According to the German Association of Journalists (DJV), Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) temporarily withheld information from the public in the Union’s mask affair and thus delayed the investigation. The reason for the criticism is the fact that, following inquiries from the press and parliament, Spahn initially held a hearing among concerned MPs for weeks before he made their names public for the first time.
The DJV federal chairman Frank Überall accuses the politician of “delaying tactics”. “There is no obligation to be heard by members of the Bundestag,” said Überall the Tagesspiegel. He referred to the constitutionally guaranteed right to information of the press, which had directed corresponding inquiries to the ministry.
[Wenn Sie aktuelle Nachrichten aus Berlin, Deutschland und der Welt live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]
It is true that when information is provided about parliamentarians, “legitimate concerns” should be taken into account. The written consultation procedure was dispensable for this. “When it comes to protective masks, the public’s interest in information definitely has priority,” said Überall.
At the beginning of March, various cases became known in which Union MPs are said to have enriched themselves in part-time jobs in shops with Covid protective equipment. In this context, the media and opposition politicians put questions to Spahn about which MPs had turned to his ministry with relevant concerns. Instead of immediately giving information, Spahn announced “transparency in an orderly procedure”.
The Ministry of Health did not publish names until the end of April
In mid-March, the ministry began sending letters asking for the consent of the parliamentarians. The ministry did not publish the overview with the names of the MPs and companies concerned until weeks later at the end of April.
Federal Minister of Economics Peter Altmaier (CDU) proceeded in a similar way. He too had only made the names of MPs public who had turned to him in connection with business interests regarding Covid protection products public after a hearing. From the point of view of the journalists’ association, this action by Spahn and Altmaier should only save time. It leaves “the impression that grass should grow over the mask deals,” said the DJV chairman everywhere.
In an answer to a parliamentary left-wing inquiry (printed matter 19/28559), the government points out that the Bundestag administration considers “this involvement of the MPs to be a necessary step in order to achieve a legally secure procedure”.
However, the Bundestag administration denies this on request: It has only made it clear to the Ministry of Health that the release appears “legally unobjectionable” at least if the elected officials have given their consent.
She did not ask for a hearing to be carried out specifically for this. Rather, according to a spokesman, it was “underlined that the handling of this matter is the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Health”.
The Federal Ministry of Health does not want to comment on the criticism of the DJV on request. With the list at the end of April, it had published an expert opinion by the Augsburg legal scholar Matthias Rossi commissioned by Spahn, who considers the hearing process to be “essential”. Reason: Third parties are affected by press releases, not just the authority itself.
The report went to the Chancellery – it could complicate the work of the press
However, Spahn had already spread the word on March 14th that he would obtain permission from the MPs; Rossi was only commissioned on March 17th to prepare the expert opinion and to accompany the proceedings.
Apparently Spahn had already made the decision about his procedure without the advice of the lawyer; this only confirmed it in retrospect. Upon request, Rossi referred to the ministry, which, however, has not yet provided any further information.
The opinion of the Augsburg law professor was later given to the Federal Ministry of Economics and from there to the Chancellery. Why is unclear. A government spokesman did not want to say whether the views expressed in the report are shared in the Chancellery.
The position presented therein could, however, be transferred to a large number of media research at the Chancellery and ministries and significantly delay the release of information in the future.
A passage in the Rossi report also raises questions, according to which it is “clarified” in case law in the case of press information claims that third parties must always be given a legal hearing before information is released. Such a clarification has not yet been found in the relevant case law of the Federal Administrative Court.
