The images of the police operation against a member of the “last generation” went viral, and a debate about alleged police violence and pain attacks followed. Now the “last generation” wanted to take action against the police – and failed.
The climate activist sat on April 20th on the street and blocked traffic. He did not want to get up and leave the roadway, despite the police’s request. Officers warned him and then used what they called a pain hold to clear the street.
Now the activist wanted the administrative court to determine that the officials acted unlawfully. But the judges rejected the urgent application as inadmissible, as well as the attempt to oblige the police to refrain from the pain grip.
The “Last Generation” described the pain grips used as “torture-like methods used on peaceful protesters”. The police, on the other hand, explained that pain only arises when those affected oppose the direction of movement. Following the publication of the video, the authority had officially initiated proceedings against the police officer on suspicion of bodily harm in office.
In view of the heated debate about pain grips, the “last generation” apparently wanted to increase the pressure: with one decision of the administrative courtthat the pain grip was unlawful. But the court decided otherwise.
Whether “the use of pain grips/nerve pressure techniques” by police officers was illegal cannot be determined by means of an interim order in summary legal protection proceedings. The activist who counts himself in the group “Last Generation” has to normal legal action tread. The only way the activist could try to urge the court to make a judgment as to whether the pain grip was unlawful or not was by filing a declaratory action.
Court: No risk of repetition
The court found that the police regularly enforced the bans against blockers by officers carrying away the activists. A so-called “hand bending transport technique” was also threatened or used in isolated cases. This technique is suitable for triggering pain in those affected.
It is true that in exceptional cases it is also possible to establish whether official action was unlawful by means of summary proceedings – but only if there is a risk of recurrence. But the climate activist did not explain sufficiently why he is now threatened with pain again before a judgment in the main proceedings.
The climate adhesive has announced that it intends to participate in sit-ins on the streets of Berlin in the future. Whether the police would then enforce a dismissal against him again with a pain grip was “not sufficiently likely, but rather remote”.
Even the footage provided by the activist does not show that the police usually use the pain grip. Rather, he has photos and videos of only eight situations, in which pain handles can be seen – but also simply being carried away. An appeal against the decision can be lodged with the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court.
