On May 20th, 2026, the oral hearing in the administrative court proceedings Oppong v. Federal Republic of Germany took place before the Cologne Administrative Court (for the prior course of the proceedings, see here).

Over more than six hours, three witnesses were heard: two Federal Police officers and the Afghan national who had been subjected to the identity check. The subject of the evidence was the check carried out at Wuppertal Central Station on October 31st, 2021.

None of the witnesses was able to confirm what the Federal Police had stated in its press release at the time.

After the Federal Police had already deleted the press release following my claim and had informed the court that its publication had been unlawful, the remaining claims before the court concerned withdrawal and a declaration of unlawfulness.

Outcome of the hearing: The Federal Police also acknowledged, in relation to a potential claim for damages, that the publication of the press release had been unlawful. It further undertook in a statement before the court to publish a notice on presseportal.de stating that key factual assertions made in the press release were incorrect.

A judicial declaration of unlawfulness will no longer be issued. The judge referred to case law of the Federal Administrative Court, according to which such a declaration is no longer required in a case of this kind.

The Federal Police also agreed to bear all costs of the proceedings, including all legal and court costs as well as witnesses’ expenses.

Federal Police officer: “We checked the wrong people without cause”

Regarding the identity check of two men, including the Afghan witness, one of the Federal Police officers stated: “We actually checked the wrong people.” The check had been carried out “without cause”.

The Afghan witness, who had previously alleged at the police station that I had incited him to assault a third person, stated in court that he was seeing me for the very first time that day. He said that on October 31st, 2021 he had been travelling with his two cousins.

One of the Federal Police officers claimed during questioning that three men had been checked.

During the hearing, the court showed my photographs of the check in all witness examinations. These show only two, not three, individuals being checked. The Afghan witness then corrected his statement, saying he had only been travelling with one of his cousins.

Who the Greek national mentioned in the press release was supposed to be remained unclear. None of the Federal Police officers could provide any information about the identity of such a person.

It also remains unclear how the press release came about, as well as the role of a police chief inspector who submitted the criminal complaint containing the allegedly incorrect allegations to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The officer questioned stated that he had had no contact with this individual during the investigation. A group leader was also mentioned for the first time, whose name, according to the officer, was “Bonk or Bong” and who held the rank of police chief inspector.

When asked to what extent any investigation had been carried out into the criminal complaint from which the press release originated, the officer said: “What am I supposed to investigate? I merely recorded the statement.” And: “I have never conducted a formal interview.” According to his own statement, the officer has not been on duty for a year.

In court, the officer stated that after I left the police station, they “looked up my name on Google”. The criminal complaint underlying the press release was no longer accessible a few days later. He had learned from a Wuppertal newspaper that the press had picked up the case. It had been “quite blown up and then swept under the carpet overnight”. When the presiding judge asked who had done this, the officer replied: “The media.”

Judge on the Federal Police press release: “A lot, if not everything, went wrong”

At the end of the hearing, the judge concluded: “All statements contradict each other.” One of the officers had shown “minor inconsistencies”. The Federal Police had “not conducted their work properly”. Personal details had not been recorded and there had been “no substantial investigation” prior to the press release being issued. The Public Prosecutor’s Office decided just one day after the press release that no criminal offence had been committed, and it could be assumed that the Federal Police knew this or at least ought to have known. Regarding the press release, the judge stated: “A lot, if not everything, went wrong.”

The Federal Police must now publish the agreed statement on presseportal.de.

With regard to the claim for injunctive relief, I had already declared the dispute settled. Since the court was not persuaded on the issue of a declaration of unlawfulness, I as claimant also declared the matter settled in this respect.

With the forthcoming court-recorded publication on presseportal.de, the claim for retraction will also be resolved. As all claims will thus have been settled, there will be no written judgment.

The one-and-a-half-year legal dispute is therefore fully concluded, as I will not appeal and the Federal Police cannot do so either.