Gustl Mollath
Gustl Ferdinand Mollath (born November 7, 1956 in Nuremberg ) is the victim of an error by the Bavarian judiciary . In 2006, he was admitted to the psychiatric penal system because of several offenses that he was accused of and at the same time he was incapable of guilt , which was determined by an expert . After several instances had confirmed this briefing over five years, numerous doubts arose in 2011 about the allegations against Mollath and the rule of law of the proceedings. After a successful retrial, Mollath was again acquitted in a new main hearing in 2014; this time it was also found that the requirements for placement (at the time of the new main hearing) were not met.
The Mollath case was discussed controversially in public, since in addition to the direct allegations against Gustl Mollath, among other things, the allegation of illicit transactions against employees of Hypovereinsbank and the allegation against his wife, who should have wrongly accused him, as well as serious allegations against politics, Justice and court experts were loud. The case sparked a debate about placement in psychiatric hospitals. A 2016 amendment to the law that improved the rights of those judicially confined to psychiatry was commented in part in response to the case.
The fact that the black money allegations were not fully investigated in court also led to speculation that Mollath had become the victim of an intrigue to cover up these transactions - especially since an audit report of the bank that became public in 2012 found irregularities that confirmed Mollath's allegations, insofar as they were verifiable.
In 2018, Mollath filed claims for damages against the Free State of Bavaria , which in November 2019 after a settlement resulted in compensation of an additional 600,000 to 70,000 euros previously received.
Life
Mollath attended the Nuremberg Waldorf School and graduated from the Hiberniaschule in Herne in 1976 with a technical college entrance qualification and a journeyman's certificate . He then began studying mechanical engineering , which he dropped out. In 1981 he worked in the controlling department at MAN for around two years and then founded the Augusto M automotive workshop , which specialized in tire trading, tuning and the restoration of classic cars .
In 1978 Mollath met his wife Petra (1960–2017). From 1990 she worked as an asset advisor , most recently at Hypovereinsbank. They married in 1991. According to the wife's statement, there was a physical confrontation involving bodily harm in their shared apartment in August 2001. In 2002 she moved out, and in 2004 they divorced.
Procedure
overview
A total of three procedural complexes can be distinguished:
- Initial proceedings before the AG Nürnberg (41 Ds 802 Js 4743/03) or the LG Nürnberg-Fürth (2003-2006; 7 KLs 802 Js 4743/03)
with an appeal to the BGH (2007; 1 StR 6/07) - Proceedings before the penal enforcement chamber of the LG Bayreuth (2009-2013; StVK 551/09)
with complaints to the OLG Bamberg (2011-2014; 1 Ws 420/13, 1 Ws 519/12, 1 Ws 337/11)
and constitutional complaints to the BVerfG ( 2012-2013; 2 BvR 371/12 ) -
Retrial before 7. criminal division of the LG Regensburg (2011-2013; 7 KLs 151 Js 4111/13 WA, 7 Kls 151 Js 22423/12 WA, 7 KLs 112 Js 24210/11 WA)
with appeal to OLG Nürnberg (2013; 1 Ws 354/13 ); Retrial
before the 6th criminal chamber of the LG Regensburg (2013-2014; 6 KLs 151 Js 4111/13 WA ), successful
with appeal to the BGH (2015; 1 StR 56/15)
Indictment and conviction
In September 2003, Mollath was brought to trial against Mollath at the Nuremberg District Court on charges of dangerous bodily harm and deprivation of liberty to the detriment of his wife . Since Mollath did not attend two specific appointments for an outpatient assessment of his mental state, he was admitted to a psychiatric clinic by court order in mid-2004 and again at the beginning of 2005 for the preparation of a psychiatric report . In the meantime, the divorce took place in 2004. At the end of 2005, the public prosecutor also brought charges of property damage. Mollath is said to have stabbed 129 car tires. Because it was based on a possible placement of Mollath in psychiatry , the Nuremberg District Court referred the case to the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court.
