On November 24th, 2017, a status message on Facebook caused a stir: the Düsseldorf public order office had issued a written warning with a fine.
As stated in the status report, this was against an 85-year-old man who, according to the status creator, is severely demented and has a heart condition.
The content: the man is accused of not having used the public transport facilities for their intended purpose (as a waiting area), but of having rested there. The original status can no longer be seen on Facebook (either no longer public or deleted), but a re-upload by a third person can still be found on Twitter
WAZ: Many more people affected. [Update]
Lars Wienand from the Funke Media Group took a closer look at this point and asked:
This will not change the practice of fines for sitting in bus shelters as set out in the road regulations. There were 112 proceedings in 2016 and 172 this year.
In the article under the title “ Pensioner does not have to pay for sitting on a waiting bench in Düsseldorf ” it is also clear that no half measures are taken in the on-site processing and that rigorous action was taken against other people who had a valid ticket. However, according to the employees' acceptance, they had no intention of driving.
According to the WAZ article, individual employees of the public order office are criticized, but not all of them. Perhaps the published case will now lead to more attention being paid to the criticized cases.
City press release
A press release from the city of Düsseldorf is now available.
The 86-year-old pensioner, who received a fine of 35 euros from public order office employees on November 14th for violating paragraph 3 of the Düsseldorf road regulations, does not have to pay this fine. https://t.co/nqhGNEwuuG
— City of Düsseldorf (@Duesseldorf) November 27, 2017
Seniors do not have to pay a fine
The case against the 86-year-old is dropped
The 86-year-old pensioner, who received a fine of 35 euros from employees of the public order office on November 14th for violating paragraph 3 of the Düsseldorf road regulations, does not have to pay this fine. The proceedings against him are discontinued “ex officio”. A written statement from the person concerned is no longer required.
“The senior’s behavior should have been evaluated from the perspective of appropriateness and opportunity. When making such a decision, the age of the person concerned, the natural need at this age to take a break and 'sit down' as well as the lack of seating outside of the public transport facilities in the station area must be taken into account. In weighing up these facts, a punishment should have been dispensed with. Adequate communication would certainly have resolved the situation as it arose. We very much regret this action,” explains the head of the public order office, Michael Zimmermann.
Paragraph 3 of the Düsseldorf street regulations
Paragraph 3 of the Düsseldorf road regulations states in paragraph 1 that “the public transport facilities (…) may only be used for public transport purposes within the scope of their intended purpose”. Paragraph 2 specifies this to the effect that “any behavior that contradicts this intended purpose, in particular the use of the facilities as a place to rest, play and camp, unless expressly permitted, as well as the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, is prohibited.” Violations can be fined as an administrative offense.
Employees of the public order office have been investigating complaints from passengers about misuse of public transport seating for years and also punishing violations of Düsseldorf's road regulations. The reason is that places at bus stops are also attractive for people with their focus on the street and are also used as a meeting place for alcohol consumers. As soon as the places are chosen for a “long-term stay”, there are simply no passengers at these busy stops. Violations will be pursued and punished in individual cases, even without specific complaints. However, before being punished as an administrative offense or being expelled, there are always explanatory information and discussions.
A lot of attention, apparently quick results
Whoever was involved in the process would have at least (viewed completely objectively) done their job absolutely according to the rules. According to a city spokeswoman, the relevant controlling employee could have assigned the man to the “homeless or drinking scene” and that is how the warning would have arisen.
However, exactly how the letter came about so soon after publication is still unclear. Media reports (compare rp-online.de) accordingly, this letter will have no consequences, because the warning should be invalidated with a short reply:
The spokeswoman emphasized that a short counter-statement was enough to avoid having to pay the fine. “It doesn’t have to be anything big. If the man simply needed a break, then of course that was fine.”
Maybe a call to the office directly would have been enough, maybe not.
We can no longer find out. [EDIT:] The publication of the WAZ article, however, raises concerns about the actions of the public order office employees. Given the circumstances, the situation doesn't sound like a fake; in fact, there may have been a misjudgment here, which can be cleared up just as quickly if you read the city spokeswoman's words. However, now we have another story in the media that has emerged due to its conversational impact on social media.
[EDIT:] The publication of the cases in the WAZ article in particular now sheds a whole new light on the warning fees. It remains to be seen what happens with the other warnings.
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )