Berlin Court Scandal Undermines Trust: Judicial Fixing Allegations in X's Trial
Reinventing the Scene: Berlin's Judicial Muddle in the Battle Against X
Step into the heart of Berlin as we unravel a potentially troubling situation. On May 13, 2025, the Berlin Regional Court II took an unexpected turn in the case involving X (originally Twitter). A young, probationary judge, whose past connections raise eyebrows, granted an application for data disclosure without a hearing, before being booted from the proceedings due to concerns about bias.
The drama unfolds in the Berlin 26.02.2025 edition of our paper, as we delve into the justice conundrum that encircles X and Democracy Reporting International. The civil chamber involved decided there was no urgency, with the applicants subsequently declaring the proceedings concluded due to time limits. Strangely, the GFF website mentions nothing of its involvement, despite the ruckus. It simply states that both GFF and DRI had to call off the proceedings. But here's the catch – GFF was never a part of the case; it was merely an NGO lending support to DRI.
The decision, while not final, opens up the possibility of an appeal. The presiding judge, in a thought-provoking move, claimed that X can only be sued at the location of its (European) branch. Strange, considering the judge suggested that companies like X could be sued in the country where the NGO seeking data is based. If this persists, we may witness a surge in lawsuits under Art. 40(12) of the DSA in the future. This legal quandary is a big deal.
A Clear Whiff of Inappropriateness
The judge who issued the preliminary injunction continues to work for the judiciary, albeit not in the 41st civil chamber. Our take on this? A pungent aroma of inappropriateness fills the air. He should've recused himself due to concerns over perceived bias. The accusation isn't about him being on one side, but about his failure to disclose his connections.
If this judge was aware of his duty to self-report under § 48 ZPO, either a lack of character or professional incompetence is to blame. The fact that he then decided the case in favor of the party he was close to, without the necessary conditions being met, erodes the trust people put in the judiciary. A judge's integrity is paramount for the legal system's standing.
Dr. Clivia von Dewitz, a judge, holds a doctorate in NS ideology and criminal law, with a focus on §§ 86, 86a and § 130 StGB. She habilitated in 2024, specializing in Restorative Justice.
This contribution was generated as part of our Open-Source initiative. With Open Source, the Berlin publisher invites all interested parties to contribute texts with relevant content and professional quality standards. Selected contributions will be published and remunerated. This contribution is licensed under the Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). It can be used for non-commercial purposes under both the author's name and the Berlin newspaper's, without modifications.
Pondering legal ramifications under Art. 40(12) of the DSA:The Digital Services Act (DSA) encompasses regulations guiding digital services, including compliance measures and enforcement procedures. Art. 40(12) may specifically concern legal actions against digital service providers, like the lifting of preliminary injunctions. The dismantling of such orders could mean the court found insufficient grounds to maintain the restrictions, possibly influenced by new evidence, changes in the legal landscape, or procedural errors.
The implications for digital service companies could include:- Compliance Evaluation: Companies might need to revise their compliance strategies based on the court's reasoning for lifting the injunction.- Legal Precedents: These decisions can set legal precedents, shaping how similar cases are handled in the future.- Regulatory Landscape: The outcome could influence the broader regulatory environment, impacting how Art. 40(12) of the DSA is interpreted and applied.
- As policy-and-legislation debates surrounding judicial impartiality continue to dominate general-news headlines, the recent Berlin judicial muddle in the Battle Against X adds fuel to the fire, with concerns about perceived bias and a failure to disclose connections affecting the outcome of the case.
- Politics and general-news are heavily intertwined in the ongoing Berlin court case, as questions surrounding the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest in the judicial process raises questions about the integrity of the legal system, and by extension, the broader political landscape.
