Suche
Mein Konto
Justice failure in Thuringia: Neo-Nazi attack goes unpunished!
Two neo-Nazis were convicted in the case of an attack on journalists in Mühlhausen, but the verdict was overturned by the BGH.
Justice failure in Thuringia: Neo-Nazi attack goes unpunished!
In the case of the neo-Nazi attack on two journalists in Thuringia in 2018, the investigation is once again in focus after the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) overturned the verdict of the Mühlhausen Regional Court on April 13, 2024. The attack, which took place in front of the house of the then Thuringian NPD leader Thorsten Heise, resulted in serious injuries to journalists from Göttingen. They tried to observe and document a suspected meeting of neo-Nazis. The two main defendants, Gianluca B. and Nordulf H., were originally sentenced to lenient sentences for grievous bodily harm, but these were heavily criticized.
The lawyer for the co-plaintiff, Sven Adam, clearly expresses his concern about the judicial failure and has lodged a complaint about delays against the Mühlhausen regional court. According to Adam, the judiciary in Mühlhausen protects neo-Nazis and does not react quickly enough to the BGH's justified criticism of the assessment of evidence. Aggressive means such as baseball bats, a wrench and a knife were used in the attack, underscoring prosecutors' calls for harsher punishment. This had demanded more serious robbery, but the regional court did not grant this.
The process drags on unnecessarily
To date, no new trial date has been set, further disappointing the journalists concerned. The lawyer Rasmus Kahlen, who represents the second journalist, also expresses his skepticism about the possibility of a fair verdict after the proceedings have now lasted seven years. The Mühlhausen Regional Court's inaction reinforces the impression that the legal system is failing in such cases, while the opposing parties, in this case the neo-Nazis, are getting away relatively unpunished.
The verdicts, which included both damage to property and dangerous bodily harm, were for many observers a “scandal verdict” because they fell far short of the measures required and were considered insufficient. The current handling of the procedure is therefore viewed as inadequate not only by lawyers but also by the general public. The question remains as to what steps need to be taken to ensure rapid and fair processing of such serious cases.
The BGH found that the regional court's assessment of the evidence had significant deficiencies because the crime was not considered a particularly serious robbery. A new trial before a different chamber of the Mühlhausen Regional Court is now unavoidable, and observers are curious to see whether the new procedure can ensure a fair assessment of the incidents. MMM as well as n-tv report that the further delay in the process stands in the way of compensation for the affected journalists.