Judgment
In the name of the people
In the administrative litigation
of xxx,
plaintiff,
Authorized representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
the xxx,
defendants,
due to the deletion of a record of findings
The Administrative Court of Kassel, through presiding judge xxx as single judge of the 1st Chamber, based on the oral proceedings of March 1, 2012, has ruled as follows:
The defendant state is ordered to delete the entry concerning the plaintiff in the data registers maintained by the Hessian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which relates to the events in Bad Lauterberg on January 19, 2008.
The defendant country must bear the costs of the proceedings.
The judgment is provisionally enforceable with respect to costs. The defendant may avert enforcement by providing security in the amount of the costs yet to be determined, unless the plaintiff provides security in a corresponding amount beforehand.
Facts:
On January 19, 2008, a demonstration entitled "No quiet hinterland – against the NPD Lower Saxony and the Kameradschaft Northeim" took place in Bad Lauterberg. The demonstration was called for by the Left Party (DIE LINKE) and other left-wing political groups, including the Göttingen local branch and the Göttingen and Osterode district branches of Alliance 90/The Greens, the Green Youth Göttingen, the ver.di Youth in the Lower Saxony/Bremen regional branch, the ver.di Youth and the ver.di Göttingen local executive committee, as well as various organizations belonging to the "anti-fascist" spectrum. The demonstration was registered by a member of the Bundestag from the Left Party.
Prior to this demonstration, the plaintiff was subjected to a vehicle check on a road leading to the starting point of the event. It was discovered that he was carrying a black triangular scarf in his car.
By letter from his legal representative dated June 28, 2010, the plaintiff requested the Hessian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution to provide him with information about all data stored concerning him in the electronic data collection and processing systems it operates.
The State Office for the Protection of the Constitution responded to the request for information in a letter dated August 30, 2010, stating that further data about the plaintiff had accumulated since information had been provided to him in 2008. Specifically, the police report of January 19, 2008, was known, indicating that the plaintiff had carried a scarf on his way to the demonstration in Bad Lauterberg, which was suitable and evidently intended to conceal his identity. The data was stored on the basis of Section 6 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution (HVerfSchG). The data was necessary for the State Office to fulfill its duties pursuant to Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the HVerfSchG. The State Office for the Protection of the Constitution's task is to enable the competent authorities to take the necessary measures in a timely manner to avert threats to the free democratic basic order and the existence and security of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Länder (states).
By letter dated September 1, 2010, the plaintiff subsequently requested the deletion of the entry in question.
In response, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution stated in a letter dated September 2010 that personal data may be stored as soon as there are concrete indications of activities directed against the free democratic basic order. In this respect, fines, criminal proceedings, or convictions are not relevant. The deletion of such data is governed by Section 6 Paragraph 5 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution. The conditions for deletion regarding the incidents of January 19, 2008, in Bad Lauterberg are not yet met.
Subsequently, the plaintiff, through his attorney, filed a lawsuit on March 2, 2011, which was received by the court on the same day, pursuing his request for deletion. He argues that the data storage by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution relating to the incident in question is unlawful and violates his rights under Article 8 Paragraph 1 and Article 2 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. He contends that the prerequisites for storing data pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 4 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution, namely the existence of factual indications of endeavors or activities as defined in Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution, are not met. According to paragraph 1 of the aforementioned provision, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution is authorized to monitor activities directed against the free democratic basic order, the existence or security of the Federation or a state, or aimed at unlawfully interfering with the official duties of the constitutional bodies of the Federation or a state or their members. Activities against the free democratic basic order in this sense are defined as politically motivated, purposeful, and goal-oriented conduct within or on behalf of an association of persons, aimed at eliminating or suspending one of the constitutional principles listed in Section 2, Paragraph 4 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution. It is not apparent to what extent the contested entry is intended to provide any factual basis for activities of this kind. The application does not, in itself, clarify whether the plaintiff actually participated in the demonstration on January 19, 2008. The assertion that he was on his way to the demonstration when stopped by a police officer is merely speculation on the part of the officers conducting the check. Furthermore, considering the organizations that had called for participation in the demonstration, the assembly cannot be classified as one organized by left-wing extremist or partially left-wing extremist groups. Rather, it was a broad, properly registered alliance demonstration supported by many groups of diverse political persuasions. Therefore, participation in the demonstration alone cannot be used to infer any political leanings related to anti-constitutional activities. Regarding the possession of the scarf, no conclusions about political intentions can be drawn from this. The demonstration took place in rainy weather with a maximum temperature of approximately 5 degrees Celsius. It is not unusual to carry additional clothing in such conditions to protect oneself from the cold and wet. Based on this, the data storage constitutes a violation of his – the plaintiff's – rights under the constitutional provisions already mentioned in the introduction (this will be further explained in the statement of claim).
