The court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main to restore the suspensive effect of the appeal against restrictions on the right of assembly, as there was no sufficient threat to public safety posed by the planned statements at the pro-Palestine rally.

The restrictions on freedom of assembly imposed by the respondent, which prohibited the chanting of certain slogans, were deemed manifestly unlawful by the court. The court stated that a concrete threat to public safety or order that would justify a restriction cannot be based solely on the political and legal conflict potential of the Middle East conflict. Rather, there must be concrete indications of a high probability of harm occurring. The respondent was unable to provide such indications. In addition, it was found that freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Basic Law and freedom of assembly under Article 8 of the Basic Law are high-ranking legal interests that cannot be restricted on the basis of mere assumptions. In particular, in the case of ambiguous statements, the interpretation that is still covered by freedom of expression must be taken as a basis. The court emphasized that in the event of criminally relevant slogans being used during the assembly, the competent authorities must take the necessary measures depending on the situation.

VereinsG § 9 Abs. 1 S. 2, § 20 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 1; GG Art. 5, Art. 8; HVersFG § 14 Abs. 1; StGB § 111, § 126, § 130