example, in regard to the use of a sensor wristband that triggers a signal to employees when the wearer leaves the facility so that the employees can return the resident to the facility immediately. A measure involving deprivation of liberty within the meaning of section 1906 (4) of the German Civil Code [Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB] is deemed to exist if, inter alia, the physical freedom of movement of the person concerned is restricted by the measure in question. “This is the case if it cannot be ruled out that the person concerned would be capable of a voluntary change in their location, but would be prevented from making such a change by the measures in 40 question.” A person who is at risk of falling and injuring themselves when making voluntary movements cannot be considered immobile. In response to repeated applications for authorisation to use bed rails, the custodianship judges of Köthen Local Court issued a joint letter with the general statement that “the protective measures used in the homes of the court district to prevent persons from falling out [of a bed] do not constitute measures requiring authorisation, since they merely offer protection against falling out without restricting the freedom of the persons concerned.” One facility that the National Agency visited in October 2018 had also received this general statement of 7/07/2014. The facility stated that, as a result of the letter, it had ceased to apply for authorisation from a court in such cases, and had since then applied measures such as the use of bed rails without judicial authorisation or consent from the person concerned. The local court’s legal assessment disregards the fact that even bed rails can constitute a measure involving 39 deprivation of liberty. It also goes against the statutory obligation not to decide on measures in a generalised manner, but rather to ensure a case-by-case assessment. The National Agency considers the court's action in this regard to be highly questionable. In many cases, the court decisions were not based on a medical certificate proving the person’s state of immobility. In addition, it appeared that, contrary to section 319 (1) of the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction [Familienverfahrensgesetz – FamFG], the courts had not obtained a personal impression of the local situation in each individual case. The justification for the decisions merely referred to information or statements provided by third parties, such as a guardian. In the justification given for one decision, it was stated that authorisation for mounting a bed rail was no longer necessary because the guardian had stated that the mother in question no longer moved. Unlawful and contradictory judicial decisions lead to legal uncertainty in the facilities concerned. It would therefore be desirable to have a consistent approach in place that is in line with the relevant law. Equally, clear justifications should be provided. The competent court repeatedly ruled that there was no obligation to acquire authorisation to apply a measure involving deprivation of liberty due to the presumed immobility of the persons concerned. 40 Federal Court of Justice, order of 27/06/2012, file no.: XII ZB 24 / 12, margin no. 10 39 Palandt/Götz, “BGB-Kommentar” [Commentary on the German Civil Code], 76th ed., sections 1906 margin no. 35 36