Recognition Judgment
In the administrative law case
of Mr. xxx,
xxx
plaintiff,
Legal representative: Attorney Adam,
Lange Geismarstraße 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
the Göttingen Police Directorate,
xxx
defendant,
Subject of the dispute: Determination of the illegality of police measures
The Administrative Court of Hanover – 10th Chamber – without oral proceedings, on May 16, 2017, through Judge xxx of the Administrative Court as a single judge, rendered the following judgment:
It is determined that the use of direct coercion in the form of painful nerve pressure techniques by an officer of the Central Police Directorate of Lower Saxony, acting on behalf of the defendant, on August 3, 2013, was unlawful.
The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
The judgment is provisionally enforceable due to the costs.
FACTS OF THE ACT
On August 3, 2013, the so-called "March of Mourning" took place in Bad Nenndorf, commemorating the use of the local "Wincklerbad" spa by the British occupying forces as an interrogation center and prisoner-of-war camp between 1945 and 1947. The plaintiff participated in a sit-in protest that day to express his opposition to the march. During the clearing of the sit-in, a police officer from the Central Police Directorate of Lower Saxony, acting on behalf of the defendant, applied so-called nerve pressure techniques behind the plaintiff's jaw.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this measure on July 29, 2014 (10 A 10918/14) and requested a ruling that the application of direct coercion in the form of painful nerve pressure techniques by an officer of the Central Police Directorate of Lower Saxony acting on behalf of the defendant on August 3, 2013 was unlawful.
The court ordered the proceedings to be stayed by decision of October 28, 2015. Upon application by the plaintiff dated November 24, 2016, the proceedings were resumed under the file number stated in the heading.
The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim in a letter dated March 31, 2017, and stated, with reference to the case law of the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court of October 28, 2016, that the nerve pressure technique used in the context of direct coercion should have been threatened separately in advance, taking into account the principle of predictability of police action.
The plaintiff now requests that,
by way of a judgment by consent, it be established that the application of direct coercion in the form of painful nerve pressure techniques by an officer of the Central Police Directorate of Lower Saxony acting on behalf of the defendant on August 3, 2013, was unlawful.
The defendant raised no objections to this.
By decision of 15 May 2017, the Chamber transferred the legal dispute to the rapporteur as a single judge (§ 6 para. 1 VwGO).
For further details of the facts, reference is made to the contents of the court file and the administrative file.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The lawsuit is successful.
In administrative law disputes, a judgment by consent is permissible (see Higher Administrative Court of Saxony, judgment of May 25, 2010 – 2 A 127/10 – with further references; juris). The court can order a party to comply with their consent if they acknowledge the claim asserted against them, in whole or in part (§ 173 VwGO in conjunction with § 307 sentence 1 ZPO). In this case, an oral hearing is not required (§ 307 sentence 2 ZPO).
The merits of the claim arise from the defendant's admission of liability declared in its written submission of March 31, 2017. Due to this admission, pursuant to Section 173 Sentence 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) in conjunction with Section 313b Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a further presentation of the grounds for the decision is omitted.
The decision on costs is based on Section 154 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO). The decision on provisional enforceability is based on Sections 167 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) and 708 No. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
The following is information on legal remedies.
