Sonja M.'s complaint against her boss at a workshop for the disabled was unsuccessful. But she was successful before the Constitutional Court in Berlin.
The Berlin Court of Appeal must decide again whether to bring charges against Sonja M's superior. Photo: Jochen Eckel/imago
SEDAN cup | The Constitutional Court in Berlin upheld the claim of Sonja M. (name changed). Now the Court of Appeal in Berlin must decide again whether charges should be brought against the man who harassed Sonja M.
Sonja M., who was 25 at the time, worked until autumn 2020 in a workshop for people with disabilities. She has slight cognitive and physical impairment due to an accident shortly after birth. In October 2020, with the help of her mother, she reported the supervisor of her workshop. He forced her to give him French kisses, hugged her against her will, and touched her thighs and buttocks. Her supervisor only allowed “welcome hugs” and kisses on her cheek. It was statement against statement.
The prosecutor later closed the investigation. An expert had determined that Sonja M. was not capable of testifying. In fact, Sonja M. stopped the psychological evaluation after three hours because she felt overwhelmed. According to lawyer Ronska Grimm, the expert did not have specific knowledge about disability.
Sonja M. lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor's office, which was unsuccessful, and filed an enforcement action with the Berlin Court of Appeal, which was rejected. The Berlin Constitutional Court was only concerned with this decision of the Chamber Court. The allegedly incorrect report played no role. There were other procedural issues at stake.
The Court of Appeal made excessive demands
The Court of Appeal had rejected the application for coercion as inadmissible because a witness statement had been presented in a misleading manner in the application. This deprived the court of the opportunity to properly examine the conclusiveness of the application.
The Constitutional Court of Berlin has annulled this decision of the Chamber Court as unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court considered that the Court of Chamber had violated Sonja M.'s right to effective judicial protection. The Court of Appeal overstretched Sonja M's application. Possible misunderstandings were “undoubtedly” clarified in other parts of the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeal must now decide again whether the prosecution should bring charges of sexual harassment against Sonja M's superior. The Constitutional Court did not give any guidance on the matter. He only noted in the abstract that the Berlin Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities create “special obligations for the non-discriminatory design and implementation” of investigations and other legal procedures.
The constitutional complaint filed by Sonja M. was supported, among others, by the Federal Association of Women's Care Centers and Emergency Calls for Women (bff). (Ref.: VerfGH 80/22)