Protection against terrorism is the state’s responsibility

It would be premature and inappropriate to comment at this stage on the specific events and the security measures taken. It is the responsibility of the relevant investigating authorities to clarify the matter. The bvvs does not engage in conjecture or speculation.

As vehicles have repeatedly been used as instruments of crime and we regularly receive numerous press enquiries following such incidents, we would like to set out our fundamental position on the security of events.

Certain events require special protection

This incident demonstrates once again that certain events require special protection due to their significance, their symbolic value or the level of threat they face. Protection against terrorist attacks and targeted vehicle attacks is a state responsibility and cannot be delegated to event organisers.

From the bvvs’s perspective, there is still a widespread lack of the necessary consistency on the part of the state interior ministries and state police forces. The Federal Minister of the Interior now assesses the abstract threat level as high. This alone should be reason enough to give greater priority to the protection of vulnerable events, and not just in terms of access control. To this end, the police authorities require clear responsibilities, uniform assessment criteria and specific operational guidelines.

Access control must be initiated by the state and professionally planned

Several legal opinions assign the responsibility for countering terrorist threats to the state. Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz has also stated that the protection of events against terrorist threats is a state responsibility. In practice, however, this stance has so far had little impact at state level; the State of Berlin is a positive exception in this regard.

Whether access control measures are necessary must be determined on the basis of a technically sound risk assessment. Assessing a terrorist threat is, in particular, the responsibility of the police and the security authorities. Event organisers and specialist planners can contribute their knowledge of the event, local conditions and operational procedures, but cannot replace the state’s risk assessment.

“Qualified specialist planners can provide support at many stages – from analysing local conditions, through developing suitable measures, to drawing up an access control concept. However, responsibility for this planning and the funding of the resulting measures should lie with the state authorities,” explains Dennis Eichenbrenner, Chairman of the bvvs.

At present, in many federal states, risk assessment, planning, organisation and funding are frequently passed on to event organisers to a large extent. However, these organisers have neither the necessary police and intelligence information nor the sovereign powers to conclusively assess and counter terrorist threats. The state ministers for the interior are therefore called upon to fulfil their responsibilities and establish reliable structures across the board.

Individual barriers do not constitute an access control concept

The necessary measures must be professionally planned and set out in a coordinated access control strategy. In particular, this must take into account the security objectives, local conditions, the performance of the systems deployed, and the requirements of the police, fire service, emergency medical services, event logistics and local residents. Blanket demands for barriers or individual solutions put in place at short notice do not automatically lead to greater safety. On the contrary, inadequately planned measures can create new hazards – for example, by obstructing escape and rescue routes or delaying access for emergency services.

Expertise rather than formal certificates

Access control concepts must be drawn up by experts who possess the necessary knowledge and practical experience. This also includes in-depth knowledge of event safety.

“The quality of an access control concept is not measured by the title of a certificate, but by the demonstrable technical and professional expertise of the person responsible for planning it. There is no generally prescribed minimum qualification, special licence or mandatory international certification for this,” explains Daniel Schlatter, a lawyer at the bvvs.

Data protection must not prevent necessary security measures

Data protection concerns must not be used as a blanket justification for failing to carry out the necessary exchange of information between authorities and relevant bodies, or for failing to conduct the required vetting of individuals in security-related roles.

Such measures require a sound legal basis and must be necessary, specific to the purpose and proportionate. In the absence of clear legal bases for a necessary exchange of information or appropriate vetting of personnel, the federal and state governments are called upon to establish them.

No absolute security – but avoidable gaps

It is not possible to provide 100 per cent protection for events. Nevertheless, there are gaps in the way the ministries of the interior and police authorities carry out their duties. What is needed are procedures that are transparent nationwide, clear lines of responsibility and reliable cooperation between security authorities, local authorities, event organisers and specialist planners.

Event organisers bear responsibility for the safe organisation and staging of their events. However, protection against terrorism cannot and must not be their responsibility.

On behalf of the Federal Association for Event Security (Bundesverband Veranstaltungssicherheit e.V.)

Dennis Eichenbrenner, Chairman