(c) User AlbertR on en.wikipedia
What makes a protester, if it is complemented by the staff of a public airport out of the building and its also a permanent home ban is issued, please go to a legal expert who can advise you there and brings an action against the airport operator. But, if you so with a Fraport AG invests big opponent again, which must have good stamina.
And indeed, the Applicant was given only after more than 6 years of litigating their fundamental right.
What had happened?
"The complainant entered together with five other activists of the" Initiative against deportation on 11 March 2003 the Airport Terminal 1, addressed to a check-in counter employees of Deutsche Lufthansa and distributed leaflets to an impending deportation. employees the defendant and of the Federal forces ended the action. "
(see BVerfGE 1BvR 699/06 of 22.02.201, p.4)
Here is the part of the federal state of Hesse that has been known to run by the CDU and the City of Frankfurt as Co-insurers affiliation to the majority of 52%, just double standards.
First, Fraport AG will receive an "Airport Rules and Regulations," governs the the use of the airport by air passengers and other customers. The measure approved by the State of Hesse Airport Rules and Regulations, the Federal Constitutional Court in which the present main proceedings version applicable from 1 January 1998, contained in Part II (Use Regulations) - The following provision - among other things: (170 170, 170) 1px solid rgb background-color:
's own rules by the operator, namely the state-owned Fraport, however, ignores itself, is shown by the following facts:
" On the site the airport in the past were carried out repeated meetings. For the year 2000 to 2007 indicates the defendant that were held in various places, including in Terminals 1 and 2, total forty-five demonstrations and rallies. At the meetings it was actions of various operators of different sizes with various concerns, in part at the meeting declared, some not partly agreed with the defendant, sometimes not. The smallest assembly consisted of three persons, the largest about 2,000 people. The defendant himself performed repeatedly on the land side on the public area of the airport activities and promotional events to entertain the audience by, such as public viewing at the 2010 World Cup. "
(Federal Constitutional Court, supra, p. 6)
and is hereby clearly, against whom the spoken Assembly prohibition is : Against politically undesirable and not in the sense of the prevailing consumer offer demonstrations given by the dedicated by the applicant are among initiated rally against deportation of aliens to their home countries or so-called safe third countries all times who wants to do his views be known to this -.. There you go - perform outside the airport grounds, so the other guests and potential buyers will not be disturbed.
is the entire airport construction - as the self-promotion of Fraport AG - not for politically undesirable agitation produced, but intended to consume in the expensive shops.
out in the decision the Constitutional Court stated:
(see BVerfGE 1BvR 699/06 of 22.02.201, p.4)
Here is the part of the federal state of Hesse that has been known to run by the CDU and the City of Frankfurt as Co-insurers affiliation to the majority of 52%, just double standards.
First, Fraport AG will receive an "Airport Rules and Regulations," governs the the use of the airport by air passengers and other customers. The measure approved by the State of Hesse Airport Rules and Regulations, the Federal Constitutional Court in which the present main proceedings version applicable from 1 January 1998, contained in Part II (Use Regulations) - The following provision - among other things: (170 170, 170) 1px solid rgb background-color:
" 4.2 Sammlungen, Werbungen, Verteilen
of publications
collections, advertising and the distribution of leaflets and other printed materials must be consent the airport operator. "
In its decision, the Constitutional Court will in fact so:
" In the current version of 1 December 2008 declared the airport regulations meetings in the buildings of the airport express to be inadmissible. "
(Federal Constitutional Court, a, a, above, p. 5)
's own rules by the operator, namely the state-owned Fraport, however, ignores itself, is shown by the following facts:
" On the site the airport in the past were carried out repeated meetings. For the year 2000 to 2007 indicates the defendant that were held in various places, including in Terminals 1 and 2, total forty-five demonstrations and rallies. At the meetings it was actions of various operators of different sizes with various concerns, in part at the meeting declared, some not partly agreed with the defendant, sometimes not. The smallest assembly consisted of three persons, the largest about 2,000 people. The defendant himself performed repeatedly on the land side on the public area of the airport activities and promotional events to entertain the audience by, such as public viewing at the 2010 World Cup. "
(Federal Constitutional Court, supra, p. 6)
and is hereby clearly, against whom the spoken Assembly prohibition is : Against politically undesirable and not in the sense of the prevailing consumer offer demonstrations given by the dedicated by the applicant are among initiated rally against deportation of aliens to their home countries or so-called safe third countries all times who wants to do his views be known to this -.. There you go - perform outside the airport grounds, so the other guests and potential buyers will not be disturbed.