In February 2006, based on the expert opinion that Mollath classified as dangerous to the public, a decision was made to detain him temporarily . After changing the facility twice, Mollath was in the Straubing District Hospital from April 2006 . In August 2006, the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court finally acquitted Mollath for incapacity , as it saw the offenses as proven, but the "suspension of the ability to control [...] according to § 20 StGB [...] could not be ruled out". Instead of a punishment , the measure was taken in a closed psychiatric facility because - in the opinion of the court - Mollath was still at risk. In determining the insolvency, the court relied, among other things, on the opinion of the expert Klaus Leipziger from Bayreuth, who attested Mollath to paranoid delusions, which essentially revolved around a " black money complex ". Leipziger justified this, among other things, with a "paranoid system of thought" that Mollath had developed and that expressed itself partly in the conviction that his former wife was involved in a complex system of black money displacement. An internal audit report by Hypovereinsbank from 2003 supports parts of Mollath's allegations, but this was not yet public or known to the court at the time of the 2006 proceedings.
In 2007 Mollath applied for legal aid and had his lawyer announce that he suffered from “a serious mental illness”, and that there was also talk of “paranoid symptoms”.
From mid-2009 until his release in early August 2013, Mollath was in the Bayreuth District Hospital . In the German media, the case has been the focus of attention since November 2012.
After various unsuccessful efforts to obtain his release from psychiatry, and after rejection of applications by Mollaths defender Gerhard Strate , as well as the prosecution Regensburg to a retrial in July 2013 by the District Court of Regensburg ordered on 6 August 2013, the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg after Complaints from both sides request the retrial . With the order of the retrial, the judgment of the Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth in 2006 lost its legal force , which also meant that the legal basis for Mollath's placement was no longer applicable, so that he had to be released.
Expert opinion
In September 2003, Gabriele Krach, a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy at the Klinikum am Europakanal , Erlangen, issued a certificate at the request of Mollath's wife, stating that Mollath was “likely to suffer from a serious psychiatric illness” without ever having met him. The certificate was faxed on September 23, 2003 by the wife's lawyer to the Nuremberg-Fürth district court.
Michael Wörtmüller, head of the forensic department at the Klinikum am Europakanal, was commissioned by the court as an expert. He declared himself biased and recommended the expert Klaus Leipziger.
Klaus Leipziger, chief physician in the forensic psychiatry of the Bayreuth district hospital , prepared an initial opinion on Gustl Mollath in 2005 based on the criminal files sent to him, Mollath's 106-page document folder and the medical observations in the 5-week observation phase and attested him, among other things, a "paranoid Thought System ".
The expert Hans Simmerl, senior physician at the Mainkofen District Hospital , commissioned by the Straubing District Court, spoke to Mollath for several hours in 2007 and spoke out in favor of discontinuing the care and found no evidence of a psychotic illness and ruled out delusional ideas typical of schizophrenia. On the other hand, he attested evidence of a “ fanatical, querulous personality ” (ICD-10 - F. 60.0), Mollath's convictions are therefore most likely to be classified as an “ overriding idea ”. There is no evidence of a psychotic illness.
In contrast, a report by Hans-Ludwig Kröber in June 2008 confirmed the statements of Krach and Leipziger without a personal examination by Mollath.
In mid-2009, Mollath was transferred to the Bayreuth District Hospital. An expert opinion by Friedemann Pfäfflin in 2010 confirmed the “delusional system” established by Leipziger (which is based on allegations of black money), but denied any general danger, which is a prerequisite for placement under Section 63 StGB.
In March 2013, Klaus Leipziger, chief physician at the Clinic for Forensic Psychiatry, and Ines Bahlig-Schmidt, department head, reported: “With regard to the diagnostic classification, we continue to assume a delusional disorder (ICD-10: F 22.0) in accordance with the expert report . The subsequent reports from both Kröber and Pfäfflin came to the same diagnosis in the longitudinal and cross-sectional assessment, whereby Kröber also considered the presence of paranoid schizophrenia in a differential diagnosis in his report of June 27, 2008. ”This opinion was also based not on an exploration conversation, but exclusively on the files and "behavioral observations".