The plaintiff requests that
the defendant state be ordered to delete the entry concerning the plaintiff, which relates to the events in Bad Lauterberg on January 19, 2008.
The defendant country requests
that the lawsuit be dismissed.
The court initially questioned the local jurisdiction of the court in question and referred to the Wiesbaden Administrative Court, which it considered to have jurisdiction. On the merits, it was stated that the plaintiff could not demand the deletion of the data relating to January 19, 2008. In his case, there was sufficient factual evidence to assume that he pursued left-wing extremist aims. This evidence resulted from a comprehensive review of the information stored about him. Insofar as the plaintiff argued that the demonstration on January 19, 2008, was supported by a broad spectrum of diverse political groups, he downplayed the role of left-wing extremists who had been significantly involved in the planning, registration, and execution of the event. The demonstration had been initiated by left-wing extremists and registered by a representative of the extremist party DIE LINKE (The Left Party). Its supporters also included a number of left-wing extremist organizations, among them the DKP Göttingen (German Communist Party) and various district branches of DIE LINKE in Lower Saxony. While non-extremist organizations – such as those affiliated with the Green Party or trade unions – also supported the assembly alongside these extremist groups, this must be seen in the context of the "alliance policy" pursued with great vigor and success by left-wing extremists, particularly in the field of "anti-fascism." Within this framework, left-wing extremists deliberately attempt to integrate non-extremist organizations into their own "anti-fascist" mobilization. This exploits the fact that central elements of right-wing extremist ideology – nationalism and racism – are not accepted by the majority of the population. As a result, "anti-fascist" protests achieve a mobilization potential that extends far beyond the left-wing extremist scene. Numerous groups from the left-wing extremist spectrum called for participation in the demonstration on January 19, 2008 (this is further elaborated in the complaint, which cites relevant internet sources). The actual course of the demonstration also demonstrates that left-wing extremists played a significant role at the time. According to a report in the "Harzkurier" on January 20, 2008, a group of approximately 70 black-clad anarchists marched at the head of the demonstration. This group, interviewed by newspaper reporters, caused fear and unease among citizens and exuded a uniform aggression. The newspaper also reported violations of the ban on face coverings, and police pre-demonstration checks revealed fireworks, a baseball bat, a stun gun, a shako (a type of headdress), pepper spray, and balaclavas. During the demonstration, attempts were made to leave the approved route, but these were prevented by police. Overall, it can be concluded that the key players in the demonstration were left-wing extremists, which, according to the Harzkurier's report, led to some of the organizing groups distancing themselves from the demonstration.
Regarding the plaintiff, police determined that he was stopped and checked during a preliminary check on a road leading to the starting point of the demonstration. The police clearly assumed a connection to the demonstration. During the check, a scarf was found to be belonging to the plaintiff. As can be seen from press reports on the demonstration, several violations of the ban on face coverings were recorded by the police during the demonstration. It is common practice among members of the undogmatic left-wing extremist spectrum, and especially among autonomists, to carry items to demonstrations that could be used for concealment. These include, in particular, hooded jackets, sunglasses, and balaclavas. Instead of balaclavas, scarves or bandanas are often used. These have the advantage for left-wing extremist demonstrators that they are less easily identifiable as items for concealment during police checks. All of the aforementioned items used for disguising oneself served the purpose of hindering identity verification and thus prosecution by the police in the event of an unruly demonstration. Against this background, the cloth carried by the plaintiff should by no means be considered merely as protection against the seasonal cold and wet conditions.
