Promotion creep (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The increased transport fee is a claim that is independent of the criminal offense and is often raised in the event of error, negligence or (unlawfully) through no fault of the passenger. Historical note

In German criminal law, creepy transport is a variant of the criminal offense of obtaining services by fraud under Section 265a of the Criminal Code .

General

The creeping transport is one of the four criminal offenses of the " creeping of services " of the § 265a StGB. This provision also protects the performance of a machine, a telecommunications network and access to an event or facility. In all cases, it is a question of mass services, which the law is about to protect the assets of those organizers who cannot or only randomly control due to the large number of customers.

Under civil law, boarding public transport is considered an implied act through which the passenger irrefutably expresses his or her legal will to conclude a transport contract.

The prerequisite is that the use of means of transport is chargeable at all, this is not mandatory and, for example, not the case with generally free local transport .

In Austria, the additional fare collection is called "Fahrgeldnachfrage" in the ÖBB and costs 105 euros for cash payments. If you pay later, there will be an additional 30 euros for processing costs.

frequency

Nationwide, the share of all bus and train passengers without a valid ticket is estimated at around 3.5%; as a result, transport companies in Germany lose up to 250 million euros annually. Due to the mostly open access to public transport and autonomous purchase of tickets in Germany, there is a considerable risk for passengers, unintentionally, through wrong tariff selection, unknown detailed rules, negligence or completely through no fault of their own, for example in the event of disruptions in operation and at machines, no controls to be able to show a valid ticket. This does not fall under the criminal offense of secret transportation, but is often linguistically equated by transport companies and the media and added together statistically.

The rate of fare dodgers can vary from region to region, as some examples show. The Stuttgart Transport and Tariff Association puts the annual loss of income due to secret transport at 15 million euros, 3.2% of the users checked do not have a ticket. In one action, around half of the people without a ticket could not prove their personal details on site, so the police were called in to determine their identity.

The Karlsruher Verkehrsverbund reports that 1.4% of those driving fare dodger were called upon to pay 810,000 euros during controls by 160 auditors. The Hohenzollerische Landesbahn catches 1,500 deliberate dodgers and 1,500 people who have forgotten their personal tickets every year. The Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Neckar reported 1.93% for 2001 and 1.18% for 2010 checked users without a ticket. In a total check of all passengers for several hours at an underground station in the Rhein-Ruhr transport association , 10% of the passengers did not have a valid ticket.

The Police Criminal Statistics (Germany) speaks under the code number 515001 for secret transport for 2010 of 227,000 reported cases, for 2009 of 220,000 cases, 2004 189,000, 1998 159,000. For the year 2004 it is broken down that 95% of the damage caused by secret transport was less than 50 euros, the total damage is put at 4.3 million euros, 72% of the suspects were male.

Tracking intensity

In 2017, the Hamburger Verkehrsverbund (HVV) encountered 140,000 people without a valid ticket during controls; in 2011-2016 the rate was 3.5 - 5.0% of the people checked. Post-fare surveys totaling almost 7 million euros were issued, of which almost 4 million euros were paid for. In 2016, the HVV filed 9,000 complaints based on Section 265a, 8,000 of which were not pursued by the courts, 686 fines were imposed, 13 prison sentences on probation, 7 prison sentences without probation.

Personal tickets were subsequently presented in Hamburg in 2015/2016 for around 20% of all determinations.

The number of employees deployed results from the HVV specification for the test hours to be performed. The HVV specifies annual minimum test hours that are updated according to passenger development. In 2011, 211,000 testing hours were performed, in 2017 235,000. This means that around 1.5 working hours of control are necessary to find a person without a valid ticket.

Factual requirements

The perpetrator must intend not to pay the fee. The intent is the targeted will of the perpetrator to bring about a success of the crime. The intention, in turn, is legally a first-degree intention . In the case of "fare dodging", the will of the offender is to sneak a trip free of charge, thereby damaging the transport company's assets. However, if someone has forgotten their monthly, permanent, network or company ticket for public transport and cannot show it during an inspection, there is no intention to do so. The criminal liability according to § 265a StGB presupposes a financial loss, which lies in the fact that the perpetrator uses the services of a transport company without having paid it. The sense of the obligation to carry the ticket is to facilitate the proof, which can be seen in the fact that it is not the transport company that has to prove the non-payment, but the passenger by carrying the ticket with him that he has paid the fee.

