OVG Lüneburg - 2 ME 426/20
From GDPRhub
| OVG Lüneburg - 2 ME 426/20 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | OVG Lüneburg (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 9(2)(e) GDPR |
| Decided: | 09.10.2020 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 2 ME 426/20 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:DE:OVGNI:2020:1109.2ME426.20.00 |
| Appeal from: | VG Osnabrück 6 B 73/20 |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Niedersächsisches Landesjustizportal (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Agnieszka Rapcewicz |
The Superior Administrative Court Lüneburg found that Article 9(2)(e) GDPR exludes the processing of personal data, which the data subject has expressly made public, from the basic prohibition of processing under Article 9(1) GDPR. In this case the Court held that the General Students' Committee (AStA) is authorised to critically examine in public any views of a university employee which were made public by this employee.
English Summary
Facts
The complainant, as a private individual, is engaging in a civic movement in his city which, among other things, demands an immediate end to all coronavirus-related activities. At the meetings of the citizens' movement, the complainant has been a speaker. In addition, he made numerous contributions to the citizens' movement's chat group, which was critical of the topics of masks, vaccination, 5G radiation, and the detection and threat of the Sars-CoV2 virus. The applicant also took part in a demonstration on 1 August 2020 in Berlin under the slogan 'End of the pandemic - Freedom Day'. In this context, he appeared on the same day as a guest on a talk show broadcast on YouTube, mentioning his employer (the university).
As an answer to the above activities of the complainant, the university has published on the internet, on its main page, an article criticising the attitude of the complainant (an employee of the university) to the coronavirus pandemic. The article points out, among other things, that there is no place at the university for a person who is hostile to science and publicly speaks out against all scientific knowledge about the existing pandemic and denies its threat, and thus, through the convergence of conspiracy theories and in accordance with his declarations, supports the AfD and the nationalist party.
The applicant demanded that the publication of the above statements be discontinued under threat of financial consequences. The General Student Commission (AStA) did not act in accordance with the above request, so the applicant filed a complaint with the administrative court.
Before considering the complaint, the defendant has slightly changed the content of the information provided in the article. The Administratove Court Osnabrück dismissed the complaint and found that there was no unlawful infringement of the applicant's personal rights or of the provisions on personal data protection. The complainant filed an appeal to the Superior Administrative Court Lüneburg.
Dispute
Did the General Student Commission have the right to publicly criticise its employee's actions? Has there been defamation of the complainant or a breach of data protection legislation?
Holding
The Court found the appeal to be unfounded and pointed out, that the General Students' Committee (AStA) is authorised to critically examine in public any views of a university employee which are assessed as conspiracy-theoretical - in this case on the coronavirus pandemic. This applies in any case if the university employee has made public statements with reference to his or her activities at the university itself.
Comment
The Court pointed out that the applicant's behaviour is undoubtedly covered by freedom of expression in accordance with the Constitution. These fundamental rights, however, do not prevent the applicant from being criticised by student bodies and discussed in public. Anyone seeking publicity with controversial positions regarding their own membership of a university must, for their part, face criticism from the university committees set up for this purpose by law.
In addition to stating that the allegations of the defamatory nature of the statements contained in the article are unfounded, the court found that there is no infringement of the provisions on personal data protection either. The applicant was unable to demonstrate that the processing of his personal data by the defendants may have been unlawful. The reason would have been, in particular, to take a closer look at Article 9(2)(e) GDPR. This provision excludes the processing of personal data, which the data subject has expressly made public, from the basic prohibition of processing under Article 9(1) GDPR. The Court stated that Article 9(2)(e) GDPR shall be for the benefit of the defendants. They shall use only information which the applicant has himself distributed in publicly available sources. GDPR regulates the protection of personal data. It does not protect the fact that data made public by the data subject himself and of his own free will are publicly discussed and used as a basis for drawing conclusions from the evaluation.
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.
