Berlin Administrative Court: Police are not allowed to ban protests in advance by sending them off

The Berlin police are not allowed to ban participation in protests in advance by sending them off. The Berlin administrative court decided this in an expedited procedure in the case of a woman who took part in actions against the arms company Rheinmetall. The court announced that the right to hold meetings at a certain location should not be restricted by a police ban on stay issued “in advance”.

According to the judges, a corresponding notice from the police was unlawful. A woman who has taken part in several protests in the area around Rheinmetall's production site in Berlin-Gesundbrunnen since spring initially successfully defended herself against a police ban. The decision is not legally binding. An appeal against the decision can be lodged with the next higher authority, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court (OVG). According to police reports, it is still unclear whether this will happen. The court's reasoning is still being evaluated, a spokesman said.

Stuck during protests

According to the court, the woman stuck herself in the driveway area three times and twice sprayed lettering on the sidewalk in front of the factory premises. The reason for the protests is, among other things, the accusation that the arms company is producing weapons that the Israeli military is using in the Gaza war.

The police initially reacted by sending them off. In June, the authorities banned the woman from staying in the area of ​​the plant for the next six months. At the same time, the decision said: “The provisions of the right to assembly remain unaffected.”

From the court's point of view, this formulation is ultimately too vague. The decision could be understood to mean that the applicant was allowed to enter the prohibited area in order to take part in a meeting. However, the stay ban would apply at the latest after the end - and the woman would have to leave the area immediately. According to the court, this would lead to unreasonable consequences, as the woman would be “burdened with responsibility for the - not always easy - legal assessment of whether and for how long it was a meeting”.