



	Home About Contact Deutsch

Do It Like the District Administrator! Deadlines? Utterly Irrelevant!

Welcome to the world of modern administration! A place where deadlines are generously treated as mere “suggestions”—at least when they apply to the administration. Citizens, on the other hand? They’d better stick to deadlines, or it’ll cost them. Want a glimpse into this one-sided deadline culture? Gladly!

On October 24, 2024, I filed an objection against District Administrator Götz Ulrich’s prohibition of recording the district council committee meeting on October 14, 2024, in video and audio. (The reasoning is detailed below.) To prevent the process from being delayed, I gave the Legal and Public Order Office until November 8, 2024, to respond to my objection. On November 9, 2024—the day after, at least!—a letter arrived.

The message:
Your letter, designated as an objection, dated October 24, 2024, was received by the Burgenlandkreis on the same day.

I will follow up on the matter unsolicited.

I ask for your understanding that processing cannot be completed by November 8, 2024.

Notably, the Legal and Public Order Office seems uncertain whether my objection is actually an objection, despite it being explicitly stated multiple times in the text.

I’ve also experienced situations where, after filing an objection, it was claimed that the administrative act the objection was directed against wasn’t an administrative act at all. In that case, an objection wouldn’t be permissible. But if a demand or decision isn’t an administrative act, it doesn’t need to be followed or complied with. You can ignore it. The problem arises when the authority later claims it wasn’t an administrative act after all.

The administration often wriggles out and tries to shirk responsibility.

Arbitrary Administration? When in Doubt, for the Authority!

According to § 37 of the Administrative Procedure Act, an administrative act should be justified in writing if there is an interest in it. One might think that an objection against a prohibition by the district administrator signals such an interest, but the administration apparently doesn’t see it that way. Legally, there are no mandatory deadlines, but the rule of thumb is: reasonable would be 14 days. But why should the district administrator care? The administration holds the upper hand, and if that means citizens wait weeks or months for a response, so be it.

The conclusion? Legal deadlines seem clearly designed against citizens. The administration can take its time if it suits them. Those who don’t get a response can file an inactivity lawsuit after three months. Having to repeatedly point out and complain about the case beforehand becomes a mere symbolic act—the matter simply sits if the administration wants it to.

District Administrator Götz Ulrich himself summed it up with his decision on video and audio recording: You can “have it legally clarified.” That this is utterly pointless once the meeting is long over? He acknowledged that too. Consequences? Probably none. But the message is clear: They’ll sit it out as long as they can!

“All Power Comes from the People”—But Please, No Rush!

So, how can this be in a democracy like the Federal Republic of Germany, where “all power comes from the people”? As a citizen, you might almost feel that laws serve less to ensure equality and more to secure leeway for the administration while demanding discipline from citizens. The only thing powerfully emanating from the people here is the obligation to be patient. Citizens must file objections on time, submit lawsuits, and meet deadlines—or it’s quickly: Too late! Missing a deadline is generally enough to have an objection or lawsuit dismissed. The substance of the matter is then ignored. Deadlines are always crucial for the administration and courts when citizens miss them.

The administration, however? It feels no pressure to act. Instead of promptly addressing complaints, it can fall back on vague, undefined deadlines, always with a notepad of instructions for the citizen in its pocket. If you don’t follow their rules, tough luck. That citizens might lose trust in equal treatment under the law? That seems to be the lesser issue.

Do It Like the District Administrator—Sitting It Out Is the Key to Success!

And why not? Sitting things out has a tradition—just think of former Chancellor Angela Merkel, the master of patient silence and waiting. Who needs decisions when you can simply wait until the issue loses urgency, resolves itself, or, ideally, no one cares anymore? Here’s the great role model: Sitting it out isn’t just modern; it’s practical. Maybe citizens should turn the tables: Tax deadlines? You could reserve “reasonable processing times” and request extensions. All in due time, of course.

But one thing we learn for sure: “Democracy” thrives on rule adherence—but only when those rules apply to citizens.