The General Student Committee (AStA) is authorized, on the basis of Section 20, Paragraph 1, Clause 4 to 6 of the NHG, to critically deal in public with views of a university employee that are assessed as conspiracy-theoretical - here on the corona pandemic; this applies in any case if the university employee has made public statements with reference to his or her work at the university.</p></dd></dl></div></div><p class="bssmall"> OVG Lüneburg 2nd Senate, decision of November 9th, 2020, 2 ME 426/20, ECLI: DE: OVGNI: 2020: 1109.2ME426.20.00</p><p class="bssmall"> Section 2 No. 2 DSG ND 2018, Section 20 Section 1 S 4 HSchulG ND 2007, Section 20 Section 1 S 5 HSchulG ND 2007, Section 20 Section 1 S 6 HSchulG ND 2007, Section 9 Section 2 Letter e EUV 2016/679, Art 5 para 1 GG</p><div><h4 class="doc"> Procedure</h4> prior to VG Osnabrück, October 9, 2020, Az: 6 B 73/20, decision<br/><br/><br/></div><div><h4 class="doc"> tenor</h4><div><div><dl class="RspDL"><dt/><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> The applicant's appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court Osnabrück - 6th Chamber - of October 9, 2020 is rejected.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt/><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> The applicant bears the costs of the complaint procedure.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt/><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> The value of the subject of the dispute is set at 10,000 EUR for the complaint procedure.</p></dd></dl></div></div><h4 class="doc"> reasons</h4><div><div><dl class="RspDL"><dt/><dd><p> <strong>I.</strong></p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_1">1</a></dt><dd><p> The applicant objects to an Internet contribution on the homepage of the AStA of the University of A-Stadt, which critically deals with his position on the corona pandemic.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_2">2</a></dt><dd><p> The applicant is head of the G. of the university and the university A-Stadt. As a private person, he is committed to the citizens' movement A-Stadt, which, according to its own account, represents “an association of citizens with their own opinion without party-political affiliation” and which, among other things, demands the immediate termination of all corona measures. The applicant appeared as a speaker at meetings of the citizens' movement; He also posted numerous articles in the Telegram group of the citizens' movement, which deal critically, among other things, with the topics of masks, vaccinations, 5G radiation and the detection and danger of the Sars-CoV2 virus. The applicant also took part in the demonstration on August 1, 2020 in Berlin under the motto “The End of the Pandemic - Freedom Day”. In this context, he appeared on the same day as a guest on a talk show on YouTube, naming his employer.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_3">3</a></dt><dd><p> The General Student Committee of the University of A-Stadt for the student body, the respondent to 1., took these activities as an opportunity on September 1, 2020 to publish a critical internet article about the applicant on its homepage. In the article entitled "Corona deniers & conspiracy ideologies at university and college", which is still publicly accessible, according to the presentation of the facts, among other things:</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_4">4th</a></dt><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> “A person who, according to his own statements made in the Telegram group of the citizens' movement, sympathizes with the AfD and thus supports a völkisch nationalist party - allegedly only because of coincidental similarities in the chosen conspiracy theory - has no place in a scientific establishment. A person who is anti-science and speaks out publicly against any knowledge of science about the existing pandemic and denies its danger; someone who wanders through Berlin and A-Stadt together with esotericists, right-wing extremists and anti-Semitic people and Holocaust deniers does not belong to either a university or a college. Someone who spreads or at least accepts anti-Semitic, right-wing and conspiratorial ideological ideas, can by no means have the skills necessary for mediation between science and society. "</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_5">5</a></dt><dd><p> The applicant took this statement as an opportunity to request the respondent to 1. and the respondent to 2., the financial officer of the AStA, with a letter of 10 September 2020 to submit a declaration of cease and desist with criminal liability. The respondents rejected this request.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_6">6th</a></dt><dd><p> On September 18, 2020, the applicant submitted an application to the administrative court for a temporary injunction with the aim of forbidding the respondents from repeating the following statements:</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_7">7th</a></dt><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> 1. "A person who, according to his own statement made in the Telegram group of the citizens' movement, sympathizes with the AfD and thus supports a völkisch national party ...",</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_8">8th</a></dt><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> 2. "Someone who travels through Berlin and A-Stadt together with esotericists, right-wing extremists and anti-Semitic people and Holocaust deniers ...",</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_9">9</a></dt><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> 3. "Someone who obviously spreads or at least accepts anti-Semitic, right-wing and conspiracy ideological ideas ...".