At the end of October 2013 it was announced that the further process would be delayed due to unresolved questions from the experts.
Public discussion
Numerous media, first from the beginning of October 2011 the Nürnberger Nachrichten through articles by the editor Michael Kasperowitsch and from 2012 in particular the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Südwestrundfunk (SWR) with its radio programs and the TV magazine Report Mainz , reported critically on the procedure. They accused the courts concerned of procedural errors and selective consideration of evidence and criticized the experts.
In March 2013, Olaf Przybilla and Uwe Ritzer were awarded the 3rd prize of the Guardian Prize for their series of articles in the Süddeutsche Zeitung about the Gustl Mollath case .
First report at Report Mainz
On December 13th, the SWR published the story of Gustl Mollath. The report was shown on television in the magazine Report Mainz on December 13, 2011 in the first . Mollath's former wife was therefore employed at Hypovereinsbank and Mollath had accused her and other employees of handling illicit money transactions for customers . Hypovereinsbank then carried out internal investigations and resigned her in 2003, as did another employee.
In light of these findings involved in the verdict against Mollath criticized in the report lay judge Karl-Heinz Westenrieder from Roth the procedure. At the time of the trial, he assumed that Mollath's money laundering allegations were inaccurate. The presiding judge Otto Brixner loudly interrupted Mollath and threatened to expel him every time he raised the subject of tax evasion and shifting black money.
The report also criticized the fact that the court disregarded receipts and handwritten notes on accounts in Switzerland that Mollath had submitted in a 106-page “Duraplus folder” during the proceedings.
The contribution accused the public prosecutor's office of having to investigate the details of a criminal complaint by Mollath against his ex-wife dated June 11, 2003 and to check whether there were illegal money transfers. The Nuremberg public prosecutor's office had rejected this complaint as "too general". The public prosecutor's office informed the magazine in writing that there was still no reason for an investigation.
Responses from the Bavarian state government
After an urgent motion by the SPD parliamentary group in the Bavarian state parliament , the then Justice Minister Beate Merk ( CSU ) defended herself in a speech to the state parliament on December 15, 2011 against the impression that Mollath had been detained due to his criminal complaint. The following day she had a spokesman explain that Mollath's placement in the psychiatric ward was a result of his crimes and had nothing to do with his criminal charges against his wife and the bank. Mollath inflicted strangle marks on his wife's neck, extensive hematomas and a bleeding bite wound. He also stabbed dozens of car tires, including on the vehicles of his wife's lawyers. His placement was confirmed by the Federal Court of Justice and is regularly checked. She defended herself against the allegations that the public prosecutor had remained inactive due to instructions from politics. The public prosecutor himself then wrote a few questions to Hypovereinsbank. In March 2012, Merk gave a speech to the Legal Affairs Committee in which she commented on Hypovereinsbank's written answer to the public prosecutor, discussed an internal audit report of the bank and ultimately confirmed her previous position. At the end of October 2012, the tax investigators assumed that Mollath's allegations of postponing black money were correct in at least one case. The opposition accused Merk of not telling the legal committee the truth.
Second and third report from Report Mainz
The case came to the general public after the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Report Mainz dealt again with the Mollath case on November 13, 2012 . Report Mainz had reached the audit report written in March 2003, which it subsequently made public. According to the results of the investigation, Mollath's allegations are diffuse in some areas, but his wife actually referred customers to a bank in Switzerland for commissions and transferred funds there. The current husband of Mollath's ex-wife, Martin M, told the newspaper Die Welt : "It was proven at the time that my wife and some other employees had accepted commission payments from other banks without permission." In addition to Mollath's allegations, other employees were also violated against the tax code and the Securities Trading Act and evidence of aiding and abetting tax evasion was found. A “well-known personality” was helped to launder black money . The internal audit department of the bank noted in its report that there was no obligation to notify any violations of the law it found .
