Der Spiegel is required to refrain from publishing certain parts of its report dated 13 March 2025
In an article published on 13 March 2025, Der Spiegel reported on complaints raised by early-career researchers at Max Planck Institutes. However, the article only addresses two cases - dating back to 2015/16 and 2020/21. Based on these individual situations, Der Spiegel claimed that the Max Planck Society's internal complaints mechanism was dysfunctional. In response, the Max Planck Society (MPG) filed for injunctive relief with the Munich I Regional Court, contesting both the accuracy and the generalisation of these claims. The Court has now ruled in favour of the Max Planck Society on the essential points.
© MPG
Despite prior requests from the Max Planck Society (MPG) for substantiation, Der Spiegel failed to provide documentation in advance for several of the allegations cited in its article. As a result, the MPG was unable to respond to these claims in a meaningful way - let alone initiate any appropriate action. With regard to the two specific cases from 2015/16 and 2020/21, Der Spiegel moreover conveyed the misleading impression that the MPG had failed to act in response to serious allegations. The Regional Court classified this as "false assertions of fact". Indeed, in one case, it was not even possible for MPG to comprehensively and objectively investigate the alleged misconduct, and in the other case, it was actually prevented from doing so. The cases cited by SPIEGEL were therefore unsuitable as evidence that MPG's internal complaint systems "repeatedly fail."
Additionally, Der Spiegel misled readers by referencing a communication from the Bundesrechnungshof (Federal Audit Office ) dated from September 2024. In its current ruling, the Munich I Regional Court identified this as a "false hidden assertion of fact." The reason: the aforementioned communication from the Federal Audit Office dealt solely with the extent to which the Federal Ministry of Education and Research was adequately fulfilling its supervisory duties with regard to MPG. It bore no relation whatsoever to the internal complaint mechanisms for doctoral candidates and postdoctoral researchers at the Max Planck Society. Nonetheless, Der Spiegel implied a connection, thereby drawing an inaccurate and misleading conclusion.
The factual basis for Der Spiegel's criticism of the Max Planck Society's complaint system has been invalidated by the (provisional) injunction issued by the Munich I Regional Court.
The Max Planck Society (MPG) remains deeply committed to fostering a constructive and supportive working environment across its institutes. Following a comprehensive Max Planck-wide survey conducted in 2019, the Society undertook a thorough revision of its governance and compliance regulations and implemented extensive measures in the subsequent years. Notably, a psychosocial (emergency) counselling service was established, offering 24/7 support in 20 languages. Furthermore, MPG employees have multiple possibilities to raise concerns, including direct access to ombudspersons and works councils at their respective institutes, as well as the option to submit complaints to an independent external law firm or the Society's Internal Investigations Unit. All reporting channels are clearly outlined and readily accessible online, with ongoing internal communication efforts to raise awareness through diverse platforms and formats.
The Max Planck Society (MPG) recognises that, in a high-performance organisation dedicated to international cutting-edge research, employees may occasionally face excessive workloads. In response, the Society collaborates closely with various employee groups to continuously enhance its support systems. Beyond providing reliable contract conditions, this commitment includes structured guidance through thesis advisory committees for doctoral candidates and dedicated support from two independent mentors as part of the newly established postdoctoral programme.