The term “by fraud” used by law is interpreted by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in such a way that the wording of the standard does not presuppose the circumvention or deactivation of existing safety precautions or regular controls. According to its general sense of the word, the term “surreptitious” only includes the bringing about of success in an illegal, unfair or immoral way. Surreptitiousness contains at most a "deception-like" element in such a way that the desired performance is achieved through an inconspicuous procedure; it is not necessary for the perpetrator to overcome a specific protective device or bypass a control. The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) considers that “any behavior that contradicts the order is sufficient, through which the perpetrator benefits from the service and in which he surrounds himself with the appearance of regularity”.

The prevailing opinion so far, according to which the perpetrator can only benefit from the transport service with deceptive or manipulative behavior, was insufficient for the Federal Court of Justice. Rather, it states that the wording of the standard does not require the circumvention or deactivation of existing security measures or regular controls. Since then, it has been sufficient for the perpetrator to use a means of transport without authorization and generally surround himself with the appearance that he fulfills the requirements required by the operator's terms and conditions.

However, not every unauthorized acceptance of a transport service can be described as fraud, for example if the blocking device of a machine fails or if the perpetrator uses force.

Prosecution

The creeping of low-value services (up to approx. 50 euros) will only be prosecuted upon request, unless the law enforcement authority considers ex officio intervention to be necessary due to the special public interest in prosecution ( Section 265a (3) in conjunction with m. § 248a StGB). The transport company affected by the "fare dodging" can - but does not have to - file the criminal complaint . The prosecutor decides after investigation, whether there are reasonable suspicion exists and will be charged against the accused, or whether the proceedings for minor guilt or due to lack of public interest in prosecution is set. The law enforcement authorities will prosecute reported promotions of repeat offenders.

Penalty Consequences

If the offender fulfills the requirements, he will be punished with a prison sentence of up to one year or with a fine according to § 265a StGB. Across Germany, around 7,000 of the 230,000 reported fare dodgers are currently serving a replacement prison sentence . In addition, if he repeats the act, he is threatened with being banned from the transport company concerned, so that if he disregards this, the criminal offense of trespassing ( Section 123 StGB) is also carried out. The ban can be ordered at will and is not even tied to justifiable misconduct such as "fare dodging". In the public sector, a ban is an administrative act and must meet the formal and content requirements to be effective.

If the fare dodger truthfully claims to have already been checked or if he shows a false, invalid or only valid ticket for certain zones, he can be liable to prosecution for fraud (penalty: fine or imprisonment of up to five years). In these cases, Section 265a of the Criminal Code is subsidiary . In the case of a wrong ticket, there may still be a forgery of the document in the alternative of using a false or forged document.

Legal history

The provision of Section 265a of the Criminal Code goes back to Article 8 of the amendment to the Criminal Code of June 28, 1935, insofar as it makes "dodging" a criminal offense. Above all, it was intended to close the loophole that resulted from the use of Section 263 of the Criminal Code when mass performances were by fraudulently obtained. The introduced provision of § 265a StGB corresponded almost verbatim to § 347 of the draft of a General German Criminal Code of 1927 ("Creeping free access"), the reasoning of which says among other things: "Creeping is not synonymous with creeping in. Even those who go through the barrier openly, but behave as if they have paid the entrance fee, sneak entry. Even merely passive behavior can constitute a creep; so the passenger of a tram also falls under the threat of punishment who, contrary to an existing obligation, does not take care of obtaining a ticket ”.

Insofar as aspects of the decriminalization of "fare dodging" are cited in the literature, this is irrelevant for today's interpretation of Section 265a of the Criminal Code. The higher court decisions are criticized in parts of the literature.

In the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, the previous case law on "fare dodging" does not violate the constitutional requirement of certainty in Article 103 (2) of the Basic Law . According to this, it is not constitutionally objectionable if the prevailing opinion in the literature as well as the jurisprudence understands under the creeping of a promotion any behavior contrary to the order, through which the perpetrator benefits from the service and in which he is with the appearance of regularity surrounds.

