Yesterday, Monday, July 1st, 2013, the 10th Chamber of the Hanover Administrative Court (VG) heard a total of eleven lawsuits (ref.: 10 A 3899/12, etc.) from those affected by a controversial police operation in Uelzen on June 2nd, 2012. According to a press release from the court today, the lawsuits were largely rejected or referred to other courts due to alleged lack of jurisdiction. Those affected will now appeal against the decision.
The subject of the proceedings is a large-scale operation by the federal police on the grounds of the Uelzen train station against participants in an anti-right-wing meeting. The plaintiffs, some of whom were minors at the time, were on their way back from protests against a march by right-wing extremists in Hamburg in the evening hours of June 2, 2012. With a total of around 50 demonstrators, they took a local train from Hamburg to Göttingen with a transfer station in Uelzen. There were also a number of right-wing extremists on the train who had boarded in Hamburg-Harburg later than the plaintiffs. When the train arrived at the train station in Uelzen around 10:15 p.m., the counter-demonstrators were surrounded without explanation by a dog team waiting there and then by numerous federal and state police officers and were filmed continuously from then on. The demonstrators, who had behaved completely peacefully throughout and beforehand, now had to watch as the right-wing extremists were led to the track on which their last connecting train was traveling towards Göttingen. After this train left the Uelzen train station, the personal details of the remaining people were recorded and they were filmed individually. They were then expelled from Uelzen train station until midnight. There were no trains at Uelzen train station after midnight. The entire group therefore had to be picked up in cars in Uelzen by parents and friends that night.
In the administrative court lawsuits that have now been decided, which concern both the police preventing the plaintiffs from driving home as well as the identification of personal details, the videography and the expulsions issued, the 10th Chamber of the Hanover Administrative Court has now even decided without carrying out an in-depth taking of evidence that at most some of the video recordings made were collected illegally. All other claims were either dismissed or referred to other courts. In a press release from the administrative court dated July 2, 2013, it was stated, among other things, that due to the “danger of further physical” attacks, it was justified to only allow those on the right who behaved aggressively to go home.
During the course of the proceedings, the defendant federal police were unable to provide any evidence that the counter-demonstrators had behaved aggressively or criminally. Instead, a police video shows the peacefulness of the counter-demonstrators. In addition, an investigation carried out by the Lüneburg public prosecutor's office even proved that the plaintiffs had nothing to do with an alleged attack on the right-wing group that the Federal Police used to justify the measures.
“Completely peaceful demonstrators against the right have become the pawns of obviously one-sided police measures. The fact that aggressive right-wingers are allowed to board the last train without further ado, while all standard security measures are carried out on the peaceful counter-demonstrators for no reason, as is the case with violent criminals, and even the journey home is prevented, is unacceptable under the rule of law ," said lawyer Sven Adam, who is legally representing the plaintiffs represents. The disappointing verdict of the VG Hanover is also significant from a procedural point of view in that the Metronom Railway Company had already separated two carriages on the train towards Göttingen for the right-wing group in order to prevent collisions. “Despite appropriate requests for evidence, the responsible train attendant from the Metronom Railway Company was not heard as a witness. Instead, the administrative court decided yesterday primarily based on the descriptions of police officers who were not even present on site,” Adam continued. As soon as the reasons for the judgment are available, the legal remedies against this will be exhausted.
If you have any questions, lawyer Sven Adam is available contact details provided
