The judgment of the Federal Administrative Court is a personal success for Rolf Gossner, but it does not question the persecution of left to
Who clicks the homepage of the lawyer and publicist Ralf Gossner, finds a comprehensive documentation of his decades of human rights work in the FRG. For 38 years, he was monitored for 38 years of various West German intelligence services – Understanding as the Federal Administrative Court of Leipzig in December 2020.
Meanwhile, the verdict is public. After all the opposition and revision procedures were reflected, the judgment is legally valid. Now Gossner was therefore confirmed in court, wrongly observed.
Rolf Gossner (2014). Image: Dirk Ingo Franke / CC-BY-SA-4.0
Also his file, according to Gossner’s lawyer Udo Kaub over 2.000 pages included, was therefore unlawful. Nevertheless, the aggregates successfully refused to unopolit this file, because the catch protection wanted to protect its sources. That too was confirmed by judicial.
Therefore, it is doubtful if the verdict was really a rough stroke against the surveillance practice of intelligence services. Because it was especially Gossner’s awareness and support to the Liberal Milieu, who gave him to judicial success. He was certified that he himself did not pursue an eligible goals when he was a member of the Socialist University Confederation in the early 1970s, who has worked for a later on left newspapers, who has occurred in DKP-near events or published in DKP media.
No criticism of Schnufelpraxis against Left
But the court also made it clear that it did not want to question the preamble protection practice against Linke overall. Thus, in the judgment, it is also amed that the DKP "In any case, until the reunification, tendar goals" have persecuted. This allegation will not be explained and greeted further. It is only stressed that Gossner did not make these goals.
Because as an actual indication of a reprinted support of the DKP by the liability could neither the contents of his article named by the BFV or the circumstance that he has published them in part in DKP-near magazines, nor his participation in events of the DKP and this party Successful organizations are used. In this respect, only its political views, which are not to be classified as far-behaviors, have in this respect, which would not be classified as long-term intentional partals of the DKP and therefore had not presented any bleeding of advanced objectives of the DKP.
From the verdict of the Federal Administrative Court
On the problematic parts of the judgment also goes a lawyer Kaub in the explanation. So the court sees the fact of the "emphatic support" an advancing organization by people who do not even accurate them as an invalidation when a lecture of a farmer in an event of one as "penetration" Appropriate organization or by articles and interviews of a farmer in a press organ of such a union "from objective view" be upgraded.
Lawyer Kaub is rightly aligned that, according to this legislation of the circle, the individual individuals affected by intelligence-providing individuals, which do not belong to any person collocation (Organization, Association, Party, Press Organ), which is declared as catch-up, is legally and virtually barely narrow, with serious consequences for their Basic and freedom rights. So the conclusion of Kaub is more likely:
"In the present rare individual case, the Federal Administrative Court has referred the ‘catch protection’ in its barriers. On the other hand, the BFV has resisted until recently. What only means: in all other, not court-decided cases, procedures as before."
These are the many cases in which those affected do not have such a known person like Rolf Gossner and also lack the resources to rule out such a longitudinal dispute. Since you have to be a well-known politician like Bodo Ramelow, who was also confirmed by judgment that he was wrongly monitored.
For him, the judgment also has been a rehabilitation. Gossner needs such a confirmation, always on the ground of the liberal-democratic basic order, hopefully not. There was a lot won, if the verdict also brings some left to think that does not want to abolish the strike protection, but want to make the tool in the fight against right.