Felix Langrock




 

Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity faces. As a sign for climate protection and in protest against current climate protection measures, activists of the so-called “Last Generation” glue their hands on the asphalt at intersections of busy roads. The resulting complaints from motorists should attract the attention of the media. Over 1250 times, activists of this group blocked streets in Germany – particularly in Berlin – within the last year. Accordingly, 1200 activists were taken into custody and over 2700 criminal charges were filed.[1] Yet the legal basis of these actions remains unclear. Are motorists therefore allowed to clear the activists from the roadway on their own initiative in order to clear the way? And to what extent are these protests protected by the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of assembly?

 

Sit-in blockades could be considered as coercion.[2] In principle, according to § 240 StGB, a sit-in protest is permissible until violence is used by the activists.[3] In the past, the “psychological violence” inflicted on motorists by the sit-in blockade was considered sufficient in this context, as it specifically prevents motorists from continuing their journey. However, due to a ruling by the Constitutional Court in 1995, the interpretation as “psychological violence” was declared null and void. The Federal Supreme Court thus applied a ruse: even if the first row of motorists is not coerced by the activists, as the Constitutional Court found, the cars in the back rows are very much physically coerced, since the motorists in the front row make it impossible to continue driving. This approach, referred to as “Second-Row-Jurisdiction”, was later confirmed by the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the activists’ active resistance to being carried away by the police also constitutes violence in the sense of section 240. Are motorists from the second row onwards therefore actively coerced by the activists, so that lawsuits may be successful?

 

The law is more complex in this context, so that from the second row onwards, coercion cannot generally be assumed. In principle, sit-in blockades are largely permitted.[4] The Constitutional Court confirmed this in a landmark ruling in 2011 and allowed assemblies to hold sit-in blockades under certain circumstances.[5] As a rule, assemblies must be registered. However, the lack of police presence at the activists’ sit-in blockades suggests that registration of such demonstrations does not usually take place. Nonetheless, Article 8(1) of the Constitution also protects the right to assemble spontaneously.[6] These spontaneous assemblies do not have to be registered, which would allow activists to invoke them. The prerequisite for this particular type of assembly is that only a few people meet with little notice, and that the assembly is not systematically planned. The vests, posters and stickers used by the activists, however, suggest that the assembly was indeed planned in an organised way.[7] Yet getting the activists off the road would usually end in criminal charges for battery for the motorists.[8] Rather, the police should be called to remove the activists from the road. Nevertheless, the reason for the protests should be taken into account. In another decision of the Constitutional Court from 2021, it was stated that the federal government is currently acting unlawfully by violating the climate protection requirement from Article 20a.[9]

 

The goal of the climate protests is important. It is necessary to take effective action to curb the climate catastrophe. The democratic state offers far-reaching legal possibilities for protest and participation in political decision-making. As Sabine Schumann, Deputy Federal Chair of the German Police Union, points out, this does not require committing criminal offences.[10] The danger of injuring people or damaging cultural assets weighs very heavily. Dr Patrick Liesching, Federal Chairman of the association for the support of victims of crime and for the prevention of crime WEISSER RING, argues similarly.[11] In his view, no basic conviction justifies the commission of crimes. This makes it clear that despite the laudable reason of protest, no crimes may be committed by activists in order to express their own opinions.

 

Generally, it is difficult to take legal action against activists on a large scale. Article 8 of the constitution protects the freedom of assembly to a great extent. The liberal interpretation of the rule of law also provides extensive protection for protests and demonstrations. Considering the government’s constant violation of the climate change requirement from Article 20a, activists use their fundamental rights to demand that the government abide by its own laws, thus upholding the fundamental rights and freedom of all citizens. Nevertheless, such protests should be refrained from out of respect for fellow human beings.

 

[1] Dpa, 'Gruppe „Letzte Generation“ zählt bisher 1250 Straßenblockaden' (Märkische Allgemeine, 19 January 2023) <https://www.maz-online.de/brandenburg/berlin-brandenburg-klima-kleber-letzte-generation-zaehlt-bisher-1250-strassenblockaden-DONE33PB2GOCIOAXNJGN35NRK4.html> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[2] Solmecke, 'Aktivisten kleben sich auf Straße fest: Ist im Klima-Kampf alles erlaubt?' (YouTube, 15 February 2022) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A63jVmyXbUc> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[3] Bundesrepublik deutschland, vertreten durch den bundesminister der justiz, 'Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) § 240 Nötigung' (Gesetzte im Internet, N/A) <https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__240.html> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[4] Deutscher bundestag, 'Experten lehnen Forderung nach härteren Strafen für Klima-Proteste ab' (Deutscher Bundestag, 18 January 2023) <https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2023/kw03-pa-recht-926948> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[5] 1 kammer des ersten senats des bundesverfassungsgerichts, 'In dem Verfahren über die Verfassungsbeschwerde' (Bundesverfassungsgericht, 07 March 2011) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2011/03/rk20110307_1bvr038805.html> accessed 8 March 2023

[6] Bundesministerium des innern und für heimat, 'Versammlungsrecht' (Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat, 2023) <https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/verfassung/staatliche-ordnung/versammlungsrecht/versammlungsrecht-node.html> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[7] Rbb doku, 'Blockieren, Festkleben, Beschmieren · Wie weit darf Klimaschutz-Protest gehen? | Wir müssen reden!' (YouTube, 17 November 2022) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1lFHCyXN0U> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[8] Berliner morgenpost, 'Notwehr: Darf man Klimaaktivisten von der Straße ziehen?' (Berliner Morgenpost, 19 January 2023) <https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article237414117/klimaaktivisten-strasse-blockade-notwehr-strafbar.html> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[9] Erster senat des bundesverfassungsgerichts, 'Leitsätze zum Beschluss des Ersten Senats vom 24 März 2021' (Bundesverfassungsgericht, 24 March 2021) <https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/03/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[10] Deutscher bundestag, 'Experten lehnen Forderung nach härteren Strafen für Klima-Proteste ab' (Deutscher Bundestag, 18 January 2023) <https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2023/kw03-pa-recht-926948> accessed 8 March 2023

 

[11] Deutscher bundestag, 'Experten lehnen Forderung nach härteren Strafen für Klima-Proteste ab' (Deutscher Bundestag, 18 January 2023) <https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2023/kw03-pa-recht-926948> accessed 8 March 2023