The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that organisers of high-risk games may be asked to pay for police costs. This ground-breaking decision is causing unrest in the event industry, which now fears that similar regulations could also apply to concerts, trade fairs and congresses. What room for manoeuvre does the ruling give the federal states and what guidelines has the court drawn?
Until now, people were used to police protection at football matches being part of the normal police duties financed from tax revenue. Then, in 2014, the federal state of Bremen introduced the option of charging organisers of profit-oriented events with expected acts of violence a fee for the additional police costs in Section 4 (4) of the Bremen Fees and Contributions Act(BremGebBeitrG). After this regulation was applied to a “high-risk match” in the Bundesliga, the German Football League (DFL), as the organiser, took the matter to the Federal Constitutional Court, which has now approved the fee regulation (BVerfG of 14 January 2025 – 1 BvR 548/22 – Police costs for high-risk matches). Concerned questions are now coming from the event industry as to whether countries with tight budgets could come up with the idea of also asking organisers of larger concerts, trade fairs or congresses to pay for police expenses.
In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court does not limit its principles to Bundesliga football matches or sporting events in general. In principle, there is therefore no reason to exclude other events from the scope of the BremGebBeitrG or similar regulations of other federal states in advance. At first glance, such events can be diverse: In addition to football matches, it is not uncommon for open-air concerts, festivals, trade fairs or congresses to require a large number of police officers due to the large crowds of visitors.
This raises the following question: What leeway does the decision to impose police costs on event organisers outside of sport open up for the federal states? The extent to which this is possible is not clear from the decision. However, some “guard rails” can be inferred from the judgement.
Firstly, the BVerfG states that a “public interest in the organisation of the event” can counteract the purpose of the regulation, which is not to burden the general public with the additional costs (para. 85). Major events outside of football stadiums will also regularly promote the public interest. For example, major musical events are also likely to serve the “participation in social life” (para. 85) cited by the Federal Constitutional Court for football matches. What is more decisive for the permissibility of charging fees, however, is whether the economic viability of organising such events is “seriously called into question” by the charging of fees (para. 85). At the same time, the BVerfG requires that the fees do not have a “stifling effect” (para. 107) with regard to the exercise of the freedom protected by fundamental rights, which in the case of both concerts and trade fairs will regularly be at least the freedom of occupation under Art. 12 GG. However, if events are feasible despite the fees associated with them, i.e. if they remain profitable for the organiser, fees are permissible according to the standards developed by the BVerfG despite an existing public interest. This is not good news for the event industry.
On the other hand, the BVerfG demands a “quantitative special use of the security guarantee”, which is required for the admissibility of a fee notice (para. 97 f.). This leads to the question of when this “quantitative” level is reached. In other words: What actually constitutes a “normal” event as opposed to a “high-risk event”? With regard to football matches, such a distinction may still be manageable: in the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, matches that are not considered to be particularly dangerous are not “high-risk events” (cf. para. 97). The number of spectators alone does not make a Bundesliga match “high-risk”.
But what is an “exceptional risk situation” (para. 98) at another major event? And how can we deal with the term “special use”, which the BVerfG borrows from conventional road law without further explanation? When are large concerts, trade fairs and congresses no longer “normal”, but “special uses”, when large events regularly require large (and expensive) police forces to protect against mass panic or terrorist attacks? It may be difficult to draw a convincing distinction.
All-clear for demonstrations and other gatherings that are protected by Article 8 of the Basic Law. Even if, for example, violent counter-demonstrations can constitute a particular danger, any charging of fees is opposed by stronger fundamental rights concerns – in particular the freedom of assembly (Art. 8 GG).