After new sticking actions, the critics of the last generation are becoming increasingly annoyed. In addition to imprisonment, the activists may soon face high claims for damages.
Climate protectionists who block roads and airports or disrupt events with color attacks must expect severe penalties. This is especially true when the activists of the climate protection group Last Generation show their intransigence.
In addition to fines and imprisonment, some of the actions of the past few days and weeks have also raised the question of possible claims for damages in the millions.
From a legal point of view, according to experts, the sticking actions at Hamburg and Düsseldorf airports last Thursday were a so-called intervention in an established and active commercial enterprise. Düsseldorf Airport, where according to a spokesman 48 flights were canceled and two were diverted, is now examining possible claims for compensation.
“Of course, the question also arises for the injured party as to whether it is economically worthwhile to assert claims for damages,” points out Thomas Rüfner, Professor of Civil Law at the University of Trier. “Because if there is nothing to be gained anyway, such a lawsuit would ultimately only send a signal.” And since one has to concede to the activists that they are at least pursuing a morally justified goal with climate protection, it could also be the case that an organization refrains from filing a lawsuit for image reasons.
From Rüfner’s point of view, a claim for compensation for intentional, immoral damage would also be an option. The blockade of an airport is probably mostly seen as immoral, he says, but in the case of road blockades it is discussed controversially.
Faeser announces new security standards
Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) had announced new security standards when asked about the adhesive campaigns at airports. She said: “There will soon be actual standards for the operators of critical infrastructure. This also includes the airports, and this will continue to lead to a special level of security at the airports.”
The legal policy spokesman for the Union faction, Günter Krings (CDU), thinks that is correct in principle. However, he says that better protection of the airport cannot be the only answer here. Krings encourages airport operators and airlines to file claims for damages and to offer the affected passengers “to assign their claims to them in order to then sue for them in a bundle”.
In a motion last November, with a view to actions by radical climate activists in museums, his parliamentary group called on the federal government to “ensure that, in the event of damage to works of art by criminals, federal cultural institutions always also assert their civil claims for damages against the perpetrators and fully enforce their instigators and backers.”
In the event of a road blockade, the concrete damage for the activists may be difficult to assess: will a delivery service with perishable goods be held up in a traffic jam? Is an ambulance late to the hospital? If someone sticks themselves on the runway of an international airport, things look different.
Airport actions require classification
Florian Dallwig, a member of the insurance law working group of the German Lawyers’ Association, is also convinced that the airport actions are an intervention in the commercial enterprise that has been set up and is in use. He says: “It would be possible to calculate a completely different amount of damage, both in terms of the airline and the airport’s operating company.”
The lawyer from Hamm explains: “For the question of whether someone is released from the legally established obligation to pay this sum through personal bankruptcy, it is relevant whether one assumes that the damage was intentional.” This could certainly be seen as such by a civil court, since the activists usually use the punishable means of coercion. “It would speak against it if one recognizes the prevention of a climate emergency as a legitimate overarching goal.”
In contrast to damage caused by negligence – for example due to the carelessness of a driver on the road – a so-called discharge of residual debt for someone who intentionally causes damage is not an option, even in the case of insolvency proceedings. “The sum can thus be recovered over a period of up to 30 years,” says Dallwig.
However, he believes that claims against the Last Generation as such are out of the question. Rather, these were directed against individual activists who are involved in the respective action, possibly against helpers. “That way you wouldn’t get close to the donations collected by the generation, some of which come from larger private fortunes,” suspects the lawyer.
Last generation could possibly be asked to pay
Legal scholar Rüfner is not so sure. He thinks it is at least possible that, in addition to those involved, the last generation could also be asked to pay. He says the group should be treated as a so-called unincorporated association. And insofar as the last generation has created common association assets, for example through donations, those who have been injured can access them.
When it comes to situations where someone cannot go on a holiday trip because of a blockage, however, the case law is cautious as far as the amount of damage is concerned, he concedes. The case of the alleged arson attack on two SUV vehicles in a car dealership in Munich a few days ago is clearer.
After the fire, an anonymous letter of confession appeared, which said that the “repression against climate activists” should not go unanswered. That is why the vehicles were “forced to retire and put into early retirement” “in a fast-track procedure” using an incendiary device. Whether the letter came from the possible perpetrators is completely open, the police said. Rüfner says: “If you get hold of the perpetrator, it will be unproblematic for the car dealership to assert claims for damages – in addition to criminal prosecution.”