Search

The article deals with a general administrative order regarding "climate activists". The administrative court has ruled that participants of an unregistered assembly were prohibited from sticking, chaining, tying, or settling on vehicles to block traffic. The general administrative order was considered lawful, except for the prohibition of sticking to vehicles nearby. The actions of the "Last Generation" were considered assemblies within the meaning of Article 8 of the Basic Law. It was determined that public safety and order are directly endangered during the conduct of these assemblies. In relation to future protests by the "Last Generation", it is expected that criminal offenses, particularly coercion according to § 240 of the Criminal Code, may occur. Events related to previous assemblies can be used as evidence of an immediate endangerment to public safety. The actions of the "Last Generation" include protest marches and traffic blockades that are not officially registered. In the case of road blockades, a physical coercive effect can be assumed as soon as the first row of vehicles stops due to the blockade and the following vehicles are prevented from continuing. There is no justification for these actions based on the right to resistance or civil disobedience. The protest actions endanger the safety and smooth flow of traffic, as well as central legal interests of individuals. The orders issued are not flawed. The article describes the legal basis for restricting assemblies in Bavaria according to Article 15 (1) sentence 1 of the Bavarian Assembly Act (BayVersG). The assembly authority has discretion to impose restrictions, taking into account the fundamental rights of the applicant and the principle of proportionality. The imposed measures are proportionate and serve to prevent or minimize dangers to public safety. The restrictions only apply to improperly registered assemblies. The right to self-determination according to Article 8 (1) of the Basic Law (GG) is limited by the protection of the legal interests of third parties and the general public. The assembly authority must give the organizer the opportunity to contribute their ideas for realizing their right to assembly. However, the order that assembly participants are not allowed to stick, chain, tie, or settle on vehicles nearby may not be sufficiently specific and cannot be sufficiently justified. Overall, the challenged restrictions are likely to be mostly lawful. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a bicycle demonstration organized by the movement "Fridays For Future Nuremberg". The defendant limited the procession on the A73 and prohibited certain sections of the route, as this would impair the safety and smooth flow of traffic. The administrative court determined that the demonstration has a special connection to the indicated section of the route, but also that the participants' interest in an alternative route is sufficiently guaranteed. The applicant's appeal to order the suspensive effect of the lawsuit was rejected as unfounded. The administrative court deemed the change of route to be lawful and not in violation of the freedom of assembly. However, it is noted that the publications regarding the changed route are not sufficient to inform the public in the long term. [Extracted from the article]