</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_10">10</a></dt><dd><p> The respondents opposed this, but changed the first sentence of the contribution on September 21, 2020 as follows:</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_11">11</a></dt><dd><p style="margin-left:36pt"> "A person who, according to his own statements made in the Telegram group of the citizens' movement, sympathizes with the positions of the AfD and is of the opinion that the AfD is" the only German party "that does what he" feels is an absolute duty "and closes with the words "Thank you AFD", thereby thanking a völkisch nationalist party - allegedly only due to coincidental similarities in the chosen conspiracy theory - has no place in a scientific establishment. "</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_12">12th</a></dt><dd><p> The administrative court rejected the application with the challenged decision of October 9, 2020. In any case, there is no claim to an order - here in the form of a public-law injunction claim - because there was no illegal violation of the applicant's general personal rights. The defendants had neither alleged untrue facts nor made value judgments that presented themselves as inadmissible formal insult or defamatory criticism. In this respect, the statements made by the applicant are to be accepted. Data protection provisions also did not constitute a basis for the claim. The applicant objects to this with the complaint.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt/><dd><p> <strong>II.</strong></p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_13">13th</a></dt><dd><p> The admissible complaint is unsuccessful.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_14">14th</a></dt><dd><p> The reasons presented, which the Senate is limited to examining in accordance with Section 146 (4) sentence 6 VwGO, do not justify any change to the decision of the administrative court. The main reasons for the decision, in particular the assumption that the right to order required according to Section 123 (1) VwGO is missing, does not effectively cast doubt on the complaint.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_15">15th</a></dt><dd><p> 1. Whether the legal principles derived from the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court on freedom of expression in Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law, according to which the Administrative Court based on a decision by the Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (ruling of April 23, 1999 - 21 A 490/97 -, juris Rn. 19) between admissible and inadmissible statements that distinguish opponents authorized to express themselves in university policy matters according to Section 20 (1) sentences 4 to 6 NHG, the Senate leaves open for two independent reasons. Firstly, the applicant did not attack these principles with his complaint submission, which is solely relevant under Section 146 (4) sentence 6 VwGO. Secondly, the challenged statements of the respondent to 1. also apply when a stricter standard is applied, according to which an official statement must firstly be within the competence of the person making the statement and secondly be subject to the requirement of objectivity (see BVerwG, decision of 11.11.2010 - 7 B 54.10 -, juris Rn. 14; judgment of 13.9.2017 - 10 C 6.16 -, juris Rn. 16 ff.), As admissible.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_16">16</a></dt><dd><p> 2. The applicant initially thinks that the first statement ("A person who, according to his own statement made in the Telegram group of the citizens' movement, sympathizes with the AfD and thus supports a nationally national party ...") is contrary to the opinion of the administrative court is not an expression of opinion, but an untrue assertion of fact. This does not apply - regardless of the fact that there is no claim for an injunction with regard to the original statement after the now much clearer differentiation by the respondents due to the lack of ongoing infringement. As the administrative court has convincingly demonstrated, the statement that the applicant sympathizes with the AfD and thus supports a nationally national party is a judgmental statement. Its core facts - the support expressed by the applicant in a Telegram group and concluded with the words “In this case: Thank you AfD” for the position of this party on the mask requirement in schools - is demonstrably true. From this, the respondent to 1. deduces from an evaluative consideration that the applicant sympathizes with the AfD, so shows affection or support for this party. This is not defamatory, disparaging or no longer appropriately and justifiably appreciating the core of the facts (see BVerwG, decision of 11.11.2010 - 7 B 54.10 -, juris marginal number 14). Insofar as the applicant counters this, with the words “In this case” he has distanced himself from the political content of the AfD, this conclusion is by no means compelling. On the contrary, the fact that the applicant not only rejects the position that the mask requirement is to be rejected in schools, but at the same time emphasizes the attitude of the AfD and mentions the party by name and commendation, means that the opponent's assessment appears justifiable. Already not adequately presented within the meaning of Section 146 (4) sentence 3 VwGO are concerns with regard to the assessment of the respondents that the AfD is völkisch nationally oriented.