In September 2019, the federal state of Thuringia introduced a draft law to the Federal Council , which provides for the deletion of Section 265a from the Criminal Code. Instead, a section 118a is to be inserted into the law on administrative offenses , which defines the unauthorized use of public transport as an administrative offense that can be punished with a fine.

Criminological and social backgrounds and facts

criminology

The transport devious is often a crime of juvenile delinquency . Depending on the region, the proceedings end up in the juvenile courts for the second or third violation . As a rule, the first offense is stopped by the public prosecutor .

Creeping transport is criminologically counted as petty or mass crime and is at the same time a control offense that is characterized by very high clearance rates and a high number of unreported cases.

Dodging as a form of protest

In the context of protests against fare increases and for a “ right to mobility ”, fare dodging is and was used as a form of political protest. The open refusal of the transport fee is intended to underline demands for “socially acceptable” fares or even a zero tariff, i.e. free local public transport. For this purpose, communal fare dodging was and is being organized and openly propagated. In some cities, fare dodger organizations offer special fare dodger insurance, through which the payment of fines is to be jointly taken over.

Post fare collection

Payment request from the Kölner Verkehrs-Betriebe (KVB) for an increased transport fee of EUR 60.00

The increased transport fee , also called post-fare collection (as used by Deutsche Bahn ), is reduced to 7 euros if the passenger proves to the entrepreneur's administration within one week of the date of determination that he is the owner of a valid personal non-transferable at the time of determination Ticket was. For buses and trains that are not railways ( PBefG traffic), this is regulated in Section 9 (3) BefBedV and for rail traffic in Section 5 (3) EVO

Civil law claim

Regardless of the criminal offense and its sanction, many transport companies charge a fee that is usually referred to as " increased fare ". This is merely a claim under civil law, which the transport company regularly asserts, both in the event of secret transport as well as in other cases of missing, valid tickets (error, negligence, in some cases also illegally through no fault of the passenger). Whether this claim is to be characterized as a contractual penalty , as a statutory obligation or actually as an (agreed) fare is just as controversial as the question of whether there is a constitutional legal basis at all. The railway companies regularly base the claim on § 5 EVO or their corresponding general terms and conditions . For the bus and - streetcar traffic § 9 of the valid Regulation on General Conditions of Carriage (partly as BefBedV, sometimes abbreviated as BefBedV) that the Federal Transport Ministry due to § 57 para 1 no. 5. PBefG with the approval of the Federal Council lays down.

§ 5 EVO corresponds to § 12 of the conditions of carriage of the Deutsche Bahn AG of September 12, 2007. The Nord-Ostsee-Bahn GmbH regulates the "increased fare" in § 9 of its conditions of carriage.

Increased transport fee § 9 BefBedV

The increased transport fee (EBE) according to § 9 BefBedV is charged for trips that are based on the Passenger Transport Act (PBefG). This is the public transport without the railway, such as B. Bus, trolleybus, tram, suspension railway, subway. The rule there is:

"(1) A passenger is obliged to pay an increased transport fee if he
1. has not obtained a valid ticket,
2. has obtained a valid ticket but is unable to show it during an inspection,
3. fails to present the ticket or does so immediately has
voided or had it voided in accordance with Section 6 (3) or 4. fails to present or hand over the ticket for inspection upon request.
Prosecution in criminal or administrative fine proceedings remains unaffected. The regulations under numbers 1 and 3 do not apply if the ticket has not been obtained or canceled for reasons for which the passenger is not responsible.
(2) In the cases of paragraph 1, the entrepreneur can charge an increased transport fee of up to 60 euros. However, he can charge double the transport fee for a single journey on the route covered by the passenger, provided that this results in a higher amount than according to sentence 1; in this case, the increased transport fee can be calculated according to the starting point of the line if the passenger cannot prove the distance covered.
(3) In the case of Paragraph 1 No. 2, the increased transport fee is reduced to 7 euros if the passenger can prove to the entrepreneur's administration within one week of the day of the determination that he was the holder of a valid personal season ticket at the time of the determination.
(4) If invalid season tickets are used, further claims of the entrepreneur remain unaffected. "

The content of the regulation in § 9 BefBedV hardly differs from the provision in § 5 EVO , which applies to rail transport. The special conditions of carriage of the companies and associations, which are permissible according to § 1 paragraph 1 BefBedV, mostly take over the wording from the federal ordinance. Since this EBE is not only contractually agreed, but has its legal basis in a material law, according to some opinions, minors are also obliged to pay. The published case law assesses this almost entirely differently and denies claims to an increased transport fee against minors as a matter of principle, since § 9 BefBedV also only applies if an effective contract has been concluded.

