Removal orders and house bans at airports: what applies, how long, what follows

Most of the time it goes calmly: someone from security asks what you are doing, you explain briefly, and you wish each other a nice day. Sometimes, though, such a conversation tips over, and in the end two terms come up that many spotters mix up: removal order and house ban at the airport. Both send you away, but they have quite different legal bases, last for different lengths of time and have different consequences. This guide sorts it out for you – and shows how to react in the situation without permanently ruling out your favorite spot.

The short answer

A removal order (Platzverweis) always comes from the police. With it, they send you away from a specific place for a limited time to avert a danger. A house ban (Hausverbot) comes from the holder of the house rights, at an airport the operator or a security service acting on its behalf. It is a civil-law declaration and can apply for days, months or indefinitely. If you ignore a removal order, you risk the police enforcing it by force. If you ignore a house ban, you risk criminal proceedings for trespass (Hausfriedensbruch).

Who has any say at an airport

A commercial airport is not a public square like a market place. Terminals, observation decks, parking garages and many access roads belong to the operator, and through its house rights (Hausrecht) it regulates who may stay there and how. What this means for photography is explained in detail in the article on the airport operator’s house rules.

Alongside this there is the state side. Under § 4 of the Federal Police Act, the Bundespolizei (federal police) is responsible for protection against attacks on the security of air traffic – but only where these tasks are carried out under federal administration. At some airports, state authorities and the state police carry out these tasks themselves. For anything not directly related to aviation security, such as traffic offenses on the access road, the state police are responsible anyway.

The third level is aviation security law. Anyone who gets onto the airside or into the security area without authorization violates § 10 of the Aviation Security Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz). Where this boundary runs is shown in the guide Landside, airside, security area; the basics of the law are in The Aviation Security Act explained.

Who speaks?	Typical measure	Legal basis	Legal nature
Operator’s security service	Approach, request to leave, house ban	House rights (ownership and possession)	civil law
Airport operator (in writing)	temporary or indefinite house ban	House rights, house rules	civil law
Federal police	Removal order, identity check	Federal Police Act	public law
State police	Removal order, exclusion order	State police act	public law
Aviation security authority	Administrative fine proceedings	Aviation Security Act	administrative offense law

The removal order: short, tied to a place, effective immediately

Legal basis

For the federal police, the removal order is regulated in § 38 of the Federal Police Act. Under it, the police may, to avert a danger, temporarily expel a person from a place or temporarily prohibit them from entering a place. The state police acts contain comparable provisions, in Bavaria for example Art. 16 of the Police Tasks Act.

The decisive word is danger. The police need a concrete reason that goes beyond “looks unusual.” Typical triggers at an airport are people who block escape routes or access roads, tamper with sensitive spots at the fence, obstruct operations or are in a situation with an elevated threat level, such as during a security alert.

Duration

By law, a removal order is temporary. Neither § 38 BPolG nor Art. 16 BayPAG names a fixed maximum duration; in practice it is about hours, mostly the rest of the day or the length of a particular situation. If someone is to be kept away from a place for longer, that is an exclusion order (Aufenthaltsverbot). It has stricter requirements: in Bavaria it may only be issued if the commission of criminal offenses is imminent, and it is limited to three months at most; an extension by up to three months at a time is possible. Other states regulate this similarly, but differently in detail.

Enforcement

A removal order from police officers takes effect immediately. An objection does not stop it, because urgent orders by police enforcement officers are immediately enforceable under the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. If you stay, you risk direct coercion. § 39 BPolG even allows custody if it is indispensable to enforce a removal order. For a photo session at the fence, that is a completely disproportionate risk.

The house ban: longer, broader, civil law

Legal basis

House rights derive from ownership and possession. Whoever controls a site may in principle decide who enters it. At an airport, the operator implements this through its house rules, and security services exercise these house rights on its behalf. A house ban can be issued verbally; for longer bans it usually comes in writing.

The special feature: bound by fundamental rights

With airports there is a special feature that matters for spotters. In the Fraport ruling of February 22, 2011 (1 BvR 699/06), the Federal Constitutional Court decided that a company controlled by the public sector in the majority is directly bound by fundamental rights – even if it is organized as a stock corporation. In the specific case, it concerned an airport ban against a woman who had handed out flyers in the terminal of Frankfurt Airport. The publicly accessible areas of such an airport can, according to it, be public forums; the court considered blanket bans without a concrete danger prognosis disproportionate.