The Stark Contrast

As previously reported, some Weissenfels city councilors hired a law firm because they wanted the video and audio recording of the city council meeting on November 7, 2024, removed from the internet. The lawyers there thought a deadline of less than three days was reasonable.

It’s likely just about building pressure and making it difficult to find a lawyer within the set deadline. I was obviously supposed to be coerced into signing the cease-and-desist declaration in a rush. I didn’t do that, though. I’m taking the beloved district administrator as my role model. ;-)

The Filed Objection of October 24, 2024

District Administrator’s Office Naumburg
The District Administrator
Schönburger Straße 41
06618 Naumburg (Saale)

Fax: 03445 73-1296 and 03445 73-1199

Objection to the District Administrator’s Decision of October 14, 2024, Prohibiting Video and Audio Recording of a Public District Committee Meeting
Dear Sir or Madam,

I hereby file a timely and formally correct objection to the decision of the Burgenlandkreis District Administrator, Götz Ulrich, dated October 14, 2024, which prohibited me from recording a public district committee meeting in video and audio. The decision violates my constitutional right to press freedom in several respects and is disproportionate, arbitrary, and unlawful.

Facts:

On October 14, 2024, I attended a public district committee meeting of the Burgenlandkreis and prepared to record it in video and audio. After the meeting was opened, the district administrator, without prior warning, prohibited me from recording, citing the need for prior registration. I immediately submitted a verbal registration, which the district administrator rejected. He further stated that committee members needed to be informed if they did not wish to be filmed. However, none of the present committee members expressed any objections. When I raised the issue of press freedom, the district administrator acknowledged it as a high value. It can be assumed that he was aware his prohibition was unlawful and acted intentionally. During the discussion, the district administrator noted that legal action against his decision was possible but confirmed that the meeting would be over by then. This effectively amounts to enforcing immediate execution without sufficient legal justification.

Reasoning: 1. Violation of Constitutionally Guaranteed Press Freedom (Art. 5 Para. 1 GG, Art. 10 ECHR, Art. 19 UN Human Rights Convention):
Press freedom enjoys the highest protection in the German legal system, as enshrined in Art. 5 Para. 1 of the Basic Law. Access to information from public meetings that serve the public interest is a core component of this freedom. Public committee meetings are protected under the fundamental right to press freedom. Video and audio recordings are a legitimate means of reporting.

Drawing on the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, Judgment of January 25, 1984, Case No.: 1 BvR 272/81), any restriction on press freedom must be narrowly tailored and based on compelling reasons. The mere requirement of prior registration does not justify restricting this fundamental right, especially under the circumstances here, as neither public interest nor the personality rights of committee members were affected.

2. Registration as a Mere Formality—No Approval Requirement:
In my view, the allegedly required registration for video and audio recording is a mere formality. It is not an approval requirement but an organizational measure for informational purposes. Registration can also be submitted retroactively, especially when the recording does not infringe on any protected interests, which is clearly the case here (see VG Köln, Judgment of March 27, 2019, Case No.: 6 K 1234/18).

The district administrator should have accepted the retroactive registration, as no legal disadvantage to third parties existed, and an disproportionate disadvantage to my journalistic work occurred without compelling reason. The district administrator’s refusal to accept the retroactive registration constitutes a flawed exercise of discretion.

3. Lack of Hearing—Violation of the Right to a Fair Hearing:
Before making such a far-reaching decision as prohibiting video and audio recording, the district administrator should have heard me as the affected party. A lawful decision always requires that affected persons be heard regarding relevant circumstances (Art. 103 Para. 1 GG). This did not happen here, constituting another serious procedural error.

4. Failure to Consider Less Restrictive Measures—Violation of the Proportionality Principle:
Even if the district administrator saw the lack of registration as an issue, he should have examined whether less restrictive measures than a complete prohibition of recording were possible. The immediate and total prohibition was not necessary to achieve the stated goal—protecting the alleged rights of committee members. Thus, the decision was disproportionate and violated the proportionality principle (see BVerfG, Decision of December 15, 1987, Case No.: 1 BvR 153/87).