Increased fare according to § 5 EVO (extract)

"The traveler is obliged to pay an increased transport fee if he is not provided with a valid ticket at the start of the journey [or] has obtained a valid ticket but cannot show it when the tickets are checked, [...] the increased The transport fee […] is twice the normal fare for the distance traveled by the traveler, but at least 60 euros. The increased transport fee can be calculated for the entire distance covered by the train if the passenger does not provide credible evidence that he has traveled a shorter distance. The increased fare is reduced [...] to 7 euros if the traveler proves to the transporting railway company within one week of the day of the determination that he was the holder of a valid ticket at the time of the determination. "

- § § 5 EVO

Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence on promotion creep according to § 265a StGB

The Hanover District Court ruled on February 24, 2010 that fare dodging is also punishable under Section 265a StGB if a T-shirt with the imprint “I drive black” is worn. This is not noticeable enough to break the appearance of proper use.

Case law on increased transport charges

Basic assessment of § 5 EVO and § 9 BefBedV

The passage that has long been in Section 9 (1) BefBedV, according to which the provision "... is not applied if the procurement or the validation of the ticket has not been carried out for reasons for which the passenger is not responsible ." August 1, 2019 also taken over by EVO.

Previously, there were opinions that indicated doubts about the unconstitutionality, as in § 12 EVO, here it differs that the tariff "... [can] provide for cases in which the payment ... can be waived in whole or in part."

The constitutionality and comparability of the two regulations had to be explained in detail.

Local courts have already repeatedly assessed Section 12 (1) EVO as unconstitutional . This was legally possible for them, since the norm is not a formal law , but a subordinate legal norm. Whether the regulation is actually unconstitutional is disputed in jurisprudence.

The Essen District Court ruled in 1979 that Section 12 EVO violated the principle of equality in Article 3 of the Basic Law by obliging both deliberate fare dodgers and unintentional acts to pay the increased transport fee. This is factually wrong, since it disregards fundamental distinctions between civil law and human dignity to treat "sneaking up" and "wanting to redeem without being asked" equally.

The Regional Court of Munich I ruled differently on May 18, 1983: According to it, there is a violation of the principle of equality if the regulation is no longer understandable and appears arbitrary. The Chamber does not consider this to be the case, as anyone who is found without a valid ticket must pay the increased fare. This is justified by the fact that it is practically impossible for a transport company to determine whether someone is driving deliberately or simply negligently. The legislature also has sufficient differentiation with the possibility of waiving the claim for reasons of equity .

In its judgment of July 2, 1992, however, the Aachen District Court again assumed a violation of § 12 EVO against the principle of equality and against the prohibition of excess . According to the reasoning of the court, it can be left open whether the defendant assumed to be in possession of a valid ticket. Since the regulation neither distinguishes between criminal offense and unintentional violation nor at least leaves the traveler open to the possibility of exonerating evidence, it overshoots the goal of counteracting deliberate fare dodging. The court explicitly states that the fact that a tariff can provide for cases in which payment is not made does not change the illegality.

In contrast to the Aachen working group, the legal scholar Stephan Weth took the view in the “Legal Training” in 1998 that the theoretical possibility of allowing exceptions was sufficient to prevent strict liability. Thus she does not violate the prohibition of excess.

An article from the journal for legal studies from 2013, on the other hand, again follows the view of the AG Aachen and thus again denies its constitutionality.

With its judgment of October 7, 1994, the Düsseldorf District Court grants customers the right to make improvements in the event of minor oversights (e.g. forgetting to stick the monthly stamp on). According to general traffic custom, the passenger must have the opportunity to prove the validity of his passport retrospectively, since the violation is merely a minor oversight.

