Police can secure items in event of danger Not enough police officers in the field European case law 28 The Federal Ministry for Traffic, Innovation and Technology denied that ASFINAG would refuse to cooperate in the securing of property by the police without an order from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Pursuant to the Security Police Act, the police can, among other things, secure items (therefore, also data and/or data carriers) in order to avert offences against property. Furthermore, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, securing of data for reasons of providing proof in the event of imminent danger by the police itself is possible without an order from the Public Prosecutor’s Office – even in the event of cross-border circumstances. Thus ASFINAG would not even have had to consent. During the time of the investigation, only four police officers were in the field on about 80 kilometres of motorway where the lorries could potentially have been secured. The statement provided by the Federal Ministry of the Interior does not state in which direction the patrols were going (if they were moving at all). Thus it would be possible that at the time in question, not one single police patrol was present on a route that would have enabled access – despite the existing bulletin. This small number of law enforcement officers for such a large area to be monitored is not acceptable, even considering the European Football Championship that was going on in Austria at the time. Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states: “Every person has the right to liberty and security of person.” The Supreme Court to a certain extent assumed a “right to security of person” in its decisions relative to state liability. Case law of the European Court of Justice for Human Rights with regard to Article 2, European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) also assumes certain duties to avert danger, to provide information and to investigate thoroughly on the part of the State in detecting and solving crimes. Similar assumptions apply to recent case law of the European Court of Justice regarding Article 1 of the first additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to property), according to which, for example, inadequate enquiries in the course of the investigation of property offences or an unreasonably long duration of proceedings in lawsuits concerning property claims are deemed a breach of the duty of care that is derived from the right to property. Even if one nevertheless did not wish to assume legally enforceable duties of care and/or duties to inform from the standards referred to above in the event of attacks by private parties, the