The legal advisory board of the No SLAPP contact point in conversation: Dr. Robert Brockhaus
The No SLAPP contact point for the protection of journalistic work in Germany is currently supported by 17 legal experts to ensure that the training courses and other services offered by the contact point are of the highest professional standard. And to provide the best possible legal advice in specific SLAPPs, in cases with press and expression law, labor law, but also criminal law dimensions.
In this series of interviews, we introduce the advisory board members individually, today with perspectives from Dr. Robert Brockhaus from Berlin. Robert Brockhaus is a partner at the law firm KM8 Rechtsanwältinnen & Rechtsanwälte. He works as a criminal defence lawyer and specializes in whistleblowing and secrecy law. As an editor at Verfassungsblog, he is responsible for criminal law and public security law. He has taught and researched at the European University Viadrina and the Humbolt University in Berlin.
How do you relate to the topic of SLAPP - which forms of intimidation through legal means do you deal with particularly intensively?
In my practice as a lawyer, I repeatedly observe how companies, but also authorities, take legal action against employees who disclose information about grievances. It is then claimed, for example, that the information was protected as a trade secret and criminal charges are brought for breach of secrecy. My impression is that the aim is not always to protect the information in question, as it has already been leaked, but to intimidate employees through criminal or other legal proceedings and to claim financial compensation.
What is your advice for those affected by legal intimidation attempts?
Don't be hasty, but act thoughtfully, but in good time and defend yourself. In many cases, it makes sense to seek legal advice, especially when it comes to criminal charges.
In the EU Directive "on the protection of persons who engage in public participation against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive litigation" SLAPP was officially defined for the first time in Europe. (To what extent) does this wording already influence your work, even before it is transposed into national law?
Not yet. However, if the definition is met in a case, the provisions of the Directive must already be taken into account when interpreting German law.
What should legislators in Germany pay particular attention to when implementing the law?
Implementation should not be limited to what is mandatory under EU law, but should go beyond this and also take into account the Commission's recommendations, for example. These include the abolition of custodial sentences for defamation cases.
What public understanding of SLAPP do you propose until implementation - which cases should be understood as SLAPP, which perhaps not? What do you think is the most important thing the public should know about SLAPPs?
It is important that society becomes more aware of what SLAPPs are and what instruments are available to legally defend oneself against them.
How do you think legal intimidation attempts can be defended against particularly well? When defending your clients against SLAPPs, what things do you need in your toolbox?
Critical public awareness of intimidation attempts is important, but is often not enough to counteract them. From a criminal law perspective, a provision would make sense that would enable public prosecutors to discontinue criminal proceedings on suspicion of a SLAPP.