{"id":71608,"date":"2026-10-22T16:06:48","date_gmt":"2026-10-22T14:06:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=71608"},"modified":"2026-10-29T22:40:25","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T20:40:25","slug":"bverfg-instagram-reel-neutrality-ministry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/media-law-personal-rights\/bverfg-instagram-reel-neutrality-ministry\/","title":{"rendered":"German Constitutional Court halts ministry reel: the limits of official social media"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Germany\u2019s Federal Constitutional Court has ordered the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy to take down, for the time being, an Instagram video in which the minister sharply attacks a political party. The order of 14 October 2026 shows how narrow the limits are for official communication on social networks and why a ministry channel is legally something different from a politician\u2019s private account.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In an order dated 14 October 2026 (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de\/SharedDocs\/Entscheidungen\/DE\/2026\/10\/es20261014_2bve000526.html\">case no. 2 BvE 5\/26<\/a>), the Second Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) granted an urgent application by the party DIE LINKE against Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Katherina Reiche. The ministry must remove a video it published on its Instagram profile on 24 September 2026 until the main proceedings have been decided, for a maximum of six months. The decision was taken by six votes to two.<\/p>\n<p>The order is of practical interest for two reasons. It confirms that the social media channels of ministries and public authorities are subject to the same strict rules as press releases or a ministry\u2019s website. And it makes clear that the court attaches particular weight to the reach and permanent availability of digital channels.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Official Instagram, TikTok or X channels are government public relations and are bound by neutrality and objectivity.<\/li>\n<li>The outward context is decisive: whoever speaks through the ministry\u2019s channel speaks as the minister.<\/li>\n<li>As a party politician or private individual, the minister remains free to speak within the limits of freedom of expression.<\/li>\n<li>The court has not yet ruled on whether the statements were constitutional.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>What was the case about?<\/h2>\n<p>The case concerned a short video (reel) that the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy published on its official Instagram profile on 24 September 2026. It showed the minister speaking at a conference. In it, she criticised a party standing in Berlin without naming it expressly and associated it with, among other things, plans for expropriation, antisemitism and organised crime. She went on to describe this as a threat to Germany as a place to invest.<\/p>\n<p>DIE LINKE considered itself targeted and, in so-called Organstreit proceedings (disputes between constitutional bodies), complained of a violation of its right to equal opportunities in political competition under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/GG\/21.html\">Article 21(1) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG)<\/a>. At the same time, it applied for a preliminary injunction. The video remained online after a request to delete it, so the court readily found that the party had a legitimate interest in urgent relief.<\/p>\n<h2>What did the Federal Constitutional Court decide?<\/h2>\n<p>The court granted the preliminary injunction without ruling conclusively on whether the statements were constitutional. In urgent proceedings under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/BVerfGG\/32.html\">Section 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, BVerfGG)<\/a>, it only examines whether the application is manifestly inadmissible or unfounded. If not, it weighs the consequences: what happens if no injunction is issued but the party later wins? And what happens if the injunction is issued but the minister is later proven right?<\/p>\n<p>The Senate at least did not consider a violation of Article 21(1) GG to be manifestly excluded. In weighing the consequences, the decisive factor was that further circulation of the video could discredit the party in public and make talks with potential coalition partners more difficult. These disadvantages were serious and irreparable. As an aggravating factor, the court took into account the ongoing talks on forming a government in Berlin.<\/p>\n<p>Conversely, the minister could reasonably be expected to pursue her concerns in a factual manner until the main proceedings are decided. If she wins the main proceedings, she can publish the statements again later.<\/p>\n<h2>Why are members of the government bound by a duty of neutrality?<\/h2>\n<p>Because the state must not take sides in the competition between political parties. According to settled case law, the parties\u2019 right to equal opportunities is violated where state bodies influence the formation of political opinion in favour of or against a party. A partisan statement by a federal minister is therefore problematic if it is made using the resources of the office or with a recognisable reference to the government office in order to lend it particular credibility.<\/p>\n<p>This line of case law is not new. The Federal Constitutional Court developed it, among other things, in the proceedings concerning the \u201cRed card for the AfD\u201d press release by the then Education Minister Wanka (judgment of 27 February 2018, <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20BvE%201\/16\" title=\"BVerfG, 27.02.2018 - 2 BvE 1\/16: Verletzung des Rechts einer Partei auf Chancengleichheit im po...\">2 BvE 1\/16<\/a>), Interior Minister Seehofer\u2019s interview on his ministry\u2019s website (judgment of 9 June 2020, <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20BvE%201\/19\" title=\"BVerfG, 09.06.2020 - 2 BvE 1\/19: Verletzung des Rechts einer Partei auf Chancengleichheit im po...