Legal situation with children and adolescents

Children and young people under the age of 18, as they have no or only limited legal capacity , cannot be compelled by the transport company to pay the increased transport fee in the event of illegal driving, provided the transport relationship is of a civil law nature. Children under 7 years of age cannot conclude a paid transport contract ( Section 104 , Section 105 BGB ), young people between the ages of 7 and 18 cannot effectively conclude a contract of carriage without the consent of their parents ( Section 106 , Section 107 BGB). If the journey is not already covered by (even implied) consent (e.g. if the trip to school is regularly made by bus or train - which can only be assumed for journeys with a valid ticket) and there is no subsequent approval, then a Contract, on which the transport company could invoke, did not come into effect due to § 108 BGB.

On the other hand, a claim for enrichment comes into consideration, § 812 Paragraph 1 Clause 1, 1st or 2nd alternative, § 818 BGB, as well as a tortious claim due to violation of a protection law , § 823 Paragraph 2 BGB in conjunction with V. m. Section 265a of the Criminal Code (see " Air travel case "). It is doubtful that the damage or the value of the enrichment comes close to the amount of the increased transport fee - the transport company must prove this in any case. In any case, the parents themselves are not obliged to pay compensation if they have fulfilled their duty of supervision, § 832 , § 823 BGB i. V. m. Section 265a of the Criminal Code. Neither are they contractually liable, as are children and young people.

Since the transport companies do not point out this fact and also use the usual methods to charge children and adolescents the increased transport fee (1st reminder, 2nd reminder, debt collection agency, lawyer, judicial dunning procedure with the possibility of objection), the children and adolescents pay or Parents often willingly for no legal reason.

The possibility of criminal prosecution by the public prosecutor's office on the basis of secret promotion under youth criminal law remains unaffected. The carrier can also temporarily exclude the young person from using his means of transport.

literature

  • Cornelia Lattka: Driving without a (valid) ticket. An analysis of the legal problems of the so-called "fare dodging". Tectum Verlag, Marburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-8288-2216-0 .
  • Thomas Hilpert: Passenger rights and obligations of public transport regular services according to the PBefG. Kölner Wissenschaftsverlag, Cologne 2012, ISBN 978-3-942720-18-2 .
  • Wolfgang Daleki: Increased transport fees for ' fare dodgers ' legal? In: MDR , 1987, pp. 891-894.
  • Manfred Harder : Underage fare dodgers . In: NJW , 1990, pp. 857-864.
  • Stephan Weth : Civil law problems of fare dodging in public transport . In: JuS , 1998, pp. 795-801.
  • Peter Rott: Liability of the traveler for the failure of ticket machines? In: RRa , 2003, pp. 242-247.
  • Tamina Preuß: Practical and exam-relevant questions of "fare dodging" - Part 1: From multiple tickets, convincing offenders and hauling monthly tickets. In: Journal for Legal Studies (ZJS), 03/2013, p. 257, zjs-online.com (PDF; 189 kB) - Part 2, ZJS 04/2013, 355 (PDF file) zjs-online.com (PDF; 107 kB)