5. No Protection of Higher Legal Interests:
The district administrator provided no compelling reasons to justify such drastic action. Neither the personality rights of committee members nor public peace or other protected interests were threatened by the recording. This is a public meeting, the purpose of which is to provide transparency and insight into political decision-making processes. The mere claim that committee members might not want to be filmed does not constitute a protected interest, especially since none of the present members raised objections.

6. Prohibition of Arbitrariness and Equal Treatment Principle (Art. 3 Para. 1 GG):
The district administrator’s actions violate the prohibition of arbitrariness and the equal treatment principle. At the district council meeting on October 21, 2024, my pre-submitted registration was accepted without explicitly asking council members if they wanted to be filmed. This unequal treatment in comparable situations without objective reason is unlawful and violates the equal treatment principle.

7. Immediate Execution—Lack of Justification:
The district administrator told me I could take legal action against his decision but confirmed that the committee meeting would be over by then. This effectively enforced immediate execution of his decision without providing the legally required justification. Under § 80 Para. 2 No. 4 of the Administrative Court Code (VwGO), immediate execution is only permissible if it serves the public interest and is thoroughly justified. No such justification was provided here, constituting another unlawful measure, as immediate execution without compelling reasons is impermissible (see BVerwG, Decision of December 15, 1987, Case No.: 4 NB 36.87).

8. Flawed Exercise of Discretion and Violation of the Opportuneness Principle:
The district administrator should have weighed, within his discretionary scope, whether the brief delay caused by retroactively submitting the registration so severely conflicted with the public interest that a prohibition of recording was justified. He did not do this. The rigid and formalistic rejection of the retroactive registration demonstrates a flawed exercise of discretion and contradicts the opportuneness principle, which should apply in such cases.

9. Unlawfulness of Repressive Measures Against the Press:
Measures restricting press freedom must be scrutinized with particular care. The jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) emphasizes that the press exercises a control function in a democratic state, and state authorities may only take repressive action against the press in narrow exceptional cases (BVerfG, Judgment of January 25, 1984, Case No.: 1 BvR 272/81). The district administrator’s decision violates these requirements and constitutes a disproportionate repressive measure.

In summary, the prohibition of video and audio recording by the district administrator on October 14, 2024, is unlawful in multiple respects. It violates press freedom, is disproportionate, arbitrary, and breaches the prohibition of arbitrariness and the equal treatment principle. The de facto enforcement of immediate execution without sufficient justification further exacerbates the unlawfulness of the action.

I demand the immediate reversal of the decision and clear permission to conduct video and audio recordings at future public meetings, as guaranteed by my constitutionally protected right to press freedom.

I reserve the right to pursue legal action if this unlawful decision is not reversed, to enforce my fundamental right to free reporting and to establish that the district administrator acted intentionally and unlawfully.

I expect your response by November 8, 2024.

Sincerely,
Michael Thurm

Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 11.11.2024

Jeden Tag neue Angebote bis zu 70 Prozent reduziert

Other articles:

Listen, Instead of Being Subservient

Analysis of citizen voice submissions.... zum Artikel

Unser Land wird von Wirtschaftsverbrechern, Studienabbrechern, Kinderbuchautoren und Kriegstreibern regiert - offener Brief an die Handwerkskammer Halle

Handwerksmeister Thomas Weise aus Zeitz antwortet auf den Brief der Handwerkskammer Halle mit dem Titel "Den Mut nicht verlieren".... zum Artikel

Grüne Scheinaktion: Müllberge bleiben in Merseburg liegen!

Müllsammelaktion oder PR-Gag? Merseburgs Müllberge blieben liegen, während die Presse eine Erfolgsgeschichte präsentierte.... zum Artikel

Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions:
via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12

or via bank transfer
IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719
BIC: SUMUIE22XXX
Account holder: Michael Thurm

Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer