Jena/Münster. September 29, 2026. The Higher Administrative Court (OVG) of North Rhine-Westphalia has confirmed in a ruling (case reference: 5 A 2190/24) that a climate activist residing in Jena must undergo identification procedures (ED-Behandlung) ordered by the Aachen Police Headquarters. With this decision, the court upheld the appeal filed by the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and overturned the previous ruling of the Aachen Administrative Court.
- Event: OVG NRW confirms order for identification procedures
- Affected party: Climate activist residing in Jena
- Authority: Aachen Police Headquarters
- Core cause: Criminal investigations, including resistance against law enforcement officers (“Lützerath bleibt”)
The central issue of the proceedings was whether the Aachen Police Headquarters had local jurisdiction to issue the measure. The Aachen Administrative Court had initially denied this in the first instance. The OVG, however, ruled otherwise, clarifying that for the determination of the competent police authority regarding identification procedures for the purpose of criminal prosecution, the decisive factor is where the alleged offense occurred. According to the court, the accused’s place of residence or stay in Jena is irrelevant in this context, as is any prognosis regarding future locations.
Justification based on concealment strategies
In justifying the measure for the purpose of criminal prosecution, the court stated that there is sufficient suspicion of the activist’s involvement in blockades and occupations of fossil fuel infrastructure between 2021 and 2023. The Aachen Police Headquarters was permitted to order the procedure because the plaintiff had deliberately taken measures to conceal his identity during previous actions—such as a blockade using a lock-on device attached to a concrete-filled barrel during the “Lützerath bleibt” protests. According to the judges, the individual had, among other things, painted his face and permanently glued his fingertips.
Since the activist had deliberately sought to commit legal violations under the cover of anonymity in the past and had not demonstrated a change in lifestyle, the court deemed it justified to assume that further criminal proceedings could occur in the future. No appeal is permitted against this decision; the only remaining legal remedy is a complaint against the non-admission of an appeal to the Federal Administrative Court.
Background on criminal prosecution precautions
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, identification procedures for the purpose of criminal prosecution are intended to facilitate the investigation of future crimes potentially committed by the same person. This requires that the individual has already appeared as an accused in a specific criminal proceeding and that there is a risk of further offenses based on specific circumstances of the crime.
Transparency note: This article was created automatically, editorially reviewed, and expanded with AI assistance.