During a business trip, the now 30-year-old Ilyias Ahadi* was travelling first-class from Berlin to Freiburg on the 19th of November 2013. Between Baden-Baden and Offenburg, he was subjected to an identity check without reasonable suspicion by three Federal Police officers. They conducted the identity check on the basis of § 23 para. 1 no. 3 of the Federal Police Act. Mr. Ahadi* submitted his German identity card, whereupon the police officers cross-checked the authenticity of the document.

Mr. Ahadi* was the only one controlled in the first-class compartment. He assumed that his skin colour gave reason to the control. He therefore felt discriminated against and lodged a claim at the Administrative Court of Stuttgart (Az.1 K 5060/13).

On the 22nd of October 2015, the hearing was held in Stuttgart. In the legal analysis, the presiding judge primarily referred to the so-called 'Melki judgment'(C-188/10 and C-189/10) of the European Court of Justice, which declared the French equivalent to § 23 section 1 No. 3 of the Federal Police Act to be inapplicable due to its infringement of the Schengen Borders Code at the EU's internal frontiers: it authorises measurements which may have the same effect as border controls. Identity checks without reasonable suspicion near the border are therefore contrary to European law.

The written reasoning of the Court was published on the 12th of November 2015. Furthermore, you can access a summary of the verdict and BUG's press release.

Besides, we compiled a press review concerning the verdict of the first instance, which you can access here. (only available in German)

The federal police filed an appeal, the respective trial took place on February 13, 2018.

In the second instance, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Wurttemberg ruled that stop-and-frisk practices which have been conducted by the German Federal Police between 2008 and 2016 are altogether repugnant to European law, meaning that millions of controls have been stripped of their legal basis. The verdict in its entirety can be found here. In the second instance the case was likewise legally supported by BUG and the lawyer Sven Adam. Here you can read their joint press release.