bild" journalist Lydia Rosenfelder wanted to know from the Federal Constitutional Court how the joint dinner of the judges with Angela Merkel and some federal ministers on 30 June 2021 went. The court let Rosenfelder's research go nowhere and repeatedly referred "to previous correspondence"; Curiously, also on the question of which previous correspondence was meant at all. Later, the Constitutional Court relented, making Rosenfelder's lawsuit filed and a ruling by the Karlsruhe Administrative Court obsolete.

The fact that we still know so much about the facts of the case is due to the fact that the administrative judges had to make a decision on costs in the end. It had to be considered who would have prevailed in the main case in whole or to a large extent. The administrative judges saw Rosenfelder's concerns largely as well-founded. The judges also found that the Constitutional Court had "not substantiated their request from a substantive point of view". A greater rebuke is hardly conceivable among lawyers.

The Constitutional Court had even brought experts on board: It hired an external law firm to defend itself against the "Bild" journalist. As early as 2015, the Federal Court of Auditors criticised the fact that many authorities do not rely on the expertise and lower costs of their own lawyers. According to information from the F.A.Z., the law firm mandated by the Constitutional Court charged 33,528.26 euros gross. Assuming an estimated hourly fee of 300 euros gross, the law firm has spent over 110 hours dealing with this clear, not to say simple case (VG Karlsruhe, decision of 14.06.2022 - 4 K 233/22).

Equality of arms looks different

The court justifies the high fee with the "outstanding expertise" of the law firm and the urgency of a reaction. The sum now remains with the taxpayer, as the time-consuming use has remained insubstantial; however, it would be a major burden on the taxpayer even if the Constitutional Court had won. Because this has very likely agreed on a fee that exceeds the statutory fees many times over.

On F.A.Z. request, the Federal Constitutional Court says that it does not provide any information on this. The confidentiality interest of the commissioned law firm prevails. On the question of the F.A.Z., why a law firm was not selected that bills according to the more favorable Lawyers' Remuneration Act, it is explained: "The Federal Constitutional Court cannot provide any information on the remuneration modalities due to the predominant interest in secrecy of the commissioned law firm in the present case."

This, too, is hard to understand: after all, the public does not even know which law firm it is. Finally, what insight remains? Journalists who rightly and rightly sue the Constitutional Court are faced with an opponent who can rely on immense tax resources for expensive lawyers to represent them. Hardly any authority has this privilege. Equality of arms looks different.