The highly controversial and much awaited trial of former East German President (Erich Hoenecker) was forced into a legal sideroad on the question of whether TV cameras would be allowed in the court room. Though par. 169(2) (GVG) forbids filming of the actual court proceedings, the presiding judge in the (Criminal Court) forbade access to the courtroom for all television cameras. He based this on his power to control the court proceedings under Par.176 of the GVG. The private and public television stations covering the case had already taken measures to subdue their presence in that only one camera team filmed from within the courtroom, the footage then being shared amongst the entire media pool. These stations sought a declaratory order from the Constitutional Court as to whether the presence of a camera in the courtroom could be completely prohibited. In a temporary order issued on Nov.11, 1992, the Const. Court agreed with plaintiffs that the judge in lower court had violated the Constitution in overly restricting the (Rundfunkfreihheit) freedom of the media to gather and disseminate information. This freedom includes coverage of court cases.
The court now returned to this question. Though there is a greater danger of prejudicing the interests of the parties through television and radio coverage than mere print, this can be avoided by weighing the interests of the media and their duty to inform against the interests of the parties and the court to maintain a fair and orderly trial. Due to the very public nature of the trial there was a very great need that the public be informed. On the other side the danger of prejudice to the accused was minimal, due to the media pool and the accused's already being a public figure who was used to such public attention. Any remaining dangers could be mitigated by the presiding judge through time, place, and subject matter restrictions. Possible violations of such measures would carry sanctions with them but should not predicate the all-out prohibtion which resulted.
(Order of July 14, 1994 - 1 BvR 1595/92 und 1 BvR 1606/92 -) Karlsruhe, July 21, 1994.