A lawsuit seeking a declaration that the use of police pain holds was unlawful ended in the appeal proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) of Lower Saxony (Case No.: 11 LB 209/15) after an oral hearing on October 28, 2016, with a victory for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, now 43 years old, peacefully participated on January 17, 2013, in a symbolic occupation of a student union building in Göttingen on Geiststraße, which remains vacant to this day, to draw attention to the poor housing situation in the university town. During the eviction of the building by the Göttingen Evidence Collection and Arrest Unit (BFE), the police officers used pain-inducing techniques, including nerve pressure techniques, on and around the nose of the seated plaintiff to force him to stand up and leave the building. The plaintiff suffered facial injuries as a result.
The Administrative Court (VG) Göttingen had dismissed the lawsuit in its judgment of October 1, 2014 (Case No.: 1 A 167/13), even though the two police officers had completely refused to testify in the hearing at that time.
In its written judgment of November 14, 2016, the Higher Administrative Court in Lüneburg overturned the judgment of the Administrative Court of Göttingen on the plaintiff's appeal and declared the use of pain-inducing techniques unlawful in this specific case. According to the court, a specific warning regarding the use of pain-inducing techniques would have been required before their application. Therefore, the Higher Administrative Court did not need to rule on the proportionality of the use of pain-inducing techniques themselves, a point of contention in the case.
“Painful holds have become increasingly standard practice for closed police units when dealing with demonstrators in recent times. It is gratifying that the Higher Administrative Court has set certain legal limits to this particular form of use of force with its decision,” says Göttingen lawyer Sven Adam, who represents the plaintiff, expressing his satisfaction with the particular significance of the decision.
The Higher Administrative Court did not allow an appeal against the judgment. The decision is therefore legally binding.
