“The legal arguments are on our site”

Talked to the lawyer Claus Forster, who represents the lawsuit against Demonstration ban around the airport Rostock situation

With high prere, lawyers work on complaints against the flat-covered demonstration bans around the summit of Heiligendamm. The Berlin Rechtsanwalt Claus Forster, together with lawyer Eberhard Schultz, represents the applicants against the ban on demonstration for the airport Rostock-Laage (the "International interests" Germany against the demonstrators).

How do you value this prohibition of prohibition legally?
Claus Forster: I clearly see a violation of the paragraph 15 of the Association Act. However, law is generally controversial whether such general convictions can be intervened in the legally protected assembly law. It must be about a concrete assembly with concrete suspected moments. For the prohibitions around the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, it is a general distribution, with which all demonstrations are generally prohibited at a given time in a certain region. A detail screen is no longer made here. There were such measures earlier?
Claus Forster: Yes. The Federal Scarf Court has in connection with the protests against castor transports to the Wendland establish the legalism of such general distribution. Unlike the protests in and around Heiligendamm, however, a much smaller flat for the assembly-free zone was explained in Gorleben. It was about approx. 100 meters. The court charged the legalism of the association ban on the fact that protests are still located outside of this zone in the horizontal and vision of the addressees. Exactly this criterion was no longer valid in our case, as the prohibition zone comprises several kilometers and the addressees of the protest then no longer have been heard. Is this your main argument for the cancellation of the assembly ban before the airport Rostock-Laage?
Claus Forster: There are several arguments. The central question that is to be decided is why the demonstrators can only express their protest in this place. We argue that Rostock-Laage Airport is very important for the meeting participants as a demonstration site. Once because of the militar policy of the airport and second, because from there the heads of state and government participating in the G8 summit, land and start. But could not exactly the call to a blockade of the airport enjoy a confirmation of the demonstration ban?
Claus Forster: In fact, in general conviction, the argument plays a supporting role that the airport is made tight with a blockade and thus the summit is danger. In doing so, quotes from calls from the Internet are raised and overvalued. The planning of the organizers run initially beyond a demonstration. But even with a blockade of the airport goods the summit by no means danger. There are judgments of different dishes, which then describe a blockade as a legitimate protustant, if it primarily serves communicative purposes, that if it is to be made aware of a social or political problem. In the case of a blockade in Gorleben, a court has decided that a blockade itself represents a legitimate protege if the increase in the cost of castor transports should be aimed as sake. Then they had to be very optimistic to win the lawsuit?
Claus Forster: Legally, the arguments are safe on our side. But it is also good for life to believe that the judges are unimpressed by the political coarse weather situation their decisions. It is built up by the current debate a rough political prere for the confirmation of the prohibition. It will show how far the judges give this prere. What does the other way of instance look like?
Claus Forster: The site that loses Schwerin at the Administrative Court, on the other hand, in front of the Upper Administrative Court Mecklenburg-Vorpommern appeal. Then the normal instance path turns off. It would then only remain an extent complaint before the Federal Scarred Court. When is a decision to expect?
Claus Forster: Since there is no deadlines here, it is possible that a decision is currently being conceded immediately before the start of the protests. We've ever reached a quick decision. Finally, the security authorities have already prepared the prohibition of prohibition, the publication beached beyond. Thus, the authorities have to answer the express requirement, with which they argue in the immediate enforcement of frosting, themselves. But it is also possible that the demonstrations will be banned and this ban will be explained in retrospect for unlawfully?
Claus Forster: It is fundamentally possible. We will exploit all legal funds that we have success with the interim decision. But it is not excluded that the decision later falls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.