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_17">17th</a></dt><dd><p> 3. Unsuccessfully, the applicant turns against the decision of the administrative court that the second statement ("Someone who walks through Berlin and A-Stadt together with esotericists, right-wing extremists and anti-Semitic people and Holocaust deniers ...") is an assertion of fact that is true at least in its essence. The administrative court has set out in detail and with specific evidence that the applicant appeared at rallies of the citizens' movement A-Stadt. It has also shown that members of this movement attach crude conspiracy theories - contrary to the applicant's opinion, there was no need for a further definition of this generally known and sufficiently clear term - and disseminate them on the Internet. In addition, the court drew attention to the applicant's participation in the rally in Berlin on August 1, 2020 and examined the group of participants at this event in more detail. Against this background, the objection that the administrative court overlooked the fact that the alleged fact must be proven to be true is beside the point. Rather, the administrative court convinced itself convincingly of the truth of the core of the facts within the scope of its official investigation; The Senate accedes to these statements in accordance with Section 122 (2) sentence 3 VwGO to avoid repetition.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_18">18th</a></dt><dd><p> Unsuccessfully, the applicant objects that the Telegram group of the citizens' movement also shared information that was not of a conspiracy-theoretical character. That may be true, but it does not change the fact that there - the DVD submitted by the respondents provides a large number of additional evidence - conspiracy theories or positions that can be described as "esoteric" are appended to a considerable extent. The telegram contributions of the applicant on the "cause of corona" by 5G radiation (forwarded post from 23.7.2020) and on vaccines disguised as corona test smear (forwarded post from 25.7.2020) speak for themselves. The respondents did not claim that all members of the citizens' movement share such positions.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_19">19th</a></dt><dd><p> In addition to the matter, there are abstract considerations of the applicant regarding the legal meaning of “sharing” information from third parties. For the evaluation of the administrative court, the fact that in the Telegram group of the citizens' movement conspiracy theory occupies a large space was decisive. That this could happen in a distancing manner has neither been demonstrated nor evident.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_20">20th</a></dt><dd><p> The fact that members of the Telegram group of the citizens' movement, which acted as organizers and called for the demonstrations in A-Stadt, took part in the demonstrations is obvious in a way that makes it unnecessary to provide further explanations by the administrative court. Incidentally, the applicant also does not adequately demonstrate in Section 146 (4) sentence 3 VwGO that this could have been different.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_21">21st</a></dt><dd><p> With regard to the demonstration in Berlin on August 1, 2020, the article cited by the administrative court on the ARD website (https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/corona-demo-polizei-101.html, last accessed on November 5, 2020 ) vividly that right-wing extremists marched there. Carrying Reich war flags and wearing T-shirts with the relevant imprints informally suggests right-wing extremist sentiments, which are regularly associated with denial of the Holocaust and anti-Semitic attitudes. It is irrelevant whether the applicant noticed this; the administrative court rightly stated that the respondents did not make such an assertion.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_22">22nd</a></dt><dd><p> The assessment that is well connected with the statement of the respondents and also understood by them after their submission in the complaint procedure is justifiable that one is responsible for whose company one is in. Even before the demonstration in Berlin, there was a broad discussion about the fact that the protests against the corona-related restrictions on freedom were accompanied, supported and possibly also instrumentalized by right-wing extremists. In a democratic constitutional state, this does not have to prevent anyone from attending such a demonstration. At the same time, however, nobody can claim that this is not publicly discussed by third parties.