Carsten Brennecke explained that his law firm generally identifies the private address of the opposing party in cases where they take action against statements - even if the opposing party is a journalist. A newspaper accused him of having a journalist's address investigated with the help of a detective. According to Brennecke, the editorial team relied on data from the hacker attack on the AfD. He justified the approach with deadlines in civil procedural law: An application for a temporary injunction must usually be made within about a month after becoming aware of the legal violation. After issuance, the prohibition must also be effectively served within a month. Therefore, the address is immediately requested from the registration office upon taking on the mandate, and if a request for information is expected to be blocked, a detective is additionally commissioned. In the case of journalists, such a blockage is typically the norm, Brennecke wrote. In the specific case, no prohibition procedure has taken place. According to Brennecke, this does not change the fact that the address is needed from the outset to keep the possibility of an emergency application open. He argued that a court prohibition must be able to be effectively served, and journalists do not have a right to special treatment in this regard. #Rechtsschutz #Pressefreiheit #Zivilprozessrecht (translated)
