The political debate was not long in coming after the “Gen Z” protests over the weekend. Hesse's Interior Minister Roman Poseck (CDU) brought up a ban on further "Gen Z" demonstrations in the tagesthemen: "First we have to see whether these events can even take place on November 20th," he said. But would that be legally possible?
Can everyone in Germany just demonstrate like that?
In principle, Article 8 of the Basic Law guarantees the so-called freedom of assembly. After that, you are allowed to demonstrate - just like that, without registration, permission or authorization. “This fundamental right enables citizens to actively participate in the political opinion and decision-making process,” describes the Federal Ministry of the Interior on its website.
However, the right to gather in the open air, for example demonstrations in the city center, can be restricted. The prerequisite is that the restriction is explicitly provided for by a law.
Such laws are, for example, the federal assembly law or the states' own assembly laws. For example, it may be specified that a meeting must be registered. The Federal Assembly Act expressly stipulates that outdoor meetings must be registered 48 hours in advance.
However, a lack of registration does not mean that a meeting cannot take place or will be dissolved immediately. Registration is not intended to restrict people's freedom to demonstrate, but rather to help ensure regulated processes and the necessary security.
There are also a number of exceptions to the registration requirement. An important example are so-called spontaneous meetings: If people come together at short notice without prior planning to demonstrate on a specific topic, this can also be done without registering.
Who can ban a meeting?
The respective local assembly authority is responsible for meetings. This is often the mayor, i.e. the city or municipality. Meetings are registered there. The authority then specifically checks whether the meeting can take place as planned, whether certain requirements need to be made - or whether the entire demonstration needs to be banned.
When the authorities issue a ban, it is usually not the last word. The organizers can go to court against a ban on gatherings - and in practice they often do. In an expedited procedure, the ban is submitted to the administrative court and the courts then react in such situations within a few days or even hours so that the decision is made in time before the planned demonstration.
Can upcoming “Gen Z” protests be banned?
Legally this is possible in principle, but practically it is very difficult. For example, the Federal Assembly Act stipulates that a meeting can be prohibited or made subject to conditions if public safety is at risk.
However, a ban must be well justified and can only be a last resort. What is important is a forecast of how great the risk is that crimes will occur and why. This is why most bans fail in practice.
In addition, the authorities must always check whether there is a milder remedy than a complete ban. This can be, for example, a requirement - a requirement that must be observed at the meeting. For example, the authorities can limit the locations for a demonstration or specify the routes.
Can an ongoing demo still be banned?
Protests cannot only be banned in advance. There is also the option to dissolve a meeting once it has already started.
So if the authority's forecast was not sufficient for a ban in advance, it may still be possible to end it later. For example, if there are riots during the demo or if regulations are violated.
Could the weekend's riots lead to future Gen Z demonstrations being banned?
Basically, the local authorities have to make a forecast. To do this, they must provide concrete arguments as to why it is likely that this upcoming demonstration will lead to riots and acts of violence.
For example, if the city of Frankfurt were to consider banning a new “Gen Z” demo, the events of last weekend would certainly be included in this forecast. In case of doubt, simply referring to the riots would not be enough. In the end, this question is likely to end up in the courts.
