31.07.2015: Prof. Peter Kothe intervenes on behalf of the Federal Government and objects to the complaint (exclusively formal objections – no substantive dispute):
VG Berlin is not responsible for the matter
The applicant claims that the action is inadmissible
12.08.2015: Plaintiff’s statement on formal objections
21.09.2015: Statement of the defendants:
VG Berlin is not responsible for the matter
29.09.2015: Legal notice to the defendant:
The VG Berlin is responsible for the matter
26.10.2015: Statement by the defendants:
Action is inadmissible, as the adoption of a norm cannot be enforced by a court
The action is inadmissible because the plaintiff would have easier ways to open a specialist Cannabis shop:
Request approval from the BfArM
Present the considerations set out in the application to the prosecuting authorities
The action is unfounded because
The Federal Government would regularly check the dangers of Cannabis and therefore still assume it’s danger, which would justify the existing prohibition of contact
The 1961 and 1971 Narcotic Drugs Conventions would stand in the way of legalisation
The previous failure of prohibition with regard to the protection of minors and health does not force legalisation, as it is sufficient that, in theory, the purpose (protection of minors and health) could be achieved.
People should be prevented from recklessly causing themselves greater personal harm
11.11.2015: Statement of the plaintiff’s side (see Annex):
Reference to draft law on the liberalisation of access to Cannabis as a medicinal product
13.05.2016: Request for a trial date to be arranged by the plaintiff
18.05.2016: Administrative Court announces that a hearing date is not feasable due to too many older proceedings
13.06.2016: Statement by the defendants:
Reference to judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 06.04.2016 (3 C 10.14)
04.07.2016: Statement on the decision of the Federal Administrative Court by the plaintiff:
Thus, it is finally established that the application for a permit, according to § 3 para. 2 BtmG, is not an alternative for the plaintiff.
19.07.2016: Supplement to the statement of claim:
Reference to “Statement on the Legalization Debate of Non-Medical Cannabis Consumption of the German Society for Addiction Research and Therapy”, Zeitschrift Blutalkohol 2015, 329 ff.
21.09.2016: Statement of the defendants:
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 6 April 2016 shows that a fundamental ban on Cannabis is unproblematic.
14.11.2016: Statement by the plaintiff (see Annex):