For you, that means: an airport under majority public ownership cannot issue a house ban at will. It needs an objective reason, and the ban must be proportionate in scope and duration. A house ban solely because someone quietly takes photos on an observation deck would be hard to justify. Disturbances, dangerous behavior or repeatedly ignoring the house rules, by contrast, are classic objective reasons.

What the stadium ban decision shows

A second reference point is provided by a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of April 11, 2018 (1 BvR 3080/09) on nationwide stadium bans. There, the court required for large events open to a broad public an objective reason based on provable facts. Those affected must in principle be heard beforehand, and a justification must be communicated to them on request. A criminal conviction, by contrast, is not necessary.

Whether these standards can be transferred one to one to airports is a question for the individual case. But they show the direction: whoever grants large parts of the public access may not exclude individual people without reason.

Duration and scope

There is no statutory maximum duration for house bans. In practice, the range runs from a verbal “for today” to written bans of over a year or indefinite. Scope varies too: some bans affect only the observation deck, others the entire airport grounds as far as they belong to the operator. That can include terminals, parking garages, parking lots and viewpoints, such as the observation deck at Hamburg Airport or the visitors’ hill at Munich Airport.

Not covered are areas that do not belong to the operator: public roads, municipal paths, fields or viewpoints owned by municipalities. Which areas outside the fence are typically freely accessible is described in the article on the right to access open countryside.

The consequences if you ignore a ban

Trespass

If you enter a terminal despite a house ban or do not leave when told to, you risk a complaint for trespass under § 123 of the Criminal Code. The provision expressly also protects enclosed spaces that serve public traffic – a terminal falls under that. The penalty range extends to up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine. Trespass is an offense prosecuted only on complaint, so it is prosecuted only if the entitled party files a criminal complaint. You should not rely on that: whoever issues a house ban usually also has an interest in enforcing it.

Whether open areas such as an unfenced parking lot fall under § 123 depends on whether they are recognizably delimited as “enclosed property” (befriedetes Besitztum). That is a detail question you should not push to the limit.

Airside and security area

A completely different dimension: anyone who gains access to the airside without authorization commits an administrative offense under § 18 of the Aviation Security Act, which can be punished with a fine of up to €10,000 – even if negligent. On top of that come, as a rule, a house ban and, depending on the circumstances, further investigations. Climbing over the fence, walking through open gates or driving on service roads is therefore never a gray area. Even aids at the fence can raise questions; what applies to ladders and tripods is in the article Ladder, step and tripod at the airport fence.

Practical consequences

Besides the legal consequences, there are practical ones. A house ban can cut you off from observation decks, tours and guided visits. Many airports that offer official spotter programs or spotter passes would hardly allow participation with an existing house ban. And in the community, word of such things gets around – not only about you but, in the worst case, about spotters in general.

How to react in the situation

Most conflicts escalate not because of the photography but because of the conversation afterward. How to handle a first approach is described in the guide When security comes. If it gets more serious, this sequence helps:

Two topics often come up right along with this in such situations. Whether you have to delete pictures if security demands it is clarified in the article Do I have to delete photos?. What applies to an identity check by the police is under Police checks while spotting, and what you can do if your camera is kept is in the guide Camera or memory card seized.

Typical triggers and how to avoid them

From conversations with spotters and from the logic of the legal situation, a clear pattern emerges: trouble rarely arises from the camera itself but from what surrounds it.

There are separate guides on individual points: where you may park at the airport is explained in Parking at spotting locations. Why photos at the checkpoint are tricky is in Photographing at the security checkpoint. And why drones at the airport are a category of trouble all their own you can read under Drones at airports.

Austria, Switzerland and abroad

The rules described here apply to Germany. In Austria and Switzerland there are comparable instruments – expulsions by the police and house bans by operators – but the details differ. You will find overviews in Plane spotting in Austria and Plane spotting in Switzerland. In some countries, even photography at the airport is tricky; the article Spotting abroad shows what you should prepare for before the trip.

Spotters as partners instead of a problem

Many airports now see spotters more as additional eyes at the fence than as a nuisance. Programs in which spotters report conspicuous observations are described in the article Spotters as security partners. This trust is the best insurance against removal orders and house bans – and it is built by every single spotter who stays friendly, knows the rules and, when in doubt, simply moves a few meters on. The big picture is provided by the guide Is plane spotting allowed?.