Former State Secretary Prof. Dr Sabine Döring is not entitled to an injunction against certain statements made by former Federal Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger in the press release issued by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research on 16 June 2024. The Higher Administrative Court in Münster has also rejected the former State Secretary's appeal (Ref.: 1 B 911/24), which was represented by DOMBERT Rechtsanwälte. The press release was not to be understood as meaning that she - Ms Döring - had issued a mandate to examine the consequences under funding law.

In the press release of 16 June 2024, the Minister justified her request to place the applicant on temporary retirement in the course of the so-called „funding affair“. The ministry had previously examined the consequences under funding law for the academics who had criticised the police eviction of a pro-Palestinian „protest camp“ on the university campus initiated by the Executive Board of the FU Berlin in the „Statement by Lecturers at Berlin Universities“ of 8 May 2024. In the press release, the Minister confirmed that „an examination of the consequences under funding law was indeed requested from the relevant departments“ and added that the applicant had „initiated the underlying review request“ and explained „that she had apparently expressed herself in a misleading manner in her request for a legal review“. The Minden Administrative Court already rejected the applicant's urgent application for injunctive relief directed at the omission of this representation in its decision of 6 September 2024 (case no.: 12 L 588/24). The subsequent appeal was ultimately unsuccessful before the Higher Administrative Court.

The 1st Senate of the Higher Administrative Court also essentially stated that the applicant had to accept the criticised statement. The statement did not allege any untrue facts and, in particular, that the applicant had requested an examination of the consequences under subsidy law. An unbiased and reasonable average recipient would infer from the clear wording and the linguistic context that another person - not named in the statement - had requested an examination of the legal consequences under funding law from the specialised departments. The reception of the press release by politicians and journalists as well as the subsequent reporting would have no significance for how an unbiased and reasonable average recipient would understand the press release from the perspective of the court.

To the article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine 

To the podcast