Search

The article deals with the case of a police officer who was found guilty of violating official secrecy and other crimes. The regional court sentenced him to a fine and in some cases overturned the guilty verdict due to lack of criminal complaints. The appeals of the defendant and the prosecution were partially successful, with the sentencing of the regional court being criticized. The Federal Court of Justice reviewed the judgments and found legal errors, leading to the annulment and referral of the case. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case in which the police conducted a mobile phone tracking to find a man who had announced his suicide. The police could not find the man and commissioned a company to locate him, which incurred costs of 90 euros. The man was later found and the police asked him to pay the costs. The administrative court ruled that the payment request was justified, as the mobile phone tracking was justified to avert an urgent danger to the man's life. The question is raised whether costs for government services can be charged in certain situations. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about an applicant who is appealing against his dismissal from the probationary civil service in the police force. The Thuringian Higher Administrative Court has ruled that military service in the field police force cannot generally be credited towards the probationary period for a career in the middle police enforcement service. The decision on the probation of the civil servant during the probationary period lies with the employer and is based on a personality-based evaluation. The applicant's dismissal order was considered formally and substantively lawful. [Extracted from the article]

The constitutional complaint concerns the assertion of a denied monetary compensation before the regional court following a judicial finding of the unlawfulness of a physical search of a prisoner involving complete undressing. The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that searches involving undressing constitute a serious infringement of the general right to personal privacy. The affected individual is entitled to special consideration, particularly in searches that touch upon the intimate area and the sense of shame. The Federal Constitutional Court has already decided that the protective mandate of the general right to personal privacy is realized through the claim for compensation for non-material damages. In the present text, the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the question of compensation for non-material damages are addressed. It is determined that compensation is generally appropriate to compensate for the non-material harm suffered by an affected person. Only in exceptional cases is the finding of the violation itself sufficient as satisfaction. In the specific case of Roth v. Germany, it was determined that the searches were unlawful and constituted a serious infringement of the general right to personal privacy. It is emphasized that victims of convention violations should have a mechanism available to hold state authorities accountable for the violation. However, the regional court rejected the claim for compensation without adequately considering the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the decision of the regional court is overturned and the case is remanded. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with police measures against road blockers. On December 23, 2019, about 15 individuals from the left political spectrum blocked the road to the S. shopping center in C. The police dispersed the gathering and demanded that the individuals clear the street. A woman who was inside a food barrel filled with concrete was searched. The Administrative Court of Gelsenkirchen ruled that the police measures were lawful, as the identity of the plaintiff could not be determined in any other way and the search was carried out to enforce the eviction order. It could not be verified whether the plaintiff's claim that the search involved partial undressing and touching in the genital area is accurate. [Extracted from the article]

The Federal Constitutional Court has considered the constitutional complaint of a complainant as justified, as the decisions of the district court and the regional court violate the complainant's fundamental right to the inviolability of telecommunications secrecy. Telecommunications secrecy not only protects the content of communication, but also the circumstances of communication. The order for telecommunications surveillance against non-suspects requires a secure factual basis. In this case, the specialized courts did not sufficiently consider that the fundamental right of Article 10 of the Basic Law must be respected in the interpretation and application of § 100a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The assumption that there would be an exchange of information between the complainant and the accused is based solely on vague indications and presumptions and is therefore unconstitutional. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the case of a complainant who, in a fine proceedings for a traffic violation, requested access to certain documents and measurement data of the laser device PoliScan Speed. Both the district court and the higher regional court rejected access to this information, which violates the right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court for the state of Baden-Württemberg has ruled that the complainant's right to a fair trial was violated and that he generally has the right to access the information available at the fine authority. The court should have at least provided the complainant with the existing maintenance and repair documentation. The decisions of the courts are considered unconstitutional. [Extracted from the article]

The document deals with a standardized measurement procedure in case of mere deficiencies in the measurement protocol. A fine was overturned because the speed measurement was not standardized. The Bavarian Supreme State Court ruled that the existence of a standardized measurement procedure depends on compliance with technical specifications, not on the correct preparation of the protocol. Deviations from the manufacturer's specifications cannot call into question the standardized measurement procedure. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the unlawful support of the police in a home search for the enforcement of a family court order. The administrative court dismissed the lawsuit, but the appeal was successful. The court ruled that the police measures violated the judicial reservation of the Basic Law. It is being discussed whether enforcement agencies of the courts are considered authorities or independent organs of the judiciary. The police can only assist in a home search if it has been ordered by a court or, exceptionally, without a judicial decision due to imminent danger. [Extracted from the article]

The plaintiff has applied for assistance for a multi-year dental implant treatment that took place from 2014 to 2018. The defendant has rejected the assistance and the lawsuit has been unsuccessful in two instances. The Hamburg Higher Administrative Court has ruled that a medical treatment does not have to be completed in order to incur expenses. It has also been determined that the plaintiff must clearly submit assistance applications and that he should seek appropriate legal advice in case of legal problems. The plaintiff argues that he should be granted reinstatement due to incorrect information. He claims that incorrect information was given to him by a case officer, which can be attributed to the defendant. The plaintiff also argues that the defendant was not allowed to rely on the time limit exclusion, as they were not entitled to do so due to the incorrect information. However, the appellate court shares the assessment of the administrative court and sees no reason why the plaintiff did not eliminate the uncertainties by submitting the invoices already available earlier. The plaintiff has not demonstrated any fundamental significance of the legal matter. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the admissibility of positive evidence obtained from a drug control enforced under threat of punishment in a criminal proceeding. The Bavarian Supreme Court has ruled that such evidence may be used, as the principle of self-incrimination is not violated and there is no prohibition on the use of evidence. The instruction to carry out drug controls is an obligation to cooperate and serves to prevent drug abuse and further criminal activity. It is emphasized that the right to remain silent and the prohibition of forced self-incrimination are important principles based on the guiding principle of respect for human dignity. Obligations to cooperate in connection with drug control instructions or other police measures do not affect the rights to refuse to testify or give evidence in administrative or criminal proceedings. [Extracted from the article]

