In October 2012, the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate overturned a widely criticized decision by the Koblenz Administrative Court (VG) of February 28, 2012 (Case No.: 5 K 1026111.KO), thereby bringing the unlawful practice of so-called "racial profiling" to national attention. At that time, the case concerned federal police checks of individuals solely based on skin color. Now, the Koblenz Administrative Court has issued a new ruling on "racial profiling." In a judgment dated August 21, 2013 (Case No.: 5 K 832/12.KO), the court dismissed the lawsuit of a woman who sought to have a restraining order issued against her declared unlawful. An appeal against this judgment was filed with the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate on September 19, 2013.
The 28-year-old woman, along with a companion, observed two federal police officers at Kassel Central Station on May 5, 2012, systematically questioning individuals for their personal information, apparently solely based on their skin color. Both women perceived this approach as racist and observed the officers from close range. The federal police officers responded by ordering the woman to leave the premises and escorting her out using a so-called "police hold.".
In an oral hearing before the Koblenz Administrative Court, the statements of the officers, the two women, and the person affected by the check, who had been named as a witness by both parties, contradicted each other. The court considered all the statements of the federal police officers to be particularly credible, while it deemed the key statements of the plaintiff and the other witness to be unreliable.
“I have rarely had to read such a one-sided evaluation of the evidence,” commented attorney Sven Adam, who represents the plaintiff, on the Koblenz Administrative Court's ruling. Despite crucial testimony from the individuals questioned, the court also rejected several motions to amend the record during the hearing. “Clearly, the aim was to avoid addressing skin color as the sole reason for the checks and, for that reason, to portray the plaintiff and the witness as unreliable,” Adam continued.
Even before the oral hearing, the court had made its position clear in a decision on legal aid dated January 8, 2013. In this decision, it attempted once again to legitimize the practice of racial profiling, disregarding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, and apparently also intended to prevent the taking of evidence. However, the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate deemed such evidence necessary and overturned the decision of the Koblenz Administrative Court again in its ruling of March 8, 2013.
Now, the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate will have to re-evaluate the statements of the police officers and witnesses in a further hearing of evidence following the appeal. "We hope that our question will be answered as to whether we were entitled to observe an obviously unlawful identity check in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, I do not want to continue being portrayed as an alleged liar, as the Administrative Court apparently believes," the plaintiff concluded.
For further questions, please contact attorney Sven Adam.
