STOISITS: UNREASONABLE EFFORTS DURING INTENDED DEPORTATION OF THE KOMANI FAMILY

The case of the intended deportation of the Komani family – an incident which attracted intensive media attention – aroused the interest of the Austrian Ombudsman Board and led Ombudswoman Stoisits to initiate an investigative procedure ex officio. Previously the media had reported that 15 armed officers of the Aliens’ Police and the special force unit WEGA had come to arrest the family.

The procedure showed that all in all 16 officers (seven from the Aliens’ Police, seven from WEGA, one from the responsible guardroom and one from film documentation) had been deployed during the intended deportation in October 2010. ”Resistance” had been expected from the legal representative as well as from the media representatives present during the incident.

In its statement the Ministry of the Interior argued that the enforcement of the official act had been partially hindered by the “massive media presence and the interference of the family’s legal representative”. However, the Ministry was not able to explain the necessity for the deployment of 16 officers. This was especially true when considering the fact that dangerous assaults were not to be expected from the members of the family.

Even if – as mentioned in the statement – resistance to the legal measures (including a possible forced entry to the apartment) were to be expected, the assumption that five officers may be needed to “overwhelm” the family still seems exaggerated. As a consequence, the deployment of seven officers from a special force unit in order to access the building appeared to be quite unnecessary. The disproportion is not lessened by the fact that the major part of the WEGA employees was not in uniform but in plain clothes. After all, among the persons supposed to be deported were a woman in poor psychological conditions, two eight year olds and a male who in the past had neither shown any violent behavior nor committed any criminal offence.

Ombudswoman Stoisits therefore argued that "the efforts had to be ruled objectionable in regard to proportionality, economy, efficiency, and purposefulness."