Thomas Stadelmann, Richter am Schweizerischen Bundesgericht, beleuchtet die Auswirkungen, die Live-Berichterstattung aus dem Gerichtssaal mit Instant Messaging und Twitter haben kann.
Als Beispiel wählt Stadelmann die Verhandlung am Bundesgericht über die Amtshilfe an Frankreich zur Identität von UBS-Kunden im Sommer 2019.
Interessanterweise war dem Bundesgericht damals nicht klar, dass live aus der Verhandlung berichtet wurde.
Ausgangslage bildeten Spekulationen in den Medien über die mutmasslichen Positionen der einzelnen Richter, insbesondere im Tages-Anzeiger:
«[…] The day before, there had been speculation in different daily newspapers as to how the Federal Supreme Court would probably decide. […] The journalist’s reflections were rather far-fetched, but what is decisive in the present context is that they created an expectation of the readership about the outcome of the proceedings.»
NZZ: Live-Berichterstattung beeinflusste UBS-Aktienkurs
Die Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) berichtete mit einem Live-Ticker aus der Verhandlung am Bundesgericht:
«Throughout the public deliberation, another major daily newspaper […] maintained online reporting on the course of the discussion, which the court was not aware of at the time. The court correspondent of the newspaper continuously delivered the results of the votes of the individual judges from the courtroom and her report could be followed in a live-ticker […].»
In der Folge – so Stadelmann – bewegte sich der UBS-Aktienkurs aufgrund der Live-Berichterstattung:
«What is interesting for our topic is the subsequent determination of the effects of the online reporting; it was obviously directly relevant to the stock exchange. From the chart of the price development of UBS shares during the deliberations, it can be seen that the presentation by Judge 5 or his motion was interpreted as a very positive signal in UBS’s favour. Obviously, it was at this moment assumed that the data handover would be refused at a ratio of 3:2 (i.e. in favour of UBS) and the price of UBS shares rose quite rapidly. The relative high of the share price did not change even during Judge 3’s counter-presentation. This is easily understandable, since her vote in favour of transferring the files and thus against UBS corresponded to what had been expected. During the break of deliberations, the share price was practically unchanged and also during the – so expected – vote of Judge 4, it remained practically stable. When Judge 2 had the opportunity to speak and it soon became clear that he would vote for data transfer – contrary to expectations – the UBS share price literally plummeted. Of course, the last vote of Judge 1 did not change that […].»
Fazit: Live-Berichterstattung mit weitreichenden Folgen
«The example shows exemplarily that online reporting – from a courtroom – can have far-reaching effects. In this specific case, it was relevant to the stock market. This can be accepted by taking the standpoint that since everyone assumes identical assumptions and information, such an influence is not really harmful. However, one can also take the view that such processes make little economic sense and that the court should not help to promote them. In this case, it would not only be necessary to ban video and audio recordings from the courtroom, but also online reporting.»
Für ein Verbot von Live-Berichterstattung aus dem Gerichtssaal sieht Stadelmann keine bestehende gesetzliche Grundlage am Bundesgericht:
«However, in the case of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, this would probably require the creation of a legal basis.»
Auch nicht auf Grundlage von Art. 59 u. 62 BGerR:
«[…] it is doubtful whether the aforementioned legal and regulatory provisions could also form the basis for a ban on reporting from the courtroom – for example via Twitter or SMS – since neither video nor audio recordings are made, and such reporting hardly disturbs the course of proceedings, the judges or the public.»
Hingegen sind Bild- und Tonaufnahmen aus dem Gerichtssaal bereits verboten. Wer eine Verhandlung vertwittert, muss auf Bilder direkt aus dem Gerichtssaal verzichten.
Quelle: Twitter and SMS from the Courtroom (PDF), in: International Journal for Court Administration, 2020 (mit teilweise falsch nummerierten Fussnoten, so dass die Grünliberalen als «left-wing party» bezeichnet werden).
(Via Dominic van der Zypen, vielen Dank für den Hinweis!)
Bild: Wikimedia Commons / Norbert Aepli, «Bundesgericht (Schweiz) in Lausanne», CC BY 3.0 (nicht portiert)-Lizenz.
