Violent incidents characterized by flying stones, smashed shop windows, and looting occurred over the weekend following Gen Z protests, with Frankfurt being the primary location of these riots. In response to the unrest, Hessian Interior Minister Roman Poseck (CDU) suggested during a broadcast on tagesthemen that future demonstrations might be prohibited. He stated that authorities must first determine whether events scheduled for November 20 can take place as planned, raising the question of the legal feasibility of such bans.
Under Article 8 of the German Basic Law, citizens are guaranteed freedom of assembly, allowing them to demonstrate without prior registration or permission. The Federal Ministry of the Interior describes this fundamental right as a means for citizens to actively participate in political opinion and will formation. However, this right can be restricted for outdoor assemblies if explicitly provided for by law, such as the federal Assembly Act or state-specific regulations. These laws often require outdoor demonstrations to be registered 48 hours in advance to ensure orderly procedures and security, though a lack of registration does not automatically result in dissolution.
Exceptions to the registration requirement exist for spontaneous assemblies where people gather without prior planning to demonstrate on a specific topic. The authority responsible for overseeing these events is typically the local assembly authority, often the mayor or municipal administration. This body reviews whether an event can proceed as planned, if specific conditions must be imposed, or if a total ban is necessary. If a ban is issued, organizers can challenge it in court through expedited proceedings, with administrative courts often rendering decisions within hours or days before the scheduled demonstration.
Legally, banning upcoming Gen Z protests is possible but practically difficult. The federal Assembly Act allows authorities to prohibit or impose conditions on assemblies if public safety is endangered. However, any ban must be well-founded and serve as a last resort. Authorities must provide a prognosis detailing the likelihood of criminal acts and justify why less restrictive measures, such as limiting routes or designating specific areas, are insufficient. Most bans fail in practice because they cannot meet this high evidentiary standard.
Furthermore, authorities can dissolve an ongoing demonstration if it begins to violate conditions or if riots erupt during the event, even if a pre-event ban was not justified. Regarding future Gen Z protests, local authorities must make a specific prognosis supported by concrete arguments explaining why violence is likely at a particular upcoming event. While the recent riots in Frankfurt would factor into this assessment for any new demonstration in the city, citing past incidents alone may not be sufficient to justify a ban. Ultimately, disputes over these prohibitions are expected to be resolved by the courts.
Sources: Tagesschau.