- Aachen Administrative Court hears case against a plaintiff who produces and distributes pornographic films.
- In April 2018, the plaintiff planned a film production in Aachen with amateur actors.
- The city of Aachen prohibited the event due to the lack of a permit in accordance with the Prostitutes Protection Act.
- The court ruled that this was prostitution, as those affected had to pay to take part.
- The plaintiff did not report the event in good time and did not apply for a permit.
- Film production did not require permission, as it was aimed at an open group of participants.
- After the written judgment, the plaintiff may file an application for leave to appeal.
It is always exciting to see what German courts have to deal with. But it’s great. The following is my first porn post here on the blog!
The plaintiff in a case before the Administrative Court of Aachen produces and distributes pornographic films. In April 2018, he wanted to hold a film production with amateur actors or actresses in the premises of Heinrichsallee 2 in Aachen and advertised this event on the Internet. Performers should pay a “production cost contribution” of €60 for their participation. In return, they were to receive download rights for the films subsequently created and to be distributed on the Internet. The city of Aachen prohibited the plaintiff from holding this event – as it did in 2017 and 2019. The plaintiff had not applied for the permit required under the Prostitute Protection Act. The event is not a film production – which normally does not require a permit.
The complaint against this was unsuccessful. In support of this, the court stated:
Sexual services should be offered for a fee. Thus, it is prostitution. The plaintiff failed to report the event in a timely manner within the time limit under the Prostitute Protection Act. In addition, he did not have a permit to organize and conduct prostitution events. The film production was not free of permission, since it was an event aimed at an open circle of participants. For their participation, the “performers” would have had to pay a fee to be able to perform sexual acts with “Jasmin Babe.” The “production cost contribution” was not a special feature typical of the scene. Thus the plaintiff itself had offered a daily fee of up to 1,000, – € for “newcomers” in an advertisement for the advertisement of “hardcore actresses”. The filming of the event and the use of individual scenes for the production of a pornographic film would not deprive the event of its character as a prostitution event.
As soon as the written judgment is available, the plaintiff can file an application for leave to appeal, which will be decided by the Higher Administrative Court in Münster.