Report Mainz confronted Merk in the program in an interview with a quote from the audit report , according to which “all verifiable allegations turned out to be correct”. The magazine contrasted this with their statement before the Legal Affairs Committee in March 2012, according to which the report had just failed to confirm Mollath's allegations. Merk then stated in the interview that no traceable statements had been confirmed. The next day, she explained in more detail that the allegations that were true according to the audit report had affected labor law issues and were not pursuitable. As far as criminal matters were concerned, the statute of limitations has already occurred. It is not a question of whether Mollath is telling the truth, but rather that he is dangerous. The tax investigator Frank Wehrheim accused Merk in the show that her statement was an "intentional false statement". The Süddeutsche Zeitung , which had taken up the case at the same time as Report Mainz , also reported that the tax authorities had started investigations into the matter after the existence of the audit report became known.
On December 4, 2012, Report Mainz addressed the case for a third time, this time in particular with regard to the allegation of bias of Judge Brixner in Mollath's proceedings. He allegedly made a phone call to the tax authorities in 2003 that prevented Mollath's complaints from being followed up.
Reactions
The second report sparked a wide variety of public reactions. The opposition in the Bavarian state parliament called for Merk's resignation. The bank defended itself against allegations that it had not itself filed a criminal complaint because of the identified violations of the law. The revision audit "did not provide sufficient information for a criminally relevant behavior of customers or employees who made a criminal complaint appear appropriate". There was no evidence of criminal behavior and the test results were too vague for that. The Süddeutsche Zeitung then described this as a "grotesquely trivialized representation".
The report also addressed the psychiatric reports on Mollath from the court proceedings and the ongoing review. The lay judge Westenrieder said that he had already assessed the psychiatric report as weak during the proceedings, as it was largely based on the files, Mollath had not been explored during the proceedings and no second report was made. There are also documents that he was not aware of during the main hearing, for example a criminal complaint from Mollath's ex-wife, according to which Mollath was storing weapons in his house. This led to a house search, which was not found. This could have shaken the credibility of the ex-wife and main witness in the process. You reported it on January 2, 2003, the very day on which the internal auditing of Hypovereinsbank began to investigate Mollath's allegations. Also Friedrich Weinberger, retired psychiatrist and chairman of the Walter von Baeyer Society for Ethics in Psychiatry (GEP), who visited Mollath in Bayreuth in April 2011, Maria E. Fick, the human rights officer of the Bavarian State Medical Association , the criminal law professor Henning Ernst Müller ( University of Regensburg ) and the Süddeutsche Zeitung , which published the essential principles and results of the reports, criticized the quality of the medical reports and the validity of the judgment.
The first specialist medical opinion on Mollath's psychological condition came about after the wife turned to a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy at the Klinikum am Europakanal in September 2003 . Based solely on the descriptions of the wife and without ever having met Mollath, the doctor wrote that Mollath was very likely to suffer from a serious psychiatric illness. The certificate was then faxed by the wife's lawyer to the Straubing District Court on September 23 . All of this happened a few days before the start of the negotiation. The first judicial expert, Michael Wörthmüller, declared himself biased and recommended Klaus Leipziger. In 2005, based on the criminal files sent to him, he prepared an initial report that attested a “paranoid system of thought”, in which it says: “The example of Dr. Wörthmüller stated that the accused included any other persons who (must) deal with him in this delusional system, ... ". The expert Hans Simmerl, commissioned by the Straubing District Court in the care proceedings, conversed with Mollath for several hours in 2007, found no evidence of a psychotic illness, ruled out delusional ideas typical of schizophrenia and spoke out in favor of lifting the care. In contrast, a report by Hans-Ludwig Kröber in June 2008 confirmed the original medical opinion and the report by Leipziger without a personal examination by Mollath. It was a reaction of the responsible penal enforcement chamber to Simmerl's positive opinion for Mollath. An expert report by Friedemann Pfäfflin in 2010 confirmed the “delusional system” noted by Leipziger (with regard to the allegations of black money), but denied that it was generally dangerous and therefore denied the requirement for accommodation.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung also criticized the procedure. In particular, exculpatory advice was hardly taken into account. Mollath was also assigned a public defender whom he mistrusted and who therefore hardly saw himself in a position to help him. Furthermore, like Müller, she contradicted Merk's assertion that Mollath's black money allegations and his classification as a publicly dangerous insane had nothing to do with one another. The assumption of a “black money complex” played an important role for Mollath's briefing not only in the judgment of the Nuremberg Regional Court in 2006, but also up to 2011 and in later judicial decisions.