is the entire airport construction - as the self-promotion of Fraport AG - not for politically undesirable agitation produced, but intended to consume in the expensive shops.
out in the decision the Constitutional Court stated:
"This airport offers its visitors on the land side extended shopping with stores in the categories of books and magazines" "Beauty," "tobacco products and alcoholic beverages", "Fashion and Accessories", "footwear and leather goods", "flowers and souvenirs, Photo and Electronics", "Clocks and Jewellery "," opticians and pharmacy. Also, many restaurants are located in the airport, ranging from fine dining to cafes and bars to fast food. In addition, various service providers offer their services such as a hairdresser, a wellness center, a bank, a post office with internet access, two dry cleaners and a variety of travel suppliers. Finally, there is a Christian chapel and prayer rooms for members of other faiths. The defendant advertises this with the slogan: "Airport shopping for all", "of 4,000 square meters, the new market place shows a new look and is looking forward to your visit. "
(Federal Constitutional Court, supra, p. 5)
who agitates, disturbs! Mockingbird thrown out! This has been the reading of the state-owned Fraport AG and the maxim of the cooking / Bouffier government. That the CDU with the freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate not taken very seriously, but take there restrictive measures, where political rallies dissent is, was already before the decision from Karlsruhe known.
now has the state government and their stooges in the administration FRAPORT really get one on the bag.
The highest courts is in fact fest:
(Federal Constitutional Court, supra, p. 5)
who agitates, disturbs! Mockingbird thrown out! This has been the reading of the state-owned Fraport AG and the maxim of the cooking / Bouffier government. That the CDU with the freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate not taken very seriously, but take there restrictive measures, where political rallies dissent is, was already before the decision from Karlsruhe known.
now has the state government and their stooges in the administration FRAPORT really get one on the bag.
The highest courts is in fact fest:
"The admissible constitutional complaint is well founded, the challenged decisions of the civil courts violate the complainant their fundamental rights under Article 8 paragraph 1 and Article 5 paragraph 1 sentence 1 Basic Law. "
(Federal Constitutional Court, supra, p. 44).
It justified its decision to include:
"The defendant has against the complainant directly linked to fundamental rights Accordingly, they may be on. justification of the ban pronounced by its airport can not rely in turn on their own fundamental rights. "
(Federal Constitutional Court, ibid p.46)
The clear act of discrimination of Fraport AG, the former protester to issue an unlimited and indefinite ban violates house, but not only of Article 8, paragraph I and type . 5 paragraph 1 sentence 1 GG, but means that the Fraport AG, the majority state-owned business entity not just on their own basic rights, particularly those that may rely Article 1 paragraph 3 GG.
a landmark decision, because it makes clear that politically motivated regulation of a public service operator - albeit in a private sector outfit - not with the fundamental right to freedom - freedom of association and correlation, unless they are obviously very arbitrary.
(Federal Constitutional Court, ibid p.46)
The clear act of discrimination of Fraport AG, the former protester to issue an unlimited and indefinite ban violates house, but not only of Article 8, paragraph I and type . 5 paragraph 1 sentence 1 GG, but means that the Fraport AG, the majority state-owned business entity not just on their own basic rights, particularly those that may rely Article 1 paragraph 3 GG.
a landmark decision, because it makes clear that politically motivated regulation of a public service operator - albeit in a private sector outfit - not with the fundamental right to freedom - freedom of association and correlation, unless they are obviously very arbitrary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment