On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia in Münster heard a case of racial profiling (Case No. 5 A 294/16). A Black German man had been subjected to a suspicionless identity check at Bochum train station. He felt racially discriminated against and filed a lawsuit against the Federal Police. The hearing ended with the plaintiff's victory and the reversal of the lower court's partial dismissal of his claim. The court condemned the plaintiff's stop and search as a violation of the law against discrimination.
In November 2013, around 10:00 p.m., the plaintiff, Ferdinand G.*, was waiting at Bochum train station after exercising for his girlfriend, whom he was expecting to catch the train. Due to the bad weather, he had pulled up the hood of his sweater. Shortly afterward, patrolling federal police officers asked him for his identification, explaining that he might have entered the country illegally. Only during the legal proceedings did the federal police further state that, based on experience, property crimes, drug dealing, and drug use occurred at Bochum train station, with the perpetrators often being dark-skinned men between 20 and 30 years old. They also stated that there were violations of immigration law, a general threat of Islamist terrorism, and a Salafist scene in Bochum; the plaintiff's appearance also fit this profile. Ferdinand G. filed a lawsuit against the identity check. The plaintiff's appeal was only partially successful before the Cologne Administrative Court (judgment of December 10, 2015, case no. 20 K 7847/13); the court deemed the check of the plaintiff at the train station justified. In today's appeal hearing, the plaintiff sought a ruling that the check was unlawful in its entirety. He was represented by attorney Sven Adam and supported by the Office for the Implementation of Equal Treatment (BUG) as legal counsel.
During the hearing, the Higher Administrative Court clarified that skin color, even as just one criterion among several, may not play any role in the selection of a person to be checked. Therefore, the check of the plaintiff was deemed unconstitutional. The plaintiff stated: “I am very pleased with today’s decision. While I don’t believe that such checks will now cease, the ruling is a major step in the right direction.”
Lawyer Sven Adam commented: “With today’s ruling, the Higher Administrative Court has made it clear that the prohibition of racial discrimination during police checks must be strictly observed. Therefore, the Federal Police lost today, and that is a positive development. However, if the court suggests exceptions to this prohibition – albeit under strict conditions – we will fight against such exceptions in further proceedings so that checks based on skin color cease.”
Vera Egenberger from the Office for the Implementation of Equal Treatment emphasizes: “We live in an immigration country. A quarter of our population has a migration background. It is time that the Federal Police also recognize this fact. To draw conclusions about someone's behavior based on skin color is simply absurd and must not be used as a legal criterion.”
Since 2011, there has been an increasing number of lawsuits before administrative courts challenging the practice of racial profiling. The judicial assessment is increasingly leading to the conclusion that such suspicionless identity checks based on skin color – even if this is only one criterion among several – are incompatible with the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Basic Law (Article 3, Paragraph 3).
