Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Bad. Because the ban on firecrackers on private property was overturned by this court. The ban would have been very important.

I brought an action against the decision of the BAMF in July 2017 and unfortunately still haven't received an appointment for the hearing after 3 years.

I have little to no confidence in this VG (especially 3rd Chamber): facts m.E. misinterpreted, at least mine. It is written past the topic: Fundamental rights interventions are misunderstood. It is then actually asked what is the legal disadvantage: How would you first ask the police, which legal basis or authorization basis you had at all to intervene in my fundamental rights, in which they accompany a private extract / observe or a housing or handing over the key of a private apartment (and that was very well an interference in my private law / about 40 minutes at the expense of taxpayers: is something like that also offered to other citizens who want that)? It was clearly the fundamental right of private autonomy from Art. 2 GG affected and of course a violation of the principle of equality from Art. 3 I GG and the informational self-determination Art. 2 GG, since there were no substantive decision requirements of a single legal norm relevant! Thus, there was no legal basis for these administrative acts. However, any administrative act needs a legal basis, especially if fundamental rights of citizens are concerned. Have you ever heard of a state neutrality obligation? Why is a party granted such a benefit in a rental right matter by documenting everything in their favor and not even knowing that the process (concerning me and my data) was stored in a police record, because after a few minutes I did not even get it anymore was present and I was informed in advance on my request that the VA has nothing to do with me (which I can prove very well)! Where is there such intransparent processes that can be stored on such a kind of police notes about us, without that something is communicated to us? Allegedly, a legitimate initial suspicion was quite: took place at all a hearing gem. Section 28 VwfVG? What if a person's attachments are not right? then it is still legitimate to save this fact, which was based on completely incomplete and wrong sources of information, and then also pass on real facts to the tax office? So this is supposedly lawful, without that the citizen was not even asked. Quite apart from these many mistakes: even a verbal lease and cash payments certainly do not entitle to suspicion and such allegations !! If an oral and by e-mails in writing confirmed lease and cash payments but supposedly suspicious, then call the legislature but best tomorrow and ask for changes in the Civil Code! Such a nonsense real! Since when do such things legitimize tax evasion? A lease can be completed verbally (see BGB): there is nothing suspicious! Not even if the contracting party has a migration background! Especially since I was not even heard by the officials, gem. Section 28 VwfVG, i. it was blindly and unilaterally believed the data of a German -born person (I have a migration background) clearly, because not only one gets in my view quickly among the suspects. There are quite a few shared apartments in Germany and almost everywhere it works like this. It might also be appropriate to listen to the other site, which could quickly refute these unauthorized suspects. Overall, I have little faith in the German police and judiciary. It is often measured in two ways, which proves this whole case very well again. Here, citizens are treated almost like criminals who, as aspiring lawyers, know the BGB very well and have stuck to it! Pretty absurd and m.E. very racist the whole thing! from A to Z! Innocent citizens with a migration background are suspected for no reason !!

The pure arbitrariness: depending on who (which ethnic group) applicant is .. is measured with two standards.