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_23">23</a></dt><dd><p> 4. The attacks on the classification of the third utterance ("someone who obviously disseminates or at least accepts anti-Semitic, right-wing and conspiracy ideological ideas ...") as an evaluation based on a core of facts also fail. The administrative court has pointed out that the applicant had advertised in the Telegram group for an "express newspaper", the front page of which is headed with the words "Corona hysteria without evidence". Further, the court has referred to sharing a post on the effects of 5G radiation that takes up conspiracy myths of the QAnon movement. It is an obvious fact that the applicant disseminated this content, i.e. made third parties aware of it. There is no other way of characterizing the rendering and linking of the contributions in your own posts.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_24">24</a></dt><dd><p> On this basis - according to the administrative court - the assessment of the defendant is based, the applicant has at least accepted these statements. The applicant counters this by stating that this conclusion is inadmissible because he has not made any relevant observation. With regard to the "Express-Zeitung" this is obviously not the case; the applicant advertised the newspaper with the words: “You must look at it and spread it!” and thus expressed a positive attitude. Incidentally, the selection of the disseminated articles already shows that the applicant considers them relevant and worth reading.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_25">25th</a></dt><dd><p> Insofar as the applicant goes on to believe that the administrative court had to prove that he had an anti-Semitic attitude and his own postings with right-wing and conspiratorial ideological content, this is not the case. The respondents have not made any such allegations.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a>26th</a></dt><dd><p> 5. The applicant also does not effectively question the assessment of the administrative court that the contested statements should not be regarded as defamatory criticism due to their factual relevance. It is also true that conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites are ostracized in society - albeit to different degrees. Objectively, it is all the more justified against this background that the respondent to 1., based on her mandate following from § 20 para. 1 NHG, critically deals with the fact that an employee of a public university, i.e. a scientific institution, at least in one case mentions consciously or unconsciously enters the company of such a group of people and disseminates their positions. Such a critical statement does not go beyond the framework set by the objectivity requirement. The behavior of the applicant is undoubtedly covered by the freedom of expression under Article 5, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Basic Law and the freedom of assembly under Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. However, these fundamental rights do not protect him from his behavior from being viewed critically by the student bodies and being discussed publicly. Anyone looking for the public with controversial positions with reference to their own affiliation to a university must face the criticism of the university committees appointed according to the legal regulations.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_27">27</a></dt><dd><p> 6. Data protection regulations also do not help the complaint to succeed. Insofar as the applicant relies on Article 17 in conjunction with Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is (only) based on Article 2 No. c) NDSG is applicable, if, contrary to Section 146 (4) sentence 3 VwGO, he fails to provide a substantiated statement that the data processing by the respondent could have been carried out unlawfully. There would have been a particular reason to look more closely at Art. 9 Para. 2 lit. e) to deal with GDPR. The regulation exempts the processing of personal data that the data subject has obviously made public from the fundamental processing prohibition of Art. 9 Para. 1 GDPR.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_28">28</a></dt><dd><p> Regardless of the lack of explanation, Art. 9 Para. 2 lit. e) GDPR in favor of the respondent. These only use information that the applicant himself has disseminated in generally accessible sources. Insofar as the applicant merely states that he did not accuse himself of sympathizing with the AfD, of making common ground with esotericists, right-wing extremists and anti-Semitic people or even Holocaust deniers, or of obviously disseminating or at least accepting anti-Semitic, right-wing and conspiratorial ideological ideas that too short. The General Data Protection Regulation regulates the protection of personal data; it therefore does not protect the fact that data made public by the data subject himself and of his own free will are discussed publicly and used as an opportunity to draw judgmental conclusions. When asked whether - as the respondents submit - Art. 17 para. 3 lit. a GDPR contradicts the asserted claim, it does not apply in view of this.