Finally, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution takes great care to distinguish between the various groups of participants at demonstrations, including both left-wing extremists and non-extremists. Accordingly, no data is stored on non-extremist demonstrators. However, the plaintiff was known to the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a left-wing extremist and was therefore considered part of the extremist segment of the demonstration participants. In this respect, it must be taken into account that this is not the first time data concerning the plaintiff has been stored. The stored individual piece of information should therefore not be considered in isolation.
The plaintiff was informed by letter dated June 26, 2008, that data concerning him was stored in the database relating to left-wing extremism. The plaintiff did not contest the information provided in this regard, nor did he request its deletion. Therefore, in the overall assessment of the information stored concerning the plaintiff, further facts must be considered in addition to the demonstration of January 19, 2008. In August 1997, he was identified as a participant in a sit-in protest in front of the Kassel prison, which was carried out by the left-wing extremist autonomous scene. In May 2002, he participated in a protest by the left-wing extremist scene against a memorial service held by the veterans' association of mountain infantrymen in Mittenwald, an event that is the subject of annual left-wing extremist protests. The plaintiff was taken into custody at that time and was only released after the memorial service had concluded. In October 2002, the plaintiff was identified by police during an unannounced demonstration by the autonomous scene in front of the property of a right-wing extremist in Felsberg-Neuenbrunslar. The demonstration, based on its course, was classified as a so-called "home visit" or "outing," and thus as an action by the autonomous scene against a right-wing extremist. Typical autonomous tactic in this regard is to deliberately seek out right-wing extremists at their residences and expose them in front of their neighbors. Due to a violation of the Assembly Act and resisting arrest, the plaintiff was temporarily detained in Hanau in March 2003, where he had participated in a protest by the left-wing extremist scene against a demonstration by the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany). In May 2004, the plaintiff was again identified in Mittenwald in connection with an action by the left-wing extremist scene against a neo-Nazi group event. In February 2005, he participated in a demonstration by opponents of deportations at Frankfurt Airport and was temporarily arrested there for violating the Assembly Act and trespassing. Since the plaintiff was known to the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution in connection with left-wing extremist circles, his participation in the demonstration of January 19, 2008, should be assessed differently than the participation of a person who had not previously come to the attention of the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution in this context.
Following the defendant state's objection to the local jurisdiction of the court seized of the matter, the Kassel Administrative Court, by decision of May 9, 2011, declared itself to have local jurisdiction to decide the legal dispute. Reference is made to the reasoning given for this decision.
By further decision of 23 January 2012, the Chamber transferred the legal dispute to the rapporteur as a single judge for decision pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act.
During the oral hearing on March 1, 2012, the plaintiff provided further details regarding the sequence of events that led to the disputed entry in the data register of the State Office. Reference is made to the minutes of the hearing of the same date in this respect.
For further details of the facts and the parties' submissions, reference is made to the contents of the court files and the documents submitted by the parties. These files and documents were the subject of the oral hearing.
Reasons for the decision:
The action is admissible as an action for performance within the meaning of Section 42 Paragraph 1, second alternative, of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO).
Although the plaintiff ultimately seeks to achieve a tangible result, namely the deletion of certain data concerning him and a specific incident stored at the Hessian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the decision regarding this must be made by means of a preliminary administrative act. Therefore, for the judicial enforcement of the deletion request, which the State Office rejected in a letter dated September 8, 2010, an action for performance is the appropriate type of action (see also Wiesbaden Administrative Court, judgment of September 14, 2005 – 6 E 2129/04 –, Juris; Baden-Württemberg Higher Administrative Court, judgment of June 20, 1990 – 10 S 343/90 –, also Juris; Simitis, BDSG, 7th ed., § 20 para. 106).
The lawsuit, which is otherwise admissible, is also well-founded. The plaintiff is entitled to have the data concerning him, stored in the data collection system by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution regarding the events of January 19, 2008, in Bad Lauterberg, deleted.
The handling of a request for erasure, which – like that of the plaintiff – concerns the erasure of personal data, is governed by Section 19 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Hessian Constitutional Court Act in conjunction with Section 19 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Hessian Data Protection Act (see also Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Hessian Data Protection Act).
According to Section 19 Paragraph 3 of the Hessian Data Protection Act (HDSG), personal data must be deleted immediately as soon as it is established that its storage is no longer necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected or for which it may be further processed pursuant to Section 13 Paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Act. According to Section 19 Paragraph 4 of the HDSG, personal data must be deleted if its processing is unlawful. Data processing within the meaning of this provision is any use of stored or intended-to-be-stored personal data. The term "storage" includes the recording, capturing, or keeping of data on a data carrier for the purpose of its further processing (cf. Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 No. 2 HDSG). If a court is dealing with a request for deletion that has not been granted by the authority, the factual and legal situation at the time of the court's decision is decisive for the legal assessment of the case. This applies – as follows from the wording of Section 19 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Hessian Data Protection Act (HDSG) ("...is necessary" and "...is inadmissible," respectively") – within the scope of application of both provisions. Within the framework of the application of Section 19 Paragraph 4 HDSG, personal data must therefore be deleted not only if the storage was inadmissible from the outset, but also if the storage was initially permissible, but the legal basis for the further storage of data collected in this way subsequently ceased to exist (cf. Simitis, BDSG, 7th ed., Section 20, marginal note 39).
The (further) processing of personal data is inadmissible within the meaning of Section 19 Paragraph 3 of the Hessian Data Protection Act (HDSG) unless permitted or ordered by a legal provision. The authority of the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution in this regard is regulated in the relevant provisions of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution (HVerfSchG). The following can be inferred from this:
According to Section 2 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution (HVerfSchG), the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution is tasked with enabling the competent authorities to take the necessary measures in a timely manner to avert dangers to the free democratic basic order, the existence and security of the Federal Republic and the Länder (federal states). To fulfill these tasks, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution monitors activities as defined in Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 Numbers 1 to 5 of the HVerfSchG and, for this purpose, collects and analyzes information, in particular factual and personal information, reports, and documents concerning such activities or endeavors (Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution). With regard to the data collection and storage at issue here, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution deemed Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution (HVerfSchG) applicable, according to which the constitutional mandate for the protection of the constitution encompasses, among other things, endeavors directed against the free democratic basic order, the existence or security of the Federation or a state (Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1 HVerfSchG). According to the legal definition in Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Letter c HVerfSchG, endeavors within the meaning of this provision are politically motivated, purposeful, and goal-oriented conduct within or for an association of persons, aimed at eliminating or suspending one of the constitutional principles mentioned in Paragraph 4 (see the protected interests listed there under Letters a to g).
The right granted to the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution under these regulations to collect and store personal data concerning activities and endeavors as described above in its data registers is not unlimited. Rather, it requires that, in each individual case, there be objective indications that point with sufficient probability to the individual concerned engaging in activities hostile to the constitution (see also Wiesbaden Administrative Court, judgment of September 14, 2005 - 6 E 2129/04 -, Juris).
The State Office for the Protection of the Constitution made the disputed data entry against the background of the plaintiff's involvement in left-wing extremist circles and activity within this scene, which was sufficiently documented from an official point of view.
Left-wing extremism is generally used as a collective term for various movements and ideologies within the political left that reject parliamentary democracy and capitalism and seek to replace them with an egalitarian society. Supporters of left-wing extremist groups regularly challenge at least some of the constitutionally protected interests described in Section 2, Paragraph 4, Letters a to g of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution (HVerfSchG). Such individuals thus oppose fundamental elements of the free democratic order. Furthermore, some members of this scene pursue their goals through the use of violence (see, in detail, the judgment of the Frankfurt/Oder Administrative Court of November 26, 2010 – 3 K 1993/06-, Juris). Against this background, the single judge assumes that membership in a left-wing extremist group or left-wing extremist activities by individuals are generally to be regarded as endeavors against the free democratic basic order within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 No. 1, Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 Letter c of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution and can justify the collection of information and personal data and their storage for purposes of constitutional protection (see also Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of July 21, 2010 – BVerwG 6 C 22/09 –, Juris).