\">2 BvE 1\/19<\/a>) and statements by the then Chancellor Merkel on the election of the Minister-President of Thuringia (judgment of 15 June 2022, <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20BvE%204\/20\" title=\"2 BvE 4\/20 (2 zugeordnete Entscheidungen)\">2 BvE 4\/20<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20BvE%205\/20\" title=\"2 BvE 5\/20 (2 zugeordnete Entscheidungen)\">2 BvE 5\/20<\/a>). What is new is that an Instagram reel now has to come down in urgent proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Public relations work remains permitted. The government may inform the public and explain its policies. However, this requires compliance with the constitutional allocation of powers, a sufficient connection to the tasks of the ministerial office and the requirement of objectivity (Sachlichkeitsgebot). The Senate expressly left open whether the sharp wording in the video was still objective.<\/p>\n<h2>Why do official social media channels carry particular weight?<\/h2>\n<p>Because they combine reach and permanence. The court stresses that control over state resources allows a lasting influence on the formation of political opinion. According to the order, official digital channels with a wide reach and permanent availability provide an additional competitive advantage, which is why a violation of equal opportunities weighs particularly heavily here.<\/p>\n<p>Whether the statement was official depended on its outward context. The video was posted on the profile \u201cbundeswirtschaftsministerium\u201d, and the ministry itself had classified it as public relations. The fact that the minister originally spoke at a conference did not change this. What mattered was that the ministry spread the clip on its own channel.<\/p>\n<p>For communications departments, this is the real message: a clip from a speech becomes a statement by the authority once it is uploaded to an official channel. Anyone who adopts content from the political arena also assumes legal responsibility for it.<\/p>\n<h2>What may the minister still say?<\/h2>\n<p>A great deal, just not in this form on the ministry\u2019s channel. The order emphasises that the minister remains free to speak as a party politician or private individual within the limits of freedom of expression. In her official capacity, too, she may point out risks to Germany as a business location, provided she does so factually and without disparaging attributions against a party.<\/p>\n<p>The line is therefore drawn not by the topic, but by role and tone. Criticism of political concepts such as expropriation is possible in an official capacity as well. Evaluative attributions that disparage a specific party, on the other hand, belong on the party channel and not on the ministry\u2019s channel.<\/p>\n<h2>What does this mean for companies, associations and municipalities?<\/h2>\n<p>The duty of neutrality protects political parties. For companies, separate but related standards apply to statements by the state. According to the Federal Constitutional Court\u2019s \u201cGlycol\u201d decision (order of 26 June 2002, <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvR%20558\/91\" title=\"BVerfG, 26.06.2002 - 1 BvR 558\/91: Glykol\">1 BvR 558\/91<\/a> et al.), government information about companies and products must be covered by the remit of the authority concerned, be accurate in substance and be objective. This applies to press releases just as much as to posts by authorities, ministries, mayors or district administrators on social networks.<\/p>\n<p>If a company is portrayed inaccurately or disparagingly on an official channel, a public-law claim for injunctive relief and for removal of the consequences may be available. As a rule, the administrative courts have jurisdiction (<a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/VwGO\/40.html\">Section 40 of the German Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, VwGO)<\/a>), and urgent relief is available under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/VwGO\/123.html\">Section 123 VwGO<\/a>. If the same person speaks privately or as a party politician, however, the claim is governed by civil law and belongs before the civil courts. The distinction therefore already determines the correct court.<\/p>\n<p>We recommend the following steps for those affected:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Secure evidence:<\/strong> screenshots and screen recordings with URL, date and time, account name, reach (views, likes, comments) and, where applicable, the caption.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Clarify the role:<\/strong> was the post published on an official channel, with an official title, coat of arms or logo, or on a private or party account?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Request deletion:<\/strong> in writing and with a short deadline. If the post stays online, there is usually a legitimate interest in urgent relief.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Act quickly:<\/strong> on social media, every day counts. Waiting too long jeopardises the urgency required for interim relief.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Coordinate communication internally:<\/strong> a public response of your own can make sense, but should not make the legal steps more difficult.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Municipalities, authorities and public companies should review their social media guidelines: a clear separation of official and party channels, an approval process for clips from speeches and interviews, and an objective tone where parties or identifiable companies are concerned.<\/p>\n<h2>What happens next?<\/h2>\n<p>The main proceedings are pending. The preliminary injunction applies until the decision in the main proceedings, for a maximum of six months. Only there will the court clarify whether the statements violated the requirement of objectivity. The standards for official social media communication are already clear, however: ministries and authorities must exercise the same restraint on their channels as in any other form of public relations work.<\/p>\n<div style=\"background: #EFF3F9; padding: 36px 40px 28px; margin: 0 0 48px;\">\n<h2 style=\"margin: 0 0 14px;\">FAQ on the duty of neutrality on social media<\/h2>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">What did the Federal Constitutional Court decide on 14 October 2026?