Dresden Prosecutors Ordered to Release Info on Habeck Probe

Dresden Prosecutors Ordered to Disclose Details of Habeck Defamation Probe

Dresden prosecutors have been instructed to provide information regarding their interaction with former Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck and his legal representation during a defamation investigation last year. The ruling came from the Dresden Administrative Court in an expedited proceeding initiated by the Tagesspiegel newspaper, according to court documents.

The investigation into Habeck stemmed from allegations of defamation against “a person involved in political life,” specifically Sahra Wagenknecht and her Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) party. Habeck had publicly suggested the BSW received financial backing from Russia. The case originated from a complaint filed by the BSW and Wagenknecht on November 13, 2024, concerning statements made by Habeck on August 30, 2024, during a campaign event for the Green Party in Dresden, as reported by the Staatsanwaltschaft Dresden.

An Unusually Cooperative Approach with the Accused

What raised concerns was the unusually cooperative relationship between the Dresden public prosecutor’s office and Habeck, as well as his, as yet unnamed, legal counsel. Specifically, investigators forwarded email inquiries from the Tagesspiegel regarding the prosecutor’s actions to Habeck’s defense team, even including a draft response for their approval. Authorities initially claimed they were legally obligated to do so.

To the court’s conviction, the desired information is available from the Dresden public prosecutor’s office.

The Dresden Administrative Court in its recent decision

The Dresden Administrative Court recently determined that this practice constituted a violation of press freedom, explicitly criticizing the “one-sided consideration of the interests of Dr. Habeck and his defense.” The court argued that disclosing inquiries – including the identity of the sender – could have a “deterrent effect,” discouraging journalists from pursuing sensitive or critical investigations.

How Often Were Emails Forwarded?

Despite this ruling, the prosecutor’s office declined to provide further details on how it coordinated public relations regarding the case with Habeck and his lawyers. Requests for information on whether journalist inquiries were routinely forwarded to accused parties and their legal teams were also denied. Prosecutors stated that the questions had been adequately answered and that revealing such information could compromise ongoing investigations.

The Administrative Court disagreed in a second proceeding brought by the Tagesspiegel, based on the legal right to information. It ruled that only the identity of the defense attorneys with whom the prosecutor’s office had collaborated would be protected, as revealing their names could impact ongoing investigations and their professional reputations.

Nothing a Authority Shouldn’t Say

The court found no reason to withhold information in five of the six questions posed. “Neither the provisions on confidentiality and protection of personality nor any worthy private interests are violated by providing the information.”

The public prosecutor’s office now has two weeks to file an appeal, allowing the Higher Administrative Court to review the case. If no appeal is filed, the decision will become final and the information must be disclosed.

As of now, the prosecutor’s office has not issued a statement. In January, it stated: “The Dresden Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office always process press inquiries on the basis of the applicable laws, taking into account the relevant case law. Nothing will change in this regard.”

The investigation was ultimately discontinued in February 2026 after Habeck made a payment of €12,000 to three charities: arche noVa, Verein für soziale Rechtspflege Dresden and Sonnenstrahl e. V. The prosecutor’s office cited a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court establishing a high bar for criminal liability in speech cases, particularly in political debate.