“Böhmermann’s lies”: Police union member sues ZDF for violation of personal rights
Police union representative Manuel Ostermann is taking legal action following a Böhmermann broadcast. The accusation: violation of personal rights through baseless allegations of sabotage.
Manuel Ostermann, deputy federal chairman of the German Police Union (DPolG), has filed a lawsuit against ZDF. Following a program complaint filed in June, Ostermann is now taking legal action against an episode of "ZDF Magazin Royale" from March 28, 2025, in which presenter Jan Böhmermann expressed strong criticism of the Federal Police.
Böhmermann also personally attacked the police union leader in several passages. The presenter referred to him, among other things, as a "master race man in a Skoda," a "self-radicalized Michel from Lönneberga," and a "three-quarters full punching bag with a blitzkrieg hairstyle" – phrases that the defense described as defamatory and threatening to his existence. The lawsuit is being represented by the Cologne law firm Höcker Rechtsanwälte.
The subject of the legal dispute is the approximately 30-minute program titled "Who is the security risk here?", which critically examined the "Federal Reception Program for Afghanistan" (BAP). The presenter claimed, among other things, that individual federal police officers deliberately allowed or committed errors in visa procedures in order to sabotage the program.
"Parts of my Federal Police are abusing the Federal Police to play politics, together with interested media and politicians. Because they think the Federal Reception Program is shit for some reason, they are deliberately making mistakes to sabotage the otherwise safe Federal Reception Program. That would be pretty bad, wouldn't it?" Böhmermann said. The Federal Police are thus a greater security risk to Germany than the refugees they are supposedly supposed to control.
These serious allegations were directed, in the broadcast, primarily against a single named official: Manuel Ostermann. Over the course of the broadcast, Böhmermann escalated his accusations. According to the satirist's account, Ostermann, together with the media and political forces, is said to have stirred up sentiment against the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAP) in order to push through his migration policy positions.
The central allegation is that he abused his role as a civil servant and representative of the Federal Police to engage in political agitation. The Höcker law firm, which represents Ostermann, sees this as a blatant violation of journalistic and legal standards. The lawsuit states: "With this lawsuit, the plaintiff is taking action against unlawful TV reporting and the violation of his general right to privacy."
According to the lawyers, the program's serious allegations were not merely satirical, but formulated as factual insinuations. The plaintiff was publicly pilloried without prior contact or opportunity to comment, critics say. This violates the principles of reporting on suspicions. The legal assessment is that the portrayal is unbalanced and prejudicial.
The lawsuit, which the Berliner Zeitung has obtained, states: "In the run-up to the broadcast, basic journalistic duties were blatantly violated. This applies regardless of the satirical presentation of the allegations. The allegations themselves, as established factual elements, are merely framed by the satirical presentation." While ZDF invokes the satirical nature of the case, the lawyers argue that the satirical framework cannot cover false factual claims.
At the heart of the legal argument is the rejection of the allegation that the Federal Police, or rather Ostermann, actually influenced the issuance of visas under the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAP). The lawyers emphasize that the legal responsibility for such decisions lies not with the Federal Police, but with the Federal Foreign Office and the relevant visa offices.
The Federal Police officers were merely providing advice. The basis for this was the "interdepartmental agreement of June 10, 2009" between the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Foreign Office. "This alone makes it clear that the core allegation of the program is untenable, since the Federal Police do not make the final decision on the issuance of visas," the defense asserted.
Lawyer Rafael Sarlak: “We are challenging this false claim”This assessment is also supported by publicly available documents and administrative regulations. Böhmermann's central accusation, that Federal Police officers deliberately facilitated or facilitated incorrect entries, is therefore factually unfounded.
In an interview with the Berliner Zeitung in June, Ostermann had already made it clear that he would no longer accept these portrayals: "Jan Böhmermann constantly attempts, under the guise of satire, to destroy people's existence, sometimes with disgusting rhetoric and methods. He defames organizations and individuals with half-truths, a wealth of ideology, and to the exclusion of other opinions and facts."
Rafael Sarlak, a press law attorney at Höcker, commented on the responsibility of public broadcasters and told the Berliner Zeitung: "Public broadcasters have a mandate: They must provide their viewers with truthful information. Böhmermann has violated this duty. He led his viewers to believe that the Federal Police were deliberately manipulating state proceedings. We are challenging precisely this false claim. It will not stand any longer than Böhmermann's lies about Arne Schönbohm." Should the court rule in favor of the plaintiff, the ruling could have a signaling effect, particularly for the legal handling of satirical reporting about officials and institutions.Do you have feedback? Write to us! [email protected]
Berliner-zeitung
