Police emergency

Police emergency is Germany's term for a use position in which a "present significant risk for important legal interests" is present while the police does not have enough own resources (emergency services) are available, so its "general order ", the public safety to ensure that it is "seriously endangered".

In this situation, restrictions on civil rights and fundamental rights are also possible. For example, a general ban on assemblies is possible, even if the assembly itself does not pose any immediate danger (so-called “non-disturbance liability”). The measures against the assembly as not responsible must, however, be limited to the factually and temporally inevitable. Affected parties can demand compensation for disadvantages and expenses that can be shown to have arisen as a result of these measures.

A police emergency does not exist if the danger situation can be averted by “calling on the interferer ” (e.g. personal custody ) with reasonable means (so-called “ interferer liability ”).

A distinction must be made here between the real police emergency (see definition above) and the fake police emergency . A fake police emergency exists when the damage that threatens public safety if effective action is taken against the interferer (s) is extremely disproportionate to the disadvantages that would result from intervening against the assembly.

The authorizations in the event of a police emergency only apply in the area of hazard prevention and troubleshooting, not in the area of criminal prosecution . They are also not to be applied if other special regulations permit proceedings against bystanders under simplified conditions, for example for identifying or searching people.

Specifically, the concept of Police emergency and the scope is thereby the entering authorizations in the police laws (often under the heading "measures on uninvolved") of the states and in the Federal Police Act ( § 20 controlled Federal Police Act).

Court decisions

The Lüneburg Administrative Court stated: “A general order is not incorrect because it restricts the right of assembly for the peaceful participants as well, if there is a police emergency. A police emergency can be assumed if the majority of the assembly participants behave properly and only a minority acts illegally. There is an emergency if further external police forces cannot be called in to secure the transport without seriously endangering the general mission of the police. "

Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court has stated: “A measure can only be based on a police emergency if the danger cannot be averted in any other way and the administrative authority does not have sufficient resources of its own, possibly supplemented by administrative and enforcement assistance, to To effectively protect legal interests. The requirement to use one's own strength against the disruptor before calling on non-disruptors is subject to the availability of such forces. A claim against the applicant as a non-disruptor would only be considered if it were established that the assembly authority would not be able to protect the assembly registered by the applicant because of the fulfillment of priority state tasks and despite the efforts to call in external police forces if necessary. A sweeping assertion of this content is not enough. "

“This also includes checking whether a police emergency can be eliminated by modifying the meeting modalities, without thereby thwarting the specific purpose of the meeting. If the organizer signals his readiness to change the meeting modalities, the assembly authority is obliged, within the scope of its duty to cooperate, to pursue these possibilities and to look for ways to protect the meeting against dangers that do not arise from itself. If the organizer declares a meeting place that is particularly closely related to the topic of the meeting to be indispensable, then this alternative may only be excluded if it does not leave a police-justifiable possibility of avoiding a situation of police emergency. "

Examples and criticism

The police often argue that there is an existing police emergency when significantly fewer police forces are available in the short term in relation to the expected number of participants in demonstrations. In the run-up to the planned demonstrations for the G8 summit in Heiligendamm in 2007 , the police argued that there was a general police emergency and therefore issued a general order in which all gatherings within a kilometer radius of the conference location were prohibited.

This met with protest from the organizers of the demonstrations. They argued that with an available contingent of 16,000 police officers, one could no longer speak of an existing police emergency. "The assumption that every major political event causes a police emergency would be an indictment of the rule of law, which could then regularly override civil liberties by general decree without need." Since the police were also able to prepare for the situation for a long time, the argument is extremely questionable.

In August 2015 in Heidenau (Saxony), after serious riots by right-wing extremists, a meeting ban was issued in front of an asylum shelter . There was to be a "welcome party" on August 28th. The District Office of Saxon Switzerland-Eastern Ore Mountains saw the reason that the available police force was "not able to cope with the forecast situation". It “cannot be ruled out that violent clashes (...) would occur if the various camps clash”. This led to nationwide criticism, including from politicians. The Dresden Administrative Court has lifted the ban on meetings in an urgent decision . This was justified with an obvious illegality that the police emergency had not been adequately proven. The police union (GdP) also criticized the ban on gatherings: “It's kneeling in front of the mob in Heidenau,” said Vice Chairman Jörg Radek . This message is devastating and an "oath of revelation for the rule of law ". The decision made by the District Office was a slap in the face of all those "who oppose the dull sentiment of violent right-wing criminals." On August 29, the Federal Constitutional Court overturned the ban on assembly. A “police emergency” had not been adequately documented by the district and it was not clear how such an emergency should come about, “taking into account police support from the other states and the federal government, the provision of which has not been questioned as far as can be seen becomes".

Other states

Other states also have similar regulations. For example, in the “Law on the Cantonal Police of the Canton of Basel-Stadt ”, Section 11, the police emergency is regulated: “Police action can be directed against other persons if 1. a serious disturbance or a current serious danger must be averted; 2. Measures against the obligated persons according to § 10 are not possible or promising in time; 3. Claims can be made against persons without significant personal risk and without breaching higher-value obligations. Such measures may only be maintained as long as these conditions are met. "