Original headline:
Grenzwerte rechtmäßig? „Ein bahnbrechendes Urteil!“
Interview mit Rechtsanwältin Sibylle Killinger
Published: August 2, 2024
In: diagnose:funk
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2112

Google translation, edited by Multerland.

The juridical battle over a cell phone mast in Bodenheim near Mainz is taking an unexpected turn: the legality of the limits for cell phone radiation is now in question. How things got to this point, what the ruling and the further proceedings mean for other proceedings across Germany and what options for action arise from it are explained by Sibylle Killinger, lawyer for a married couple from Bodenheim, in an interview with our campaigner Matthias von Herrmann. His comment following the interview shows three options for action. The ruling can be downloaded on the right and at the end of the page.

01. diagnose:funk: Ms. Killinger, how did the ruling come about?
SIBYLLE KILLINGER: In August 2021, the Federal Network Agency issued Telekom with a location certificate for a cell phone mast in Bodenheim near Mainz. A couple then filed an objection and a lawsuit against this location certificate. The couple is directly affected; they live just 430 meters from the planned mast. This lawsuit was dismissed as inadmissible by the Mainz Administrative Court due to alleged time limit errors. The couple then appealed – and was successful. And to top it off: This is a groundbreaking appeal judgment!

02. diagnose:funk: What is ground-breaking about this appeal judgment?
KILLINGER: The decisive factor is that the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court (OVG) ordered an investigation into the facts of the cell phone limit values ​​in order to check the legality of the cell phone mast’s location certificate. The Administrative Court (VG) in Mainz must therefore rehear the case – and specifically clarify whether the limits applicable to mobile phone radiation guarantee people’s physical integrity. This is protected by the Basic Law, more precisely by Article 2 Paragraph 2. This is a first since the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling in 2002.

03. diagnose:funk: First of all: What did the Constitutional Court say in 2002?
KILLINGER: In this decision by the Federal Constitutional Court, a plaintiff’s constitutional complaint was not accepted for decision, so the court rejected it. Even then, the complainant had claimed that his physical integrity had been violated by a mobile phone mast near his home. The complaint was rejected by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the Federal Government had a very broad scope for assessing the accuracy of the limits. Therefore, in the last 22 years, the courts have no longer had any substantive debate about the possible health risks of mobile phone radiation.

04. diagnose:funk: Now I’m excited about the novelty.
KILLINGER: Yes, now we have a new situation that the OVG has taken up: On February 14, 2023, the Bundestag Committee for Technology Assessment published its report, which raises doubts about the legality of the mobile phone limits. In addition, the VG Mainz stated in its judgment dismissing the action that it considers the current mobile phone limits to be “completely inadequate for the protection of human health”. The OVG is probably taking these two facts as an opportunity to change direction. The need to review the limits is now to be renegotiated before the VG Mainz.

05. diagnose:funk: So what happens next in court?
KILLINGER: The parties were asked by the Mainz Administrative Court to comment on the OVG’s decision. In our statement, we supplemented, expanded on and analyzed the statements on the NTP and Ramazzini studies that are contained in the report of the Technology Impact Committee. In addition, we explained the damage to chromosomes caused by radio radiation, as shown in the new ATHEM-3 study. And we referred to the new WHO study on the negative effects of mobile phone radiation on male fertility. All studies are of a very high scientific standard. The Ramazzini, ATHEM-3 and WHO studies show that mobile phone radiation below the limit values ​​is harmful to health. The NTP study confirms this result. We hereby prove that the limit values ​​do not protect the fundamental right to physical integrity. In the oral hearing that is still pending, the court must decide on the need to take evidence. Research experts can be consulted as experts and the study situation would be processed.

06. diagnose:funk: How does this procedure end?
KILLINGER: In the end, the Mainz Administrative Court decides whether it considers the limit values ​​to be legal, i.e. whether it considers physical integrity to be protected by the limit values ​​and thus considers the location certificate in Bodenheim to be lawful – or not. Either side can then appeal against the decision of the Mainz Administrative Court, up to and including the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig.

07. diagnose:funk: Does the ruling of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court help anyone today?
KILLINGER: Yes, in three different constellations: The first concerns so-called pending proceedings, where someone has already sued against a cell phone mast and the proceedings have not yet been concluded for some reason. In such proceedings, the plaintiffs can refer to the ruling of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court and, if necessary, even submit an application to suspend the proceedings – until the proceedings have been concluded in all instances. Because this is where the legality of the limit values ​​is to be decided.

08. diagnose:funk: Constellation number 2?
KILLINGER: This concerns politics. On the basis of the new case law, municipalities could agree with district offices and possibly even with the mobile phone operators on a moratorium on the expansion of mobile phone networks locally until the proceedings in Mainz are concluded. Citizens’ initiatives could point out this possibility, which is opened up by the new case law, to their municipalities.