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">In urgent proceedings, it ordered the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy to remove an Instagram video of the minister until the decision in the main proceedings, for a maximum of six months (case no. <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20BvE%205\/26\" title=\"BVerfG, 14.10.2026 - 2 BvE 5\/26: Instagram-Post einer Bundesministerin - eA - Erfolgreicher Eil...\">2 BvE 5\/26<\/a>). This does not yet decide whether the statements were constitutional.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">Does the duty of neutrality also apply on Instagram, TikTok and X?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">Yes, as far as official channels are concerned. The court even sees an additional competitive advantage in digital channels with a wide reach and permanent availability, so violations there weigh particularly heavily.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">May members of the government still criticise political parties?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">Yes. As party politicians or private individuals, they are protected by freedom of expression. In their official capacity, they may comment factually on political issues, but must not spread disparaging attributions against a party or use the resources of their office to do so.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">Can companies also defend themselves against posts by authorities?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">Yes. Statements by the state about companies must be covered by the authority\u2019s remit, be accurate and be objective. In the event of violations, a public-law claim for injunctive relief and removal of the consequences may be available, which is usually enforced before the administrative courts and, in urgent cases, under Section 123 VwGO.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">How can you tell whether a post is official or private?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">The outward context is decisive: the channel, the official title, logo or coat of arms, and integration into the authority\u2019s public relations. A post on a ministry\u2019s profile is generally official, even if it shows an appearance at an external event.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"background: #0A2C52; padding: 32px 36px; margin: 0 0 48px;\">\n<p style=\"color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25em; margin: 0 0 12px;\">Are you or your company being publicly attacked on social media in Germany?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #d7e3f4; margin: 0 0 24px;\">We review posts, videos and reports by authorities, politicians, media and influencers and take swift action where necessary. You will usually receive an initial assessment within 24 hours.<\/p>\n<p><a style=\"display: inline-block; background: #FFFFFF; color: #0a2c52; font-weight: bold; padding: 14px 28px; text-decoration: none;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/contact-2\/\">Contact us now<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Further information<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/pressemitteilungen\/dresden-muss-afd-kritischen-facebook-beitrag-loeschen\/\">Dresden must delete AfD-critical Facebook post (in German)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/medienrecht-und-persoenlichkeitsrecht\/merkel-schmaehgedicht-bewusst-verletzend\/\">Administrative Court of Berlin: Merkel does not have to retract statement on B\u00f6hmermann\u2019s poem (in German)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/medienrecht-und-persoenlichkeitsrecht\/persoenlichkeitsrechts-fuer-juristische-personen\/\">Do legal entities have personality rights? (in German)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de\/SharedDocs\/Pressemitteilungen\/DE\/2026\/bvg26-065.html\">Press release no. 65\/2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court of 15 October 2026 (in German)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/fields-of-activity\/\">Our fields of activity<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/erfolge\/\">Our successes<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Germany\u2019s Federal Constitutional Court has ordered the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs to remove an Instagram video of the minister for now (order of 14 October 2026, 2 BvE 5\/26). What the order means for official social media channels and how companies can respond to posts by authorities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":71617,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_focuskw":"duty of neutrality social media","_yoast_wpseo_title":"Neutrality on social media: German court halts ministry reel %%sep%% %%sitename%%","_yoast_wpseo_metadesc":"Germany\u2019s Constitutional Court orders a ministry to remove an Instagram reel attacking a party. What it means for official social media channels.","show_overview":"1","footnotes":""},"categories":[19453,19475],"tags":[20302,20353,20491,20542,21081,21460,21461,21462],"topic_category":[19374,19465],"class_list":["post-71608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-media-law-personal-rights","category-social-media-law","tag-federal-constitutional-court","tag-injunctive-relief","tag-freedom-of-expression","tag-social-media-en","tag-instagram","tag-neutrality-requirement","tag-equal-opportunities-of-political-parties","tag-government-communication","topic_category-media-law","topic_category-reputation-management"],"acf":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71608"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71608\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71909,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71608\/revisions\/71909"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/71617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71608"},{"taxonomy":"topic_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic_category?post=71608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}