A prisoner has successfully defended himself before the Federal Constitutional Court against a court decision on urine tests under supervision.
The regional court in Bochum must negotiate his application again, the Federal Constitutional Court said on Wednesday in Karlsruhe. The applicant is in prison for aggravated extortion, where there were general drug screenings and where he was required to urinate under the supervision of a warden. (Az. 2 BvR 1630/21)
To do this, he had to expose his genitals. Shortly after the controls, in January 2021, he applied for a court decision and demanded that he be allowed to give blood instead of urine in the future. He also wanted to know that the urine tests – four in four weeks – had been illegal. They would have hurt his sense of shame considerably and massively invaded his privacy.
The district court in Bochum rejected both applications and declared that the controls were lawful. It’s also about prison security. Other controls that could not be manipulated required physical examinations, which interfered much more with the general right of personality. The Hamm Higher Regional Court rejected the prisoner’s appeal.
The Federal Constitutional Court has now reversed both decisions. The prisoner had violated his general personality rights, they explained. It is true that interventions that affect the intimate area and the sense of shame cannot always be avoided in prison. However, they are of particular importance, which is why the prisoner is entitled to special consideration. The court decisions from North Rhine-Westphalia would not do justice to this claim.
The regional court should have dealt with the questions more closely, explained Karlsruhe. For example, it should have considered whether supervised urine tests without cause could be justified, taking into account the general right of personality to maintain security and order in prison.
The district court also failed to observe a change in the law, according to which blood from a finger could be given instead of urine if the detainee consented. It should have checked whether the prison had to offer blood tests and whether such frequent urine tests were still reasonable.
—