In the course of the reporting, Merk came under public and political pressure and announced on November 30, 2012 that the Mollath case would be reopened.
In December 2012, the Spiegel journalist Beate Lakotta wrote about the proceedings against Mollath, and plausible explanations could be found for many of the inconsistencies in this case. Contrary to the doubts of the Süddeutsche Zeitung , the certificate submitted during the court hearing was not the result of a plot by a consultation assistant friend of Mollath's ex-wife, but was made by the son of the practice owner, who is himself a doctor. Although it was only created in the course of the complaint, it is based on entries in the medical file of August 14, 2001. There is no evidence to support the claim that Mollath's ex-wife was involved in illicit business and aiding and abetting tax evasion. Having money abroad is in itself legal. A labor court overturned her extraordinary dismissal .
With regard to “All verifiable allegations have turned out to be correct”, the question must be asked what was verifiable at all. Above all, these are the transfers themselves, but they cannot be objected to under criminal law. Mollath responded to the bank's request for concrete evidence of what he claimed to be the “biggest and most insane tax evasion scandal” with only “I'm not doing your auditing work”. The psychiatric experts had justified their diagnosis not with the black money allegations, but with the "confused content" of the letters he had sent. Mollath has knitted connections between his wife's business and the defense industry and the Rotarians . He stabbed the tires in such a way that in some cases the drivers only noticed it while driving and were only lucky enough not to be harmed. His perpetration emerged from a letter to one of the injured parties; this letter had listed the names of the others and accused them of being linked to illicit money deals.
The Leipziger expert defended his report against allegations that it was no longer tenable based on the findings of the audit report. In delusional disorders there is often a true core in the delusion.
On February 28 and March 7, 2013, there were debates on the Mollath case in the Legal Committee of the Bavarian State Parliament. These concerned in particular the question of whether the judge Otto Brixner had any influence on the tax investigation. The President of the Bavarian State Tax Office , Roland Jüptner, said no. At the first meeting, he first gave the reason that there should have been a memo. However, he later had to admit that a memo existed. He had to keep this secret because of the tax secrecy. Jüptner insisted, however, that the proceedings would have been discontinued even without the telephone call with Brixner. The opposition was not convinced. Another point of discussion at the meeting on March 7, 2013 concerned statements made by telephone by the Nuremberg Public Prosecutor's Office, according to Zeit . Accordingly, one admitted that the judgment came about with a certain "sloppiness". Regardless of the “careless mistakes”, however, one regards the judgment as “correct in the result”. Renegotiating in response to political pressure with acquittal would amount to a catastrophe for the population, since with Mollath one would then “release a dangerous man onto the street”. The opposition also complained that the case had been assigned to a public prosecutor's office outside the higher regional court district, but that there was now a position responsible there again. Attorney General Hasso Nerlich was also President of the District Court in Nuremberg in 2004 and Mollath had turned to him twice without success. Nerlich then denied that he or one of his employees had made the statements given in the time . Green and Free voters , who requested the replacement of Nerlich in an urgent motion, could not win the support of the SPD at the meeting, which presented it as a demand for political justice.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung criticized Merk's statement in March 2012 before the state parliament that the “Duraplus folder” was an “abstruse hodgepodge”. Together with the auditor's report and the availability of Swiss numbered accounts in December 2012, this would have led to the initiation of individual criminal tax proceedings. At the beginning of April 2013 she also reported that Mollath had been placed under care between April and October 2006. His parents' house was foreclosed in December 2007 for EUR 226,000 below its value . It was bought by Mollath's divorced wife. She sold it for 264,000 euros. According to court rulings, Mollath owed her over 210,000 euros.