The Higher Administrative Court has changed a decision of the Administrative Court regarding the right to assembly. Assemblies are local gatherings of several people for the purpose of communal discussion or demonstration aimed at participating in opinion formation. The use of sound amplification equipment for internal communication is generally not necessary when there are fewer than 20 participants. The legal assessment of an event as an assembly depends on whether, from the perspective of an average observer, it is characterized as an assembly or if other purposes take precedence. A summary examination strongly suggests the lawfulness of the condition that the applicant is prohibited from using speakers and megaphones at assemblies with fewer than 20 people after 10:00 PM. This serves to protect the residents' night rest. However, the prohibition of playing music is likely to be unlawful, as there are milder and equally effective measures for averting danger, such as a general volume limit. The selection of the location and modalities of an assembly falls under the organizer's right to self-determination, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with a constitutional complaint against the criminal conviction of a complainant for insulting public officials. The Federal Constitutional Court decides that the conviction violates the complainant's freedom of expression. It is emphasized that freedom of expression also includes evaluative statements, even if they are polemical or offensive. The protection of the personal rights of public officials and politicians on the internet is considered important. The decision of the regional court regarding a statement is criticized for not being sufficiently justified. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a lawsuit filed by an event organizer against the fees for a police operation during a high-risk match between SV Werder Bremen and Hamburger SV in April 2015. The administrative court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the higher administrative court later dismissed the case. The Federal Administrative Court partially overturned the decision, but further reduced the fee demand. Questions were raised regarding the conflict of norms and the joint liability between the plaintiff and the disruptive individuals, but these were not decisive for the outcome of the proceedings. The plaintiff also criticized the inadequate examination and evaluation of the forecast basis regarding the change in the number of operations. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the relationship between seizure and confiscation in tax criminal proceedings. It discusses the case of a complainant who is suspected of aiding tax evasion. A search of his residential and business premises, as well as the premises of an auditing and tax consulting company, was ordered. The regional court determined that the search warrant was unlawful as there was no initial suspicion against the complainant. The complainant's constitutional complaint is partially accepted and considered justified as it violates the complainant's fundamental right under Article 3 paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). It is determined that the decisions of the courts are not legally justifiable under the principle of arbitrariness prohibition according to Article 3 paragraph 1 GG. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case of property damage to the facade of a university building for climate protection reasons. The defendant was warned by the district court and sentenced to a fine. He intentionally defaced the facade with paint, aiming to draw attention to climate change. The defendant's appeal was rejected as the damage to the facade was not justified. The court's decision is based on the fact that no one has the right to violate the rights of others to attract attention or enforce their own views. [Extracted from the article]

The article titled "Fake vaccination certificate as a punishable false health certificate" deals with the case of a person who presented a fake vaccination certificate in order to be exempt from wearing masks. The Bavarian Supreme State Court has ruled that the person is not liable to prosecution because the fake vaccination certificate does not contain any false statement about their health condition. The court chamber has determined that the certificate only contains general medical assessments based on subjective complaints that cannot be objectively verified. The court's decision is based on a comprehensive evaluation of the individual case. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case in which a driving ban was waived due to exceptional hardship. The regional government had imposed a fine and a driving ban on the person concerned, but the district court only determined the fine. The public prosecutor's office lodged an appeal against this decision and was successful. The higher regional court ruled that a driving ban can only be waived in exceptional cases if the circumstances represent an extraordinary hardship for the person concerned. However, the district court had not sufficiently justified why a driving ban was waived. [Extracted from the article]

The article "On the scope of the assembly law prohibition of wearing masks" is about a case before the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. A defendant was convicted by the District Court for violating the prohibition of wearing masks, but the Regional Court acquitted him. The Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal and criticized deficiencies in the presentation of the judgment and the interpretation of the prohibition of wearing masks. The Higher Regional Court decided that the appealed judgment was not fair and that the evaluation of evidence was insufficient. It was also determined that a restrictive interpretation of the prohibition of wearing masks was not justified. [Extracted from the article]

The article is about a case in which an online shop operator was prohibited from using the Thuringian state coat of arms or parts of it on their products. The plaintiff had sold various products with lion depictions that resembled the Thuringian state coat of arms. The Administrative Court of Meiningen ruled that the decision of the Thuringian Ministry of the Interior and Local Government was lawful and that the plaintiff had violated the prohibition of using the state coat of arms. The chamber determined that the depicted lions on the plaintiff's products corresponded to the Thuringian coat of arms lion in all details. [Extracted from the article]

The Regional Court of Osnabrück has overturned a decision of the Local Court that had confirmed the police seizure of a mobile phone. During a police operation in downtown Osnabrück, a man was restrained by officers while bystanders disrupted the situation. The complainant held his mobile phone visibly in front of his body and recorded video and audio. The police officers instructed him to stop recording and seized his mobile phone against his will. The Regional Court ruled that words spoken during official duty in a public space are generally spoken in a factual public setting and therefore do not fall within the scope of protection of the Criminal Code. [Extracted from the article]