On September 23, 2025, the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court (Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, BayVGH), the highest administrative state court, held that the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations (Schwangerschaftskonfliktgesetz, SchKG) does not mandate a buffer zone of 100 meters around abortion clinics that would generally prohibit antiabortion protests.
Legal Background
In November 2024, Germany enacted an amendment to the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations. The revised law classified the harassment of pregnant women near counseling centers and abortion clinics as an administrative offense. Section 13, paragraph 3 of the act requires the establishment of a 100-meter (328-feet) buffer zone, where the following conduct, among others, is prohibited:
- providing unsolicited sidewalk counseling to a pregnant woman on continuing the pregnancy (No. 2);
- harassing, intimidating, or putting extreme pressure on a pregnant woman to influence her decision to continue the pregnancy. (No. 3.)
Legal Framework
The constitutional right to freedom of assembly is anchored in article 8 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG). Freedom of assembly in Bavaria is further regulated by the Bavarian Assembly Act (Bayerisches Versammlungsgesetz). Section 14, paragraph 1 requires “anyone intending to hold a public outdoor assembly or a procession to notify the competent authority no later than 48 hours before the announcement” of the planned event. Section 15, paragraph 1 allows the competent assembly authority to impose conditions on the assembly “if public safety or order would be directly endangered if the assembly or procession were to take place.”
Facts of the Case
The applicant in this case is a registered association that campaigns against abortions. In February 2025, the applicant notified the City of Regensburg of 10 planned processions, including rallies along the procession route, under the subject “Prayer for living and dying unborn children, their parents, and all those affected by abortion.” The applicant intended to hold these processions and rallies at the end of each month for the remainder of 2025. The rallies were to take place about 30 to 40 meters from the entrance of a medical center, with approximately 15 to 20 expected participants. To convey its message, the applicant planned to use three pictures of babies, along with one image each of Jesus and Mary. (BayVGH, para. 2.)
In July 2025, the city imposed a condition requiring the association’s remaining rallies to be conducted at a minimum distance of 100 meters from the medical center. It feared the assembly might constitute “sidewalk harassment” of pregnant women, as prohibited by section 13, paragraph 3 of the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations. While making its decision, the city considered the extensive media coverage surrounding the subject, the format and frequency of the rallies, and the number of participants. (Para. 3.)
On August 8, 2025, the applicant brought a successful action before the Administrative Court of Regensburg challenging the restrictive condition. In contrast to the City of Regensburg, the court took the view that the prerequisites for unlawful harassment under the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations were not expected to be met. The city of Regensburg appealed the order to the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court. (Paras. 1, 5, 6; para. 12; para. 7.)
Decision
The Bavarian Higher Administrative Court upheld the ruling of the Administrative Court of Regensburg. The court rejected the City of Regensburg’s view, stating the law does not generally prohibit assemblies within 100 meters around abortion clinics. (Para. 19.)
The court held that the city failed to provide facts demonstrating that the participants of the assembly would perform unsolicited sidewalk counseling encouraging women to continue their pregnancies in violation of section 13, paragraph 3, number 2 of the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations. According to established case law of the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court, the authorities—given the constitutional importance of freedom of assembly under article 8, paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law—must base any conditions imposed on an assembly on a well-founded assessment of actual risks. The competent authority generally has the burden to present and prove the reasons for imposing a prohibition or restriction. In the opinion of the court, the city failed to meet that burden. (Para. 15; paras. 14, 16.)
The court highlighted that, according to case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Administrative Court, conflicts between freedom of assembly and the general right of personality of pregnant women must be evaluated by assessing the degree to which an assembly advocating for the protection of unborn life attempts to impose its views on others, as well as the extent to which the affected women may reasonably experience this as an “unavoidable personal assault of a physical or psychological nature” that makes visiting an abortion facility feel like “running the gauntlet.” In the view of the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court, there was no indication that the participants of the assemblies in question had acted in such manner. (Paras. 17-18.)
Police observations regarding the association’s March 2025 rally noted that the participants merely prayed quietly and did not attempt to speak with passersby. The gatherings took place on the far side of a broad street, roughly 30 to 40 meters from the entrance, and were barely perceptible from the main entrance of the medical center. The court stated that, while there was considerable indication that, in this particular case, pregnant women were exposed to the views of the assembly participants, section 13, paragraph 3, number 2 of the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations generally prohibits only specified conduct and not the expression of opinions within a 100-meter radius of abortion clinics. (Paras. 18-19.)
Lastly, the court held the city failed to show that the assemblies in question would exert harassing, intimidating, or otherwise extreme pressure on pregnant women as required by section 13, paragraph 3, number 3 of the Act on Pregnancies in Conflict Situations. (Para. 20.)
The decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Related Developments
In the Netherlands, a comparable case was recently decided by the District Court of North Holland. That court ruled that the mayor of the Dutch municipality Heemstede rightfully banned pro-life demonstrations in front of the entrance of an abortion clinic. However, the court also held that a restriction that participants of the demonstration were not allowed to address passersby directly while demonstrating on the opposite side of the clinic was disproportionate and could not be imposed.
Prepared by Laura Schmerkotte, Law Library Intern, under the supervision of Jenny Gesley, Foreign Law Specialist
Law Library of Congress, November 20, 2025
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.
Read Law Library reports on Germany.