According to Mollath, his ex-wife and her future husband were already in a relationship at the time of the 2006 trial. In mid-April 2013, the judge Brixner confirmed that he had known him. In 1980 he was the bank manager's handball trainer, and after that he no longer had any contact with him.
Committee of inquiry in the state parliament
At the beginning of April 2013, the Greens and Free Voters applied for a committee of inquiry in the state parliament to investigate whether the "obfuscation and untruth in official statements by the Minister of Justice, the financial administration and senior judicial employees" had contributed to Mollath's situation and why his information on the shifts in black money had not been investigated has been.
The head of the department, Wolfgang Kummer, stated that he knew about the "Duraplus folder" but did not request it. It was not until 2011 that the bank's audit report confirmed Mollath's allegations.
On May 17, 2013, u. a. the judge a. D. Otto Brixner before the committee of inquiry. He stated that he had not read the Duraplus folder. He was in difficult personal circumstances. He personally issued and announced the judgment, but Judge Heinemann was the rapporteur in these proceedings. According to Brixner, the entire chamber, i.e. three judges and two lay judges, are ultimately responsible for the judgment. The Süddeutsche Zeitung criticized that only 8 of the 106 pages in the Duraplus folder consisted of Mollath's statements. These would also have contained a partial confession. It is therefore absurd to deny a connection with the allegations, as the judgment did, especially if the content was not read at all.
On June 4, the retired Attorney General Klaus Hubmann confirmed in the committee that he had been the President of the Rotary Club of Nuremberg at the time of Mollath's complaints. He rejected connections in the HVB board. This applies despite the fact that an employee of HVB was released to carry out administrative work for the Rotary Club in a room in the bank branch.
On June 6th, the investigator Wolfhard Meindl admitted that the court had "not quite properly observed some procedural norms". According to a report in the Schwäbische Zeitung, he rejected the allegation of perversion of the law . The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported, on the other hand, that public prosecutor Meindl considered a perversion of the law possible on one point. The tax investigator Georg Seifert confirmed investigations against a number of taxpayers who Mollath had listed. So far, he has not been able to confirm Mollath's allegations that his former wife helped wealthy HVB customers to move black money to Switzerland. Untaxed interest income has been found, but only in the low range, and some bank customers may even expect a tax refund due to tax exemptions and the crediting of Swiss withholding tax.
On June 11, Mollath himself was heard by the committee of inquiry. The chairman Florian Herrmann (CSU) emphasized that the subject of the investigation committee was the behavior of the state authorities, not the question of whether Mollath was wrongly placed in psychiatry. Mollath refused to be delusional. He admitted that the Duraplus folder might appear confused at first glance. But if you read it through completely, you can understand it. When asked, he stated that he had never been contacted by the tax investigators or the public prosecutor's office about the Duraplus folder. He reiterated his allegation of black money deals and also his statement that the audit report does not describe their true scope by far. Before he was detained, he had brought further evidence to France and Switzerland or sent it to people there, namely to Serge Klarsfeld ( Beate Klarsfeld's husband ) and to the Swiss author Jean Ziegler . However, it is uncertain whether the recipients still have them. Other material was lost in the foreclosure auction of his house. Mollath criticized Judge Brixner for banning him from speaking. He also criticized the placement in a psychiatric ward and called for her to be transferred to preventive detention in a prison. MdL Florian Streibl , ( Free Voters , initiator of the committee) thought Mollath's theory of a conspiracy between Hypovereinsbank, justice, financial authorities and psychiatry had been refuted, but the negligence of the judiciary in this case was almost even worse.
On June 13, an HVB employee told the investigative committee that he could neither confirm nor deny black money deals, but that he considered them to be “perhaps probable”. Mollath did not submit any further evidence despite requests. The formulation that all verifiable claims of Mollath "turned out to be correct" was unfortunate and probably wrong in form. The attorney general, Sabine Schauer, stated that she had read the Duraplus folder. The allegations were too vague. You also saw the reference to the internal audit by the HVB. But she did not see a must to instruct the public prosecutor to pursue the matter further. District judge Huber, who was initially involved in the case, testified that Mollath could have expected parole if he had admitted the acts at the time.
