Germany court rejects constitutional complaint regarding National Socialist Underground trial News
pixel2013 / Pixabay
Germany court rejects constitutional complaint regarding National Socialist Underground trial

The German 2nd Chamber of the Second Senate Monday rejected a constitutional complaint surrounding the decision against the National Socialist Underground (NSU) in their recent trial. Their complaint challenged the Munich Higher Regional Court’s decision by claiming that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been violated by not granting her a fair hearing. The Munich regional court had previously found Beate Zschaepe guilty in 2018 of ten counts of murder. Despite attempts to appeal the verdict, the Federal Constitutional Court ultimately ruled that Zschaepe failed to demonstrate that her fundamental judicial rights had been violated.

The Higher Regional Court sentenced Zschaepe to life imprisonment for her involvement in the NSU’s killing of nine people and a police officer between 2000 and 2007.  Additional charges also stemmed from her membership in a terrorist organization, participation in two bomb attacks, multiple bank robberies, and several other attempted murders. Despite Zschaepe’s denial of her involvement, the court found her guilty on all counts.

Zschaepe initially appealed the judgment, arguing against the classification of her actions as complicity. This was dismissed by the 3rd Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice as “unfounded” according to § 349 para 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). She then brought a complaint, alleging a violation of her rights to a fair hearing, the arbitrary application of §349(2) StPO, and a violation of her rights to appeal a decision to a statutory judge.

In considering the complaint, the court found that the constitutional complaint does not meet the acceptance requirements of § 93a (2) of the Law on the Federal Constitutional Court. It further found that there was no violation of the procedural right to a fair hearing under Article 103.1 of the Basic Law. Furthermore, it found no demonstration of the arbitrariness of the StPO contrary to its ban under Article 3(1) of the Basic Law.