Yesterday, Monday, July 1, 2013, the 10th Chamber of the Hanover Administrative Court heard a total of eleven lawsuits (case numbers: 10 A 3899/12 et al.) filed by victims of a controversial police operation in Uelzen on June 2, 2012. According to a press release issued by the court today, the lawsuits were largely dismissed or referred to other courts due to alleged lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs will now appeal the decision.
The subject of the proceedings is a large-scale operation by the Federal Police at Uelzen train station against participants in an anti-right-wing rally. The plaintiffs, some of whom were minors at the time, were returning from protests against a right-wing extremist march in Hamburg on the evening of June 2, 2012. They were traveling with approximately 50 demonstrators on a local train from Hamburg to Göttingen, with a transfer in Uelzen. Several right-wing extremists, who had boarded later than the plaintiffs in Hamburg-Harburg, were also on the train. When the train arrived at Uelzen station at approximately 10:15 p.m., the counter-demonstrators were surrounded without explanation by a waiting dog unit and subsequently by numerous officers from the Federal and State Police, who filmed them continuously. The demonstrators, who had behaved entirely peacefully both before and during the operation, were forced to watch as the right-wing extremists were escorted to the platform where their last connecting train to Göttingen was departing. After the train left Uelzen station, the personal details of the remaining passengers were recorded and they were individually filmed. They were then ordered to leave Uelzen station until midnight. No trains ran from Uelzen station after midnight. The entire group therefore had to be picked up by parents and friends in Uelzen that same night.
In the now-concluded administrative court proceedings, which concern both the police's prevention of the plaintiffs' return home and the recording of personal details, the video recording, and the issued orders to leave the area, the 10th Chamber of the Hanover Administrative Court has now ruled, even without conducting a thorough examination of the evidence, that at most only some of the video recordings were made unlawfully. All other claims were either dismissed or referred to other courts. A press release from the Administrative Court dated July 2, 2013, states, among other things, that due to the "danger of further physical" attacks, it was justified to allow only those right-wing extremists behaving aggressively to return home.
During 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 documented the peaceful nature of the counter-demonstrators. Furthermore, an investigation by the Lüneburg Public Prosecutor's Office, which was subsequently initiated, even proved that the plaintiffs had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged attack on the right-wing group, which the Federal Police had cited to justify their actions.
“Completely peaceful anti-right-wing demonstrators have become pawns in what is clearly one-sided police action. The fact that aggressive right-wingers are allowed to board the last train without any further ado, while peaceful counter-demonstrators are subjected to all standard preventative measures as if they were violent offenders, and are even prevented from traveling home, is unacceptable under the rule of law,” said attorney Sven Adam, who represents the plaintiffs. The disappointing ruling by the Hanover Administrative Court is also noteworthy from a procedural standpoint, as the Metronom railway company had already separated two carriages on the train heading towards Göttingen for the group of right-wingers in order to prevent clashes. “Despite corresponding requests for evidence, the responsible train attendant from the Metronom railway company was not heard as a witness. Instead, the Administrative Court made its decision yesterday primarily based on the accounts of police officers who were not even present at the scene,” Adam continued. As soon as the written judgment is available, all legal avenues will be pursued.
For further questions, please contact attorney Sven Adam using the contact details provided.
