- The plaintiff announced rampages at the Realschule Heinsberg and Hauptschule Hückelhoven by e-mail.
- Major police operations were required to protect teachers, pupils and public safety.
- The costs of around 40,000 euros were invoiced to the plaintiff.
- The court ruled that the NRW Fees Act provides for a fee for police operations in the event of feigned dangerous situations.
- The Chamber was convinced that the plaintiff had sent the amok threats based on the results of the investigation.
- The plaintiff had a motive because he experienced an unauthorized search of his home and a rejection at a shooting club.
- His statements and subsequent confession were considered to be a protective allegation.
In Main 2013, the plaintiff in a case at the Aachen Administrative Court announced multiple rampage attacks at the Realschule Heinsberg and the Hauptschule Hückelhoven via his e-mail address, as well as the use of a bomb with a fragmentation effect at the summer festival at Lake Horst. This was followed by major police operations to protect teachers, students and public safety in each case.
The plaintiff was invoiced for the costs of this, which amounted to around 40,000 euros. The complaint against this was unsuccessful.
In support of this, the court stated:
The Fee Act of North Rhine-Westphalia provides for a fee of between 50 and 100,000 euros if police action is taken on the basis of a feigned dangerous situation. That is the case here. The Board was convinced that the plaintiff had sent the rampage threats. This was evident from the results of the police investigation in the criminal proceedings, the findings of the expert in the criminal proceedings on the personality structure of the plaintiff, and ultimately also his confession made before the Local Court and to the expert. His statement almost six years after his final conviction in the criminal proceedings that the confession was false was a protective claim. Rather, it was to be assumed that he had admitted to sending all the e-mails in 2013 because he had been the perpetrator and, based on the state of the investigation, had had to assume that he could have been proven to have committed the acts; by confessing, he could at least have obtained a lighter sentence.
The plaintiff also had a motive for the acts. In 2010, for example, the police searched his house when someone at his school accused him of a possible rampage. The plaintiff had expected an apology from the police for what he saw as an unwarranted search of his home, but never received it. He also said that the police were responsible for his failure to join the Lieck shooting club. In temporal connection with this refusal it had come to the mails to a planned rampage at the secondary school with contentwise reference to this shooting club.