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ n-tv from February 1, 2012, fare dodging should be more expensive
  2. ↑ a b c d lsw: Millions are missing in the coffers . In: Stuttgarter Zeitung . No. 294 , December 20, 2011, ISSN  0174-4917 , p. 25 .
  3. ↑ May 19: Police and SSB catch 250 dodgers. In: Stuttgarter Nachrichten . May 19, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2012 .
  4. ↑ Many fare dodgers during a special inspection of the underground . In: Die Welt , June 4, 2012
  5. ↑ Katja Timmerberg: Analysis of empirical data on § 265 a StGB: Creeping benefits - 'fare dodging'. (PDF) Retrieved May 4, 2012 .
  6. ↑ a b c [1] Printed matter 21/9181 May 26th, 2017 21st electoral period Small written question from May 19th, 2017 and answer of the Senate Schwarzfahren in Hamburg (II)
  7. ↑ mopo.de 02/07/18, 06:10 AM HVV-Schwarzfahrer Many simply ignore the fine By Stephanie Lamprecht
  8. ↑ focus.de fare dodging in Hamburg - that costs it 10.09.2018 14:18 from Tim Aschermann
  9. ↑ Dodgers pay “only” 3.82 million euros in fines February 9, 2018 hamburgerallgemeinerundschau
  10. ↑ OLG Koblenz, judgment of October 11, 1999 ( Memento of the original of July 18, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Az. 2 Ss 250/99, full text.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.ejura-examensexpress.de
  11. ↑ BGH, decision of January 8, 2009 , Az. 4 StR 117/08, full text.
  12. ↑ cf. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm (founders), German Dictionary, 8th Vol. 1999, column 2136; Brockhaus, 10th ed. Vol. 2, p. 1217
  13. ↑ See BVerfG, decision of February 9, 1998 - Az. 2 BvR 1907/97
  14. ↑ cf. Theodor Lenckner / Walter Perron in Schönke / Schröder, StGB 27th edition , § 265a marginal note 11; Tiedemann in LK 11th edition, § 265a marginal number 34 ff .; Wohlers in Munich Commentary Section 265a marginal number 53 ff .; Fischer StGB 56th edition , § 265a marginal numbers 6, 21; Lackner / Kühl StGB 26th edition , § 265a marginal note 6a
  15. ↑ Eva-Lena Lörzer: Imprisonment for fare dodging: Those who are too poor go to jail . In: The daily newspaper: taz . September 7, 2018, ISSN  0931-9085 ( taz.de [accessed September 12, 2018]).
  16. ↑ RGBl. I 839, p. 842
  17. ↑ Theodor Lenckner / Walter Perron in Schönke / Schröder, StGB 27th edition, § 265 a marginal note 1; Tiedemann in LK 11th edition, § 265 a marginal nos. 1–3; Falkenbach, Die Leistungserschleichung , 1983, pp. 70, 75-77
  18. ↑ Materials on criminal law reform, Volume 4, draft of a General German Criminal Code 1927 with justification and 2 annexes , Bonn 1954 (reprint), p. 178 f .; The penal law amendments of June 28, 1935 and the official justifications , official special publications of the German Justice No. 10, p. 41
  19. ↑ Alwart JZ 1986, 563 f .; Albrecht NStZ 1988, 222 f., 224
  20. ↑ Karsten Gaede : The BGH confirms the criminal liability of the "simple black drive" - ​​wrongly and with problematic extensions. In: HRR Criminal Law 2/2009. February 2009, p. 69 ff. , Accessed on October 9, 2014 .
  21. ↑ BVerfG, decision of February 9, 1998 , Az. 2 BvR 1907/97, ​​full text.
  22. ↑ https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2019/0401-0500/424-19.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
  23. ↑ before August 1, 2019 called "increased fare" in the EVO railway traffic regulations
  24. ↑ until August 1st, 2018 regulated in § 9 paragraph 3, see buzer.de , set §9 on the left
  25. ↑ a b c d Before August 1, 2019, regulated almost word for word in §12.
  26. ↑ September 2008.pdf Conditions of carriage of the Deutsche Bahn AG from September 1st, 2008  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.bahn.de  
  27. ↑ Conditions of carriage of the Nord-Ostsee-Bahn GmbH from September 1, 2007 (PDF)
  28. ↑ Article 1 of the ordinance of May 21, 2015 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 782 )
  29. ↑ Cornelia Lattka: Driving without a (valid) ticket Tectum Verlag 2010, ISBN 978-3-8288-2216-0 and Thomas Hilpert: Passenger rights and obligations of public transport services according to the PBefG. Kölner Wissenschaftsverlag, 2012, ISBN 978-3-942720-18-2
  30. ↑ Most recently AG Bonn, judgment of October 14, 2009 - 4 C 521/08, https://openjur.de/u/141379.html
  31. ↑ Article 2 of the ordinance of May 21, 2015 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 782 )
  32. ↑ Confessing dodger: "I drive black" T-shirt does not protect against punishment . gratis-urteile.de, February 25, 2010.
  33. ↑ Essen District Court: 12 C 535/79 . In: Public Administration 1980, p. 882.
  34. ^ Judgment on constitutionality §12 EVO and §9 BefBedV
  35. ↑ Aachen District Court: 80 C 6/92 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, Judgment Report 1993, p. 317.
  36. ^ Stephan Weth: Civil law problems of fare dodging in public transport . In: Juristische Schulung 1998, pp. 795 ff.
  37. ↑ Volkan Güngör: A day ticket on the wrong track - ZJS 2013-04. April 2013, accessed on May 20, 2017 (German).
  38. ↑ Düsseldorf District Court: 41 C 4629/94 .
  39. ↑ For details, see Harder, see literature