09. diagnose:funk: All good things come in threes…
KILLINGER: If the voluntary moratorium does not work, citizens could still file a lawsuit and refer to the decision of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court in their justification. The chances of success of lawsuits have now increased. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out the possibility of a “solidarity lawsuit” like the one we filed in Neubeuern.

10. diagnose:funk: That sounds innovative. What is that?
KILLINGER: By filing a joint lawsuit, the financial risk can be spread across many shoulders, for example the members of a citizens’ initiative. The members can file a lawsuit in court in the name of the member who lives closest to the planned cell tower, but the costs can be spread across everyone. In addition, the supporters could be named in the statement of claim, or simply their number. This shows the court and the opposing party that there is not just one plaintiff, but that many others are behind the lawsuit.

11. diagnose:funk: The OVG’s decision sounds promising. Are we perhaps expecting too much from it?
KILLINGER: We are basically dealing with a model case here. The OVG itself says that “questions are raised” here that “can become important in a large number of other cases.” This ruling by the OVG Koblenz already represents an enormous strengthening of the mobile phone critics. It certainly increases the prospects of a lawsuit being filed against other mobile phone sites.

Sibylle Killinger studied law in Passau, then worked in Munich, and has lived in Neubeuern in the Inn Valley since 2018. Since the beginning of 2021, she has been involved in a solidarity lawsuit against a cell phone box in Neubeuern and a lawsuit against a radio mast in Niederaudorf. She also represents a married couple from Bodenheim who are supported by the citizens’ initiative “5G-frei-Rheinhessen” (https://bi-5g-frei-rheinhessen.jimdosite.com/).

Comment by Matthias von Herrmann, campaigner at diagnose:funk

The mast must go!
Graphic: BI Mobilfunk Stuttgart-West
Comment by Matthias von Herrmann, campaigner at diagnose:funk

Mission: Possible
So a ground-breaking ruling. Forward-looking. Possibly revolutionary? At least it is a clear ray of hope that we can now use, no: must use! Because this ray of hope is perfect for all the many citizens’ initiatives critical of mobile communications across the country. You know about the local mobile communications expansion projects, you have contact with the local councils, the mayors and the press. Dear citizens’ initiatives, take on this mission! It is not impossible, on the contrary, it is particularly promising right now. So: arrange appointments with your political and journalistic contacts in autumn 2024 to inform about the ruling and to discuss its possible effects on the situation on the ground.

What are the possible effects? There are three options:

01. In pending proceedings, the plaintiffs can refer to the ruling of the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court and, if necessary, even file an application for suspension of the pending proceedings. This is because the proceedings before the Mainz Administrative Court are intended to decide on the legality of the limit values, which in turn are the basis for all outstanding decisions on location certificates or building permits for cell phone masts.

02. As part of their lobbying work, citizens’ initiatives can inform municipal council groups, mayors and district offices that this appeal ruling by the Koblenz Higher Administrative Court now exists. The aim: Until the proceedings in Mainz are concluded, all parties involved agree on a moratorium on the expansion of mobile communications locally. This is because anyone who now continues to expand mobile communications even though the legality of the limit values ​​has been clearly questioned for the first time by a court is acting politically unwisely, at the very least.

03. Citizens who are affected by the (planned) construction of a cell phone mast can now also file a lawsuit, citing the new case law. Citizens’ initiatives can, for example, provide financial and personnel support as part of a solidarity lawsuit and at the same time carry out press work.

Publication on the topic

Appeal ruling of the Higher Administrative Court of Rheinland-Pfalz (Koblenz) dated April 4, 2024
The legality of the mobile phone limits must be reviewed.
Author:
Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate
Contents:
The Higher Administrative Court (OVG) of Rhineland-Palatinate in Koblenz has ordered an investigation into the mobile phone limits in order to check the legality of a location certificate for a mobile phone mast.
Cross references:
Are limits legal? “A ground-breaking ruling!”

Download PDF

ICBE-EMF: The time has come for new limits
The newly founded limit commission proves the unscientific nature of the current ICNIRP limits for mobile phone radiation

Author:
ICBE-EMF / diagnose:funk
Content:
This focus publishes the translation of the study by the international limit value commission ICBE-EMF (International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF) “Scientific findings refute health assumptions underlying the FCC (Federal Communication Commission, USA) and ICNIRP limit values ​​for radio frequency radiation: consequences for 5G” (2022). In it, the ICBE-EMF calls for the withdrawal and redefinition of the limit values ​​for exposure to high-frequency radio radiation (HF). The withdrawal of the limit values ​​is necessary because their setting is based on false assumptions. The aim of new limit values ​​would be to set standards for health protection for workers, the public and nature.
Cross-references:
Focus: International limit value commission ICBE-EMF wants stricter mobile phone limits
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1937