No place

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Announcement of a space ban by the Vienna Federal Police Directorate

The court prohibition referred to in Austria a measure , with the security authorities temporarily access to public places may prohibit the general public. Such a ban on places can be established if it is known in advance that at a certain point in time at a certain place “a general danger to the life or health of several people or to property or the environment on a large scale” could arise. In contrast to, for example, eviction in German law, the ban on parking, which can only be issued by security authorities in the form of a regulation , applies to all persons and not just to a specific addressee.

Specifically, the ban on seats is applied, for example, in the context of the Vienna Opera Ball and the associated Opera Ball demo , the Vienna Corporation Ball or the demonstration against this and other demonstrations at which violent riots are expected in advance.

The Military Authorities Act also has a space ban, which is regulated in Section 9 MBG. With this, the defense minister can prohibit access to military areas. In Germany and Switzerland , similar security police blocking measures are known as local bans.

Legal regulation

The ban on seats is regulated in Section 36 of the Security Police Act . The first paragraph first describes the assumption of a “general danger to the life or health of several people or to property or the environment on a large scale”, and then it is explained that the ban on space has two direct legal consequences. On the one hand, that entering and staying in the danger area is prohibited and, on the other hand, that non-compliance is to be treated as an administrative offense if the security authority expressly orders this in the ordinance.

The second paragraph deals with the case that the risk described already exists and the authority does not issue the ban until the risk has occurred. In this case, the legal consequence is that the people who are inside the danger area have to leave it and the organs of the public security service (usually officials of the federal police ) are authorized to expel everyone from the danger area. This creates a legal basis for an act of direct administrative authority and coercive power .

Paragraphs three and four each deal with the appropriate forms of announcing a ban on the two variants dealt with in paragraphs one and two. These paragraphs also determine how long a ban on spaces may apply. In the event of a seat ban ordered in advance, the longest duration is three months, in the case of a subsequent ban on seats only six hours.

Definition of danger

The concept of general danger, as used in Section 36 of the DDA, is described as a legal definition in Section 16 of the DDA. According to this, a general danger that justifies a place ban can be assumed on the one hand if a dangerous attack (i.e. the willful , unlawful realization of an offense under the StGB , the Prohibition Act , the Aliens Police Act or the Addictive Substances Act ) is likely. On the other hand, there is a general danger when three or more people combine with the intention of continuing to commit criminal offenses.

With regard to the threat to “the life or health of several people”, it should be noted that, according to the established case law of the Supreme Court, at least two people must be at risk. The risk for "property or the environment to a great extent" by analogy with the case-law paragraphs 169 and 180 of the Criminal Code ( arson and Deliberate harm to the environment ) on the one hand at a value limit of 50,000 euros damage , the other on the ever or for a long time impossible elimination of possible consequences.

The danger area

The ordinance must also define the “danger zone”, which can be found on land but also on water and can also be larger. The danger area must be circumscribed as precisely as possible as far as possible, so that both the persons concerned and the executive bodies can understand the prohibited area. In addition, in the relevant ordinance, persons who, in addition to the organs of the public security service, may continue to be at the location described must be named. As a rule, this applies to rescue workers, representatives of the press, residents of the affected area and participants in any events taking place in the danger zone.

In practice, the latter group in particular often leads to problems when interpreting the regulation. If, for example, on the occasion of a public election campaign of a party, a seat ban was issued to protect this event, it is up to the organizer who he wants to allow as a “participant” in this event.

Administrative offense

The law grants the security authorities the power to declare the violation of an issued place ban under paragraph 1 as an administrative offense . In order to do this, the authority must expressly state the existence of an administrative offense in the event of non-compliance with the ban on spaces in the ordinance of the ban. In doing so, the security authority also gives the security bodies entrusted with the implementation of the ordinance an opportunity to take action in the event of non-compliance. While the place ban cannot be enforced through direct command and coercion, people who oppose the place ban can still be arrested , as they are committing an administrative offense ( Section 35 VStG ).

The punishment for the administrative offense is laid down in § 84 SPG. According to this, anyone who enters or stays in an area with a restricted space without being entitled to pay a fine of up to 500 euros. In addition, a substitute custodial sentence of up to two weeks is provided. The specific amount or the amount of the substitute custodial sentence is determined by the responsible security authority in the ordinary administrative criminal procedure.

In the event of a subsequent prohibition of seating under paragraph 2, the violation of this cannot be declared as an administrative offense. Arrest for such an administrative offense is also excluded. In return, the security authority can grant the organs of the public security service the authority to expel people from the danger area. This eviction can also be enforced by means of command and coercion.

Debate about prohibited zones

The broad prohibition zone on the occasion of the 2014 Academic Ball, which was imposed by the Vienna State Police Department, caused great criticism in advance. The riots that took place during the ball proved to the police that this restricted zone was justified, even though major property damage occurred in downtown Vienna.

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ No seat ban: Opera ball demo has been canceled this year . Article on DiePresse.com from February 12, 2012.
  2. ^ WKR-Ball: Police cordon off a large area of ​​the city center . Article on DiePresse.com from January 26, 2012.
  3. ↑ This does not include private indictments , authorizing offenses, and the acquisition and possession of addictive substances
  4. ↑ Dieter Zirnig: Seat ban: The red card according to §§ 36 Abs. 1 . Article on neuwal.com from April 10, 2010.
  5. ↑ Michael Möseneder, Michael Simoner: Akademikerball: Riots in the city center . Article on derStandard.at from January 25, 2014.