However, in the present case, this does not initially justify the conclusion that the information forwarded to the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution by the operational police in Bad Lauterberg regarding the incidents concerning the plaintiff on January 19, 2008, would in itself have justified storage – possibly even initial storage. The objective content of the police report concerning the plaintiff on the day of the demonstration is essentially limited to the fact that a black scarf was found in his vehicle, occupied by four people, during a police vehicle check conducted near the starting point of the demonstration. This fact alone, considering the other circumstances that came to light regarding the nature and course of the demonstration, does not identify the plaintiff as an active supporter of left-wing extremist circles. Nor can it be inferred with the necessary certainty that the plaintiff intended to march in the so-called "black bloc" at the demonstration – possibly in violation of the ban on face coverings – or to otherwise draw attention to himself as a proponent of left-wing extremist aims. The mere discovery of a scarf in the vehicle, which the plaintiff was neither wearing nor tied around his neck at the time of the police investigation, does not constitute sufficient evidence, especially since the plaintiff provided a perfectly plausible explanation for carrying this item of clothing, citing the weather conditions at the time – an explanation that lay outside any political affiliation. Ultimately, the only thing that can be definitively concluded from the police report that led to the data entry is that the plaintiff – as he readily admitted during the oral proceedings – intended to participate in a public demonstration against right-wing extremist activities in southern Lower Saxony on January 19, 2008, which did not occur for the reasons he detailed during the hearing. The demonstration in question, which was indisputably properly registered beforehand, may have been supported or even co-initiated by left-wing extremist groups, but it was also undeniably supported by organizations from the mainstream political spectrum. The local press reports on the event, which were submitted to the court, indicate that approximately 600 to 650 people – according to the organizer, even 800 – participated in the demonstration, of whom only about 70 belonged to the so-called "black bloc" and thus clearly to the left-wing extremist spectrum. Therefore, not every (potential) participant in the event can automatically be presumed to have a connection to the far-left spectrum relevant under constitutional protection law, unless there are concrete indications – such as behavior typical of the scene during participation in the demonstration – pointing in this direction. The findings made regarding the plaintiff before the demonstration are insufficient to classify him, given his circumstances at the time, as a far-left participant in the demonstration. In this respect, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution itself emphasized that this distinction is carefully observed when monitoring assemblies such as the one on January 19, 2008, because the necessity of storing information is determined by this distinction.
However, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution did not stop at an isolated consideration of the finding that constitutes the subject of the disputed data entry. Rather, it correctly recognized, in principle, that the relevance under constitutional law of an individual piece of personal information must be determined by a comprehensive evaluation of all data with corresponding informational value already recorded about the person in the maintained data registers. In this respect, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution referred to a total of six stored entries concerning findings related to the plaintiff's participation in events with an apparently left-wing extremist background between August 1997 and February 2005 (see the description in the written statement of defense reproduced in the statement of facts of this judgment).
The court has no doubt that the processing of this information was permissible at the time it was entered into the official data collection systems, because it apparently placed the plaintiff close to the left-wing extremist spectrum. However, with regard to the storage of the information about the police assessment of January 19, 2008, approximately three years after the plaintiff's last relevant registration, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution failed to adequately consider that the authority to store personal data is limited in substance by Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Hessian Law on the Protection of the Constitution (HVerfSchG), according to which the scope and duration of the storage of such data must be limited to what is necessary for the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution to fulfill its tasks. This limitation corresponds to the provision of Section 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the HVerfSchG, which restricts the constitutional mandate for collecting information to personal information, reports, and documents concerning such – i.e., anti-constitutional – endeavors or activities.
From the perspective of the single judge, the contested data entry, even when considering information about the plaintiff from previous entries in the data registers maintained by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, is not suitable, based on its objective content, to provide insight into his continued involvement in left-wing extremist circles or activities attributable to that scene. The fact that the information concerning the plaintiff as of January 19, 2008, ultimately reveals nothing in this regard has already been explained above in another context. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not attract attention through any relevant activities for a period of approximately three years prior to his renewed registration by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in 2008, a situation that apparently remained unchanged until the court's relevant decision. Given the previously evidently more or less continuous surveillance of the plaintiff and the forwarding of police information to the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, this can certainly be interpreted as an indication that the plaintiff has adopted a more politically moderate stance over the past several years. Even during the oral proceedings, the plaintiff gave the impression that his lawsuit was primarily aimed at preventing the domestic intelligence agency from recording what he considered to be an arbitrary and misinterpreted situation by the police. In contrast, the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution presented no new personal information that could contradict such an assessment.
