Cum-Ex complaint failed
Quotations from Olearius’ diary may be published
April 22, 2024, 12:18 p.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
In 2020, an article quoted from the diaries of Christian Olearius, under whose leadership the Hamburg Warburg Bank was involved in the Cum-Ex scandal. Olearius lodges a complaint against the publication – but this also fails in Karlsruhe.
The former Warburg bank boss Christian Olearius has failed in a complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe over the publication of quotes from his diary. The court in Karlsruhe announced that the constitutional complaint was inadmissible and would not be accepted for decision. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had previously ruled against Olearius.
The BGH ruled in May last year that the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” was allowed to publish excerpts from Olearius’ diaries in an article about the cum-ex scandal. Before the article was published, the diaries had been confiscated by the public prosecutor’s office during an investigation against the banker for tax evasion. Like other institutions, the Warburg Bank was involved in the Cum-Ex scandal, in which the state was cheated out of billions by banks and investors.
The article that the newspaper published in September 2020 was about possible influence by Hamburg politicians on decisions by the tax authority. In 2016, the Hamburg tax administration waived the repayment of 47 million euros by the Warburg Bank. Through the controversial article and publications in other media, it became known that Olearius had met several times with the then Mayor of Hamburg and current Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The Federal Court of Justice justified its decision in May, among other things, with the public’s “outstanding” interest in the issue.
He explained that the diaries are not official documents – they cannot be quoted verbatim in criminal proceedings before a public hearing or the conclusion of the proceedings. Olearius appealed against this judgment with his constitutional complaint and, among other things, claimed a violation of his general personal rights. He criticized the BGH for weighing up his personal rights and media freedom. However, the banker did not adequately justify the fact that the Federal Court of Justice acted incorrectly, and it was not obvious, the Constitutional Court now explained.