Yes, 5,000 would be a problem. The police wouldn't be prepared for that. They would have to call in reinforcements from other towns first. Even 500 people drunk enough could become dangerous if the situation gets out of control.
The bill in this case would be the taxpayers burden in Germany. That's what we pay taxes for (one reason), the police protecting our health and property. They could try to get some money back from the illegal party goers. At least those who don't follow police orders to leave the place. The police can give this kind of order. In case of public danger they can tell you to leave a certain area.

But the main point here is, that the call for a new law is just utter nonsense. We have enough laws to cope with such situations. There where illegal parties long before facebook and nobody asked for new laws. If such events didn't run out of control, nobody cared. If they did, most likely somebody called the police and they handled the situation depending on actual events and based on existing laws.

Actually you have the option to allow somebody to enter your private property or to send him away (and call the police if he doesn't go). Even if you invited him. The few events I remember where parties really went mad was, when parents let have the kids the house (or where away for other reasons) and the kids simply lost control. Anyway: As pointed out by Asic Eng, around this time of the year we have to cope with less popular politicians using the opportunity to get media attention.

What's Facebook?

Maybe that's right. But police, once they have the address, has more option than blindly raiding the house. They could scan the network and see from where it's used and maybe even intercept the packages.

That would mean one more step for the police. And anyway, the main question was, if it's making police work impossible, what it doesn't, since police with evidence that a certain IP was clearly used for criminal activity would get the address and other data necessary to carry on their work.

I don't think this ruling applies to normal police work.

from the order:

The police can still get the address of the suspect and than do some their job by observation to collect evidence. I think if they can proof, that the suspect is at home every time the IP was used for some criminal activity, this would be enough.

Thanks for the correction. I took this from the article, while in fact it doesn't appear in the judges text. Resubmitted with corrections and a few quotes from the judge.

While "explaining the unexplained" may be a reason for some people to believe in god, in my opinion that is a minority. Most deeply religious people don't care about the "unexplained" and wouldn't even come up with any of the questions that where driving science and modern society for centuries.

Most religious people simply seek a omnipotent protecting father figure that shields them against plain everyday peril and distress. Something where they can take refuge in cases of illness or poverty. And something that gives them the hope, that they may see again those who they have lost in some "paradise" after death.

We Linux users have multiple desktops :P

erad ot kaerb siht ythgim rehpyc ytrid tsilairepmi