DECLARATION JUDGMENT
In the administrative law case
xxx
– Plaintiff –
Legal representative:
Attorney Sven Adam,
Lange Geismarstr. 55, 37073 Göttingen,
against
State of Baden-Württemberg,
represented by the Mannheim Police Headquarters,
Legal Department L 6, 1, 68161 Mannheim
– Defendant –
because of police law
The Administrative Court of Karlsruhe – 1st Chamber – through Judge xxx as rapporteur, without oral proceedings
on June 12, 2026
Really recognized for R:
It is determined that the orders issued by officials of the defendant on January 24, 2026, against the plaintiff to ascertain his personal details were unlawful.
It is determined that the prohibition on filming police measures issued to the plaintiff by officers of the defendant on January 24, 2026, was unlawful.
It is determined that the seizure of the plaintiff's camera by officers of the defendant on January 24, 2026 was unlawful.
It is determined that the order to leave the premises issued to the plaintiff by officers of the defendant on January 24, 2026, was unlawful.
The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Following the defendant state's acknowledgment and the plaintiff's corresponding application, it was declared that the challenged police orders of January 24, 2026 were unlawful.
The decision rested with the reporting judge pursuant to Section 87a Paragraph 1 No. 2, Paragraph 3 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO). The reporting judge was able to decide without an oral hearing, since, according to Section 173 Sentence 1 VwGO in conjunction with Section 307 Sentence 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), if the defendant submits a written declaration of admission, an oral hearing is not required for the issuance of a judgment by admission in administrative proceedings (Wolff/Humberg, in: Sodan/Ziekow, VwGO, 6th edition 2025, Section 107, marginal note 23). Although an express application by the plaintiff for a judgment by consent is not required in administrative proceedings (VG Freiburg, Judgment of 23 February 2012 – 4 K 2649/10 – NVwZ 2012, p. 535; Riese, in: Schoch/Schneider, Verwaltungsrecht, § 156 VwGO Rn. 11, as of: 48th Supplement July 2025; Wolff/Humberg, loc. cit., § 107 Rn. 24; see also the provisions applicable only to appeal proceedings § 173 VwGO in conjunction with § 555 para. 4 ZPO e contrario), the plaintiff here even expressly requested the issuance of such a judgment on 4 June 2026.
Pursuant to Section 173 Sentence 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) in conjunction with Section 313b Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a statement of facts and detailed grounds for the decision were not required. Therefore, more detailed explanations are omitted. Discussions regarding the legality of the measures in dispute are inadmissible in any case, as their legal assessment is precluded for the court due to the defendant's effective acknowledgment (Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of September 27, 2017 – 8 C 20.16 –, BeckRS 2017, 129338, para. 7). It was therefore only necessary to establish that the prerequisites for a judgment on the merits, which the court must also examine after an acknowledgment (Federal Administrative Court, ibid., para. 6), are met. Specifically, it was established that the administrative legal process was open, that the declaratory judgment actions, which were permissibly pursued here in the same proceedings by way of objective joinder of claims (§ 44 VwGO), are admissible – with regard to the determination of identity, according to a relevant interpretation of the claim (§ 88 VwGO) to the effect that only those orders issued for this purpose, which alone can constitute an administrative act (Enders, in: Möstl/Trurnit, BeckOK Polizeirecht Baden-Württemberg, § 27 PolG Rn. 20, 25, 77), are covered – and that a special interest in obtaining a declaratory judgment exists in each case. The wording of the judgment was otherwise only editorially specified in relation to the claims in order to avoid any ambiguities regarding the scope of the declaration of illegality or to prevent exceeding the scope of the subject matter of the action as defined by the statement of claim (§ 82 para. 2 sentence 1 VwGO) (§ 88 VwGO).
The decision on costs follows the defendant's declaration of assumption of costs. Furthermore, nothing to the contrary would result from Section 154 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) regarding the basic decision on costs.
The appeal was not admissible, as none of the grounds for appeal listed in Section 124a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Section 124 Paragraph 2 Nos. 3 and 4 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) are present.
The court refrains from issuing a ruling on provisional enforceability. In this respect, the court's discretion under Section 167 Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) continues analogously to Section 113 Paragraph 1 Sentence 4 VwGO for an action for annulment in the case of an action for a declaratory judgment.
The following is information on legal remedies.
DECISION
The amount in dispute is set at 20,000 euros.
The determination of the value in dispute is based on Section 52 Paragraphs 1 and 2, and Section 39 Paragraph 1 of the Court Costs Act (GKG) in conjunction with Recommendation No. 35.1 of the Schedule of Values in Dispute for Administrative Court Proceedings, as last amended on February 21, 2025. For disputes concerning police or public order orders, the economic interest is generally to be applied; otherwise, the statutory default value of €5,000 applies. No specific economic interests, nor any basis for their calculation, have been presented or are otherwise apparent. Due to the pursuit of four claims – corresponding to the four challenged individual police measures – in objective joinder of claims (Section 44 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO)), the total value in dispute is €20,000, based on the default value in dispute for each claim.
The following is information on legal remedies.