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_29">29</a></dt><dd><p> 7. If the applicant finally raises a "procedural complaint" and complains that he had no knowledge of the DVD transmitted by the respondents as part of the administrative process before the decision of the administrative court, it can remain open whether there was a hearing violation. The Senate granted access to the files in the appeal proceedings; the applicant thus had the opportunity to present the content of the DVD.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_30">30th</a></dt><dd><p> 8. Against this background, the other questions - namely the existence of a reason for the order and the very questionable legitimation of the applicant for 2. - are no longer relevant.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_31">31</a></dt><dd><p> The decision on costs is based on Section 154 (2) VwGO.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_32">32</a></dt><dd><p> The determination of the amount in dispute follows from §§ 53 Paragraph 2 No. 1, 52 Paragraph 1 GKG; Just like the administrative court, the senate also follows the applicant's proposal, which does justice to the importance of the matter.</p></dd></dl><dl class="RspDL"><dt> <a name="rd_33">33</a></dt><dd><p> This decision is final (Sections 152 (1) VwGO, 68 (1) sentence 5, 66 (3) sentence 3 GKG). </p></dd></dl></div></div></div></div><!--emptyTag--><div class="docLayoutText"><p style="margin-top:24px"></p><hr style="width:50%;text-align:center;height:1px;"/><p><img alt="Abkürzung Fundstelle" src="/jportal/cms/technik/media/res/shared/icons/icon_doku-info.gif" title="If you mark the link (hold down the left mouse button) you can copy the link with the right mouse button and paste it as a bookmark in the browser or in your favorites." onmouseover="Tip('<span class="contentOL">Wenn Sie den Link markieren (linke Maustaste gedrückt halten) können Sie den Link mit der rechten Maustaste kopieren und in den Browser oder in Ihre Favoriten als Lesezeichen einfügen.</span>', WIDTH, -300, CENTERMOUSE, true, ABOVE, true );" onmouseout="UnTip()"/> You can copy and use <span style="font-weight:bold;">this</span> link if you want to link <span style="font-weight:bold;">this exact document</span> :<br/> http://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&docid=MWRE200004328&psml=bsndprod.psml&max=true </p></div></div></div><form><div class="jurisBackButton"><input type="button" class="submit button" value="zur Trefferliste" alt="zur Trefferliste" onClick="history.back();" /></div></form></div></div><div class="teilerzeile"> <a href="http://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.de:80/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml;jsessionid=D06B1CC9C4EB2AA0194CF0D1410561CD.jp11?doc.id=MWRE200004328&st=ent&doctyp=juris-r&showdoccase=1¶mfromHL=true" id="print" class="drucken">To press</a></div></div></div></div><div class="footer group" role="navigation"><ul><li> <a href="https://www.mj.niedersachsen.de/startseite/">Ministry of Justice</a></li><li> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/startseite/gerichte_und_staatsanwaltschaften/">Courts and<br> Public prosecutors</a></li><li> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/startseite/justizvollzug_und_ambulanter_justizsozialdienst/">Correctional facility and<br> Outpatient<br> Judicial Social Service</a></li><li> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/startseite/buergerservice/">Citizen Service</a></li><li> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/startseite/p_karriere/">Career</a></li><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml">decisions</a><ul><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml">Overview</a></li><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml?sm=fs">search</a></li><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml?sm=es">Advanced Search</a></li><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml?nav=ger">courts</a></li><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml?nav=reg">Areas of law</a></li><li> <a href="/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml?viewrss=yes">RSS</a></li></ul></li><li> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/startseite/leichte_sprache/">Easy language</a> </li></ul><div class="section logorow"><img src="/jportal/cms/technik/media/bs/niedersachsen/images_1/niedersachsenklar.png"></div></div></div><div class="group seitenende fullwrapper"><div class="content span4of4"><div class="group main span3of4"> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/bildrechte" class="showbildrechte">Image rights</a> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/service/impressum/impressum-56756.html">Imprint</a> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/live/privacypage.php">Data protection</a> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/service/kontakt/kontakt-56758.html" title="Link to the contact page">Contact</a> <a href="https://www.justizportal.niedersachsen.de/service/sitemap/" title="Link to overview">Table of contents</a></div><div class="group complementary span1of4"><div class="totop"> to the top </div></div></div></div><script type="text/javascript" src="/jportal/js/jquery.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/jportal/cms/technik/media/bs/niedersachsen/js_2/bsnd.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="/jportal/cms/technik/media/bs/niedersachsen/js_2/jquery_fancybox_pack.js"></script></body></html>
