Court challenge of German police surveillance
Imagine several special police units following you wherever you go, round the clock, because you are using your basic right to express your opinion and to gather with other people to protest against the lethal atomic industry. It happened in Germany for two weeks to a Lüneburg-based French woman who opposes nuclear energy and who’s now challenging the legality of the police actions in court.
Her lawyer cites serious concerns that they breach the German constitution.
“This is not some Orwellian scenario, but sad reality,” writes LIgA on German IndyMedia. “Robert Jungk suspected it: the atomic state means police state.” (The late Jungk was an Austrian writer and journalist who addressed mostly issues relating to nuclear weapons.)
The police surveillance happened in 2006 just before the usual annual rail transport of nuclear waste was due to run through Lüneburg to a dump at nearby Gorleben in November 2006.
Laws used against her were § 34 (long-term observation) and § 35 (covert use of technical means).
Special unit police from Lüneburg, Hanover, Osnabrück and an investigation unit of the federal police from Pirma followed the woman’s every step to her place of work or when she was shopping.
People in her environment were also spied on; police obtained information from the residents register about possible ‘contact persons’.
“All this to ‘avert danger’, in other words a purely preventative measure.
“These facts emerge from a file the police released a year after being officially requested to do so and only after being threatened with legal action.”
The activist’s lawyer argues that there are grave doubts about the constitutionality of the articles of law applied, and sees a grave breach of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Already in 2005 a related paragraph of the same law, § 33a SOG (monitoring telecommunications) was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (judgement of 27.05.2005 Ref. 1BvR 668/04).
Lawyer Plener argues that “the measures being contested are of the same kind as the measure according to § 33a”. He says in his submission of 6 December that he is also trying to obtain “a decision of the constitutional court on the question of breach of the Basic Law by §§ 34, 35 Nds. SOG”.
Misuse of the law and police files is also criticised. “The danger prognosis is not based on real facts but on untested police findings in abandoned investigations of petty offences. The law may only be used in connection with criminal acts of considerable gravity according to § 2 Para.10 SOG.
“Whether climbing trees represents a criminal act of considerable gravity, whether street theatre outside the Gorleben interim-storage facility can be treated as ‘gang action’ in the juridical sense is open to interpretation.
“This is first and foremost a measure of political repression. The aim is to paralyse the international resistance against atomic power,” contends the 26-year-old French plaintiff.
The Lüneburg Initiative Against Atomic Installations (LIgA), where she’s an activist, supports her legal fight because “these actions are aimed against all of us”.
“The state protection authority is simply out to collect information about our structures.”
It remains to be seen how slowly the mills of the judiciary will start to grind.
The woman says she is determined not to let herself be intimidated. “I’m going to keep taking part in protest actions.”
She said she’d be part of a demonstration in Hamburg on Sunday the 16th against data collection and police repression.
http://www.ligatomanlagen.de/
“This is not some Orwellian scenario, but sad reality,” writes LIgA on German IndyMedia. “Robert Jungk suspected it: the atomic state means police state.” (The late Jungk was an Austrian writer and journalist who addressed mostly issues relating to nuclear weapons.)
The police surveillance happened in 2006 just before the usual annual rail transport of nuclear waste was due to run through Lüneburg to a dump at nearby Gorleben in November 2006.
Laws used against her were § 34 (long-term observation) and § 35 (covert use of technical means).
Special unit police from Lüneburg, Hanover, Osnabrück and an investigation unit of the federal police from Pirma followed the woman’s every step to her place of work or when she was shopping.
People in her environment were also spied on; police obtained information from the residents register about possible ‘contact persons’.
“All this to ‘avert danger’, in other words a purely preventative measure.
“These facts emerge from a file the police released a year after being officially requested to do so and only after being threatened with legal action.”
The activist’s lawyer argues that there are grave doubts about the constitutionality of the articles of law applied, and sees a grave breach of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Already in 2005 a related paragraph of the same law, § 33a SOG (monitoring telecommunications) was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (judgement of 27.05.2005 Ref. 1BvR 668/04).
Lawyer Plener argues that “the measures being contested are of the same kind as the measure according to § 33a”. He says in his submission of 6 December that he is also trying to obtain “a decision of the constitutional court on the question of breach of the Basic Law by §§ 34, 35 Nds. SOG”.
Misuse of the law and police files is also criticised. “The danger prognosis is not based on real facts but on untested police findings in abandoned investigations of petty offences. The law may only be used in connection with criminal acts of considerable gravity according to § 2 Para.10 SOG.
“Whether climbing trees represents a criminal act of considerable gravity, whether street theatre outside the Gorleben interim-storage facility can be treated as ‘gang action’ in the juridical sense is open to interpretation.
“This is first and foremost a measure of political repression. The aim is to paralyse the international resistance against atomic power,” contends the 26-year-old French plaintiff.
The Lüneburg Initiative Against Atomic Installations (LIgA), where she’s an activist, supports her legal fight because “these actions are aimed against all of us”.
“The state protection authority is simply out to collect information about our structures.”
It remains to be seen how slowly the mills of the judiciary will start to grind.
The woman says she is determined not to let herself be intimidated. “I’m going to keep taking part in protest actions.”
She said she’d be part of a demonstration in Hamburg on Sunday the 16th against data collection and police repression.
http://www.ligatomanlagen.de/
Indymedia ist eine Veröffentlichungsplattform, auf der jede und jeder selbstverfasste Berichte publizieren kann. Eine Überprüfung der Inhalte und eine redaktionelle Bearbeitung der Beiträge finden nicht statt. Bei Anregungen und Fragen zu diesem Artikel wenden sie sich bitte direkt an die Verfasserin oder den Verfasser.
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
(Moderationskriterien von Indymedia Deutschland)
Ergänzungen
Correction
Beiträge die keine inhaltliche Ergänzung darstellen
at last.... — mcdoitslaend