Whether the plaintiff can also claim the deletion of the contested entry because it is established that the storage of the personal data in question is no longer necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected (§ 19 para. 3 HDSG) may ultimately remain undecided in this context. However, the fact that no information relevant under constitutional protection law has been recorded about the plaintiff since February 2005 – with the exception of the information concerning the incident of January 19, 2008, which was stored unlawfully as explained above – could also point in this direction.
After all this, the action was to be granted with the costs to be borne by the plaintiff pursuant to Section 154 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act.
The decision regarding the provisional enforceability of the judgment concerning costs is based on Section 167 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) in conjunction with Sections 708 No. 11 and 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
Legal remedies information:
The parties may apply for leave to appeal against this judgment. The application for leave to appeal must be filed with the [relevant authority] within one month of service of the complete judgment.
Hessian Administrative Court,
Brüder-Grimm-Platz 1-3,
34117 Kassel
to submit.
An appeal is admissible only if:
1. there are serious doubts as to the correctness of the judgment;
2. the case presents particular factual or legal difficulties;
3. the case is of fundamental importance;
4. the judgment deviates from a decision of the Higher Administrative Court, the Federal Administrative Court, the Joint Senate of the Highest Courts of the Federation, or the Federal Constitutional Court, and is based on this deviation; or
5. a procedural defect subject to review by the appellate court is alleged and exists, and the decision may be based on this defect.
Representation by counsel is mandatory before the Higher Administrative Court of Hesse pursuant to Section 67 Paragraph 4 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. This also applies to procedural acts that initiate proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court of Hesse.
Electronic documents may be submitted to the Hessian administrative courts and the Hessian Higher Administrative Court in accordance with the Ordinance of the State Government on Electronic Legal Transactions at Hessian Courts and Public Prosecutor's Offices of October 26, 2007 (GVBl. I, p. 699). Attention is drawn to the requirement of a qualified digital signature for documents that are equivalent to a document requiring a written signature (§ 55a para. 1 sentence 3 VwGO).
Decision:
The value of the subject matter of the dispute is set at €1,000.00.
Reasons:
The determination of the value in dispute is based on Sections 1 Paragraph 2 No. 1, 52 Paragraph 2 of the Court Costs Act (GKG). The single judge has applied 1/5 of the statutory default value in dispute because he considers this to be an appropriate assessment of the interest pursued by the plaintiff with his request for cancellation.
Legal remedies information:
An appeal against the determination of the value in dispute is available to the parties if the value of the subject matter of the appeal exceeds 200 euros or if the court that issued the contested decision has granted leave to appeal in its ruling. The appeal must be filed with the
Administrative Court Kassel,
Tischbeinstraße 32,
34121 Kassel
to be submitted in writing or for recording by the clerk of the court.
It is only admissible within six months after the decision in the main proceedings has become legally binding or the proceedings have otherwise been concluded.
If the amount in dispute is determined less than one month before the expiry of this period, the appeal may still be lodged within one month after service or informal notification of the determination order.
Applications and declarations may be submitted in writing or recorded at the registry without the involvement of an authorized representative, § 68 para. 1 sentence 5 in conjunction with § 66 para. 5 sentence 1 GKG.
The provisions of the procedural rules applicable to the underlying proceedings shall apply accordingly to the authorization, Section 68 Paragraph 1 Sentence 5 in conjunction with Section 66 Paragraph 5 Sentence 2 GKG.
Electronic documents may be submitted to the Hessian administrative courts and the Hessian Higher Administrative Court in accordance with the Ordinance of the State Government on Electronic Legal Transactions at Hessian Courts and Public Prosecutor's Offices of October 26, 2007 (GVBl. I, p. 699). Attention is drawn to the requirement of a qualified digital signature for documents that are equivalent to a document requiring a written signature (§ 55a para. 1 sentence 3 VwGO).
