STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 2631, sig. 109-12/279 (damaged)

Page 30

English Translation

1o√ 26 - both stages are thus corrected by the case law of the Preußische Oberverwaltungsgericht, according to which state police measures, together with and in particular, should be subject to the administrative dispute procedure as well as in general - police, was finally deprived of the ground by the law on the secret state police of 30.11.33, in that the authorities of the state police were given the position of special police authorities. The fact that the authorities of the secret state police have become special police authorities has, of course, by no means changed the nature of his decisions. At that time, the internal reason for the inadmissibility of the administrative standing proceedings against their injunctions was not that now more than an ordinary police department a special authority issued them, but because the content of the injunction did not allow such a control. It is true that the Prussian Supreme Administrative Court should therefore have put it from the outset. It did not do this and knew therefore also according to the law of 30.11.33 still state police orders - namely those of the ordinary police authorities in state police matters - which according to its view continued to be subject to administrative jurisdiction. Thus it came to the strange conclusion that if the content of the decision was taken by an authority of the secret state police, it would be subject to a different control procedure than if the secret State police chose the other way to impose a proper authority on the police with its decree. § 7 of the Act on the Secret State Police of 10 February 1936 also put an end to this case law. An even more drastic picture shows the development in 2) Baden. On 11 January 1978 the Badische Verwaltungsgerichtshof made the fundamental decision for bathing, in which it 1) See above p. 2 et seq. 2) See above pp. 5 f. 70403