Hamburg court seizes Die Zeit interview tapes in Block family case

Commentary by Ann-Kathrin Leclere

Published: October 13, 2026, 16:12

The Hamburg Regional Court seized interview recordings from the Zeit editorial team in connection with the Block family. Now the media outlet is fighting back — rightly so.

For journalists, Monday morning in Hamburg was a nightmare. Two female police officers and a representative of the Hamburg court arrived at the editorial offices of the weekly newspaper Die Zeit. They carried an order from the Hamburg Regional Court and threatened a search if the journalists did not voluntarily hand over certain information.

The matter concerns the podcast "House of Block." For this, Zeit journalist Anne Kunze spoke with the children of the Hamburg entrepreneur family Block in early 2024, shortly after their abduction, after they had been returned to their father in Denmark. The investigating authorities want to use the recordings to verify the credibility of witnesses. They are also looking for alleged contract documents regarding agreements between the interviewees and Zeit. No such contract exists, the Zeit publishing group stated in a press release.

Of course, public prosecutors may ask questions and conduct investigations. But when journalists do not hand over information, that must be the end of it. Journalists are not auxiliary investigators for the justice system. They must be able to work independently and protect their sources. Investigative authorities must not simply access journalistic material.

What makes this particularly explosive is that Zeit is not accused of false reporting or flawed research. The investigators are interested in the recordings because they could serve as evidence. This turns source protection into an obstacle that investigative authorities want to remove.

The Trust of Sources

Journalistic work depends on the trust of sources. Those who expose grievances rely on people being willing to share information — often at great personal risk. Journalists cannot promise them absolute security. But informants must be able to trust that confidential conversations will not subsequently become material for state investigations. If sources must fear that their statements could end up with the public prosecutor's office when needed, they will increasingly stay silent in the future.

The Hamburg Regional Court's decision could therefore have a signal effect. What would have happened if the officials had actually searched the editorial offices, seized computers, and taken data storage devices — possibly containing material from entirely different investigative research? What if other courts also approve this decision in the future and further curtail editorial confidentiality?

Zeit handed over the documents only sealed and objected to the seizure. Editors-in-chief Giovanni di Lorenzo and Jochen Wegner announced they would fight back with all legal means. A large editorial team can afford this. Smaller media outlets may not have the necessary resources. But press freedom must not depend on whether a publisher can afford a legal dispute.

All of this happened during Hamburg's Press Freedom Week, of all times. It is a clear sign of how press freedom is coming under pressure in Germany. The currently planned reform of the powers of the Federal Intelligence Service and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution also gives cause for concern.

Surveillance Like 1984

On Monday, the Bundestag's Interior Committee deliberated on the draft law. The planned handling of journalistic contacts is problematic: special protection is only to apply when journalists themselves are specifically surveilled. If, however, a source is surveilled and authorities encounter their contact with an editorial team, this protection could lapse.

This is contradictory. For journalists, it makes no difference whether authorities specifically surveil them or accidentally encounter their contacts. In both cases, the confidentiality of their work can be compromised. During the discussion on the reform of the Federal Intelligence Service last Monday, incidentally, not a single media representative was invited as an expert, criticized the German Journalists' Union (dju) in a press release from Verdi.

They apparently are only asked for information when they might have explosive information, as in the Block case, and are to be made into tools of criminal prosecution. One does not want to imagine how Orwellian this nightmare could continue.

Ann-Kathrin Leclere is a media editor. From Kassel, she lived in Erfurt for a long time and studied communication science. There she founded a local magazine. Afterwards, she completed a master's degree in journalism in Leipzig. Until October 2023, she was a trainee at taz. Now she is an editor for media (and sometimes humorous content).

Related Articles:

• Press Freedom in Germany: DJV Condemns AfD Threat Against ZDF Reporter — AfD politician Ulrich Siegmund threatened "heute-show" reporter Fabian Köster during an interview. The journalists' association speaks of "pure intimidation."

• Treason at the Intelligence Service: Is the BND Reform in Good Hands? — Commentary by Konrad Litschko. That former BND chief August Hanning allegedly spied is a catastrophe. After all, the intelligence service is only now supposed to receive new powers.

• Trial Against Christina Block: Witness Incriminates Steakhouse Heiress — In the trial concerning the abduction of two children, a witness questioned Christina Block's account. The background is a custody dispute. By Gernot Knödler.