Successful urgent application: Flensburg Regional Court must publish its decision on the “Last Generation”.

The Flensburg Regional Court has to publish a much-noticed decision – from the criminal proceedings against the “Last Generation” for forming a criminal organization. The reason for this is an urgent application from us, which the Flensburg Administrative Court has now granted.

The district court had previously refused to release the decision to us or make it publicly available. Those responsible at the court were afraid of being exposed to paragraph 353d of the Criminal Code (StGB) itself to be made punishable.

The administrative court now makes it clear: The press must be able to quote verbatim from court decisions in order to exercise its constitutional control function. Therefore, courts must proactively publish important decisions. If they don’t, journalists can sue them. Of course, court employees are not committing a criminal offense if they fulfill their constitutional publication obligation. The case clearly shows why the controversial paragraph 353d urgently needs to be put to the constitutional test.

Why the “Last Generation” is not a criminal organization

The decision is of crucial importance: In March 2026, the Flensburg regional court rejected the prosecution’s indictment against an activist from the “last generation”. for forming a criminal organization according to Section 129 of the Criminal Code. In contrast to the courts in Potsdam and Munich The State Protection Chamber in Flensburg did not judge the “Last Generation” to be a significant threat to public safety. The controversial debate about its classification as a criminal organization has preoccupied public prosecutors, courts, jurisprudence and the public since the first raids in 2022. Even a UN special rapporteur had intervened in the meantime. Against this background, it is particularly interesting and relevant to find out the reasons on which the Schleswig-Holstein court rejected the accusation of a criminal organization.

But neither the defendant nor journalists were allowed to publish the decision or quote it verbatim. Paragraph 353d prohibits the verbatim reproduction of court documents from ongoing criminal proceedings.

And the Flensburg regional court itself did not want to publish its decision. In response to our press query, the court’s press spokesman replied that although the public interest was great, he could not make the court decision publicly available because doing so would make himself liable to prosecution. The controversial publication ban also applies to the courts themselves until the proceedings are completed. However, the proceedings from which the decision comes have not yet been completed. In the court decision, the prosecution’s charges were rejected only for the most serious allegations (including the formation of a criminal organization and disrupting public operations). The prosecution was admitted to allegations such as damage to property and coercion. We then filed an urgent application with the Flensburg Administrative Court against the decision not to publish the court order.

Against the secret justice system

With the decision of July 7, 2026, the Flensburg Administrative Court agreed with us and obliged the regional court to publish the decision. The administrative court recognized for the first time that the press has a right to have court decisions published – and that this can be enforced.

The court made it clear: In a constitutional state, it is the original constitutional duty of the courts to publish relevant decisions. This is the only way to prevent arbitrary “secret justice”. This publication requirement applies not only to judgments, but also to other decisions from criminal proceedings such as (non-)opening decisions. What is crucial is that there is a public interest in information. As a result, employees cannot commit a criminal offense under Section 353d of the Criminal Code if they fulfill this constitutional task.

The court also emphasizes how important it is for the press to be able to quote verbatim from court decisions. Because media should control state institutions including the judiciary. However, it is essential to reproduce court decisions verbatim. “Especially with legal texts and decisions, the exact wording is important in order to be able to decide to what extent the decision is wanted in terms of (legal) policy or whether the democratic public wants a change in the law,” explain the judges of the administrative court.

It is not enough for courts to send decisions to journalists upon request. In contrast to the courts, journalists could face criminal prosecution if they quote verbatim from the unpublished documents. The court also refers to the conviction of FragDenStaat editor-in-chief Arne Semsrott because of the publication of the search warrants to the “Last Generation”. The court does express concerns about punishing journalists who quote from judgments. At the same time, it emphasizes that press representatives cannot be expected to take the risk of criminal prosecution in order to fulfill their task. Therefore, the courts themselves must make the decisions accessible. If they fail to do so, press representatives can take them to court.

Decision confirms constitutional concerns

A criminal court does not dare to publish its decisions for fear of prosecution and must be reminded of its constitutional obligations by an administrative court. The process illustrates how massively the ban on quoting paragraph 353d curtails the democratic control of the criminal courts and the public debate about it.

Because this regulation massively hinders critical press reporting and the public debate on court decisions, FragDenStaat, together with the Society for Freedom Rights, has now launchedConstitutional complaint filed against the regulation.

→ on the decision of the administrative court