On June 14, Justice Minister Merk addressed the committee of inquiry. Freedom is an important human right. She reaffirmed her previous position. The judiciary was independent and it was not responsible. She did the right thing, even if she didn't do everything right one hundred percent. The public prosecutor's office should have handed Mollath's material over to the tax investigators in 2004. However, she immediately instructed the retrial after it became known that the medical certificate had been issued by the doctor's son. This was not possible before. The affidavit of the former friend of the couple Mollath Edward Braun, dentist from Bad Pyrmont , did not reach them. She accused Mollath of not having followed the path she had opened, namely to be examined by a new appraiser chosen by him. Nevertheless, the fate of Mollath moves them. The opposition reiterated its call for resignation. At the federal level, the Greens applied for a statement from Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger to the Human Rights Committee.
On June 26, the motion was rejected with the votes of the governing coalition.
On July 10, 2013, the state parliament opposition demanded Merk's release again. Shortly before the conclusion of the committee of inquiry, the representatives of the governing parties CSU and FDP saw no personal errors in the Mollath case. On the other hand, the SPD, Greens and Free Voters accused Merk of deliberate deception and reserved a new version of the investigative committee after the state elections on September 15, 2013 .
On July 17, the final report of the Mollath case (Drucksache 16/17741) was discussed with debate in the plenary session . Committee chief Florian Herrmann (CSU) said that the state parliament opposition had drawn a distorted image of the judiciary with “unreserved election campaign noise. They are carrying out their election campaign on the back of the judiciary, ultimately also on the back of Mr. Mollath. ”Inge Aures, on behalf of the SPD in the investigation committee, replied:“ The tax authorities did not investigate at all, the public prosecutor's office only investigated unilaterally, the attorney general did bricked up, and the Minister of Justice covered up. "
Documentation about the Mollath case
On June 3, 2013, ARD showed a documentary in which the journalists Monika Anthes and Eric Beres from the editorial team of Report Mainz summarized their previous magazine programs. Furthermore, anonymous statements by a son of an investor in HVB were reproduced, according to which the bank had offered his father help in transferring black money to Switzerland. As a result of Mollath's information, 20 tax investigations have also been initiated, some of them through voluntary reports. Attorney Gerhard Strate , who defends Mollath free of charge, again accused Brixner of bias, perversion of the law and falsification of the facts in the judgment for which he was the only one responsible with his signature. The Tagesspiegel criticized that the documentation was limited too much to the reprocessing of already presented facts. It does not reflect enough a possible political instrumentalization of the case and possible doubts about Mollath's representations, as they were expressed in this context by commentators from Zeit and Spiegel .
Shortly afterwards, the editorial team of Report Mainz reported in a press release that there had been searches in April at Bankhaus Bethmann regarding Mollath's information , regarding transactions from the time when it was still part of the Hypovereinsbank group.
Statements by the former wife
On June 10, 2013, Mollath's ex-wife spoke out for the first time and presented her view of things to the Nordbayerischer Kurier . Mollath never brought his garage into profitability and considerable money flowed into it. He was already in debt before the separation, put his own inheritance into the company and also loaned his inherited house. She also poured in money for his company from insurance benefits and two inheritances and given him loans totaling DM 300,000. Overall, the liabilities would have fluctuated between 400,000 and 700,000 DM until 1998. She rejected the testimony of the dentist Edward Braun, according to which she had offered Mollath that he could keep 500,000 euros of his assets if he remained silent on illicit transactions. She asked what kind of wealth was meant by that. Your statements can be substantiated by balance sheets, account and land register extracts. Nevertheless, Mollath continued to demand money after the separation. This emerges from Mollath's letters. She had foreclosed the house after securing debt on the loan, but she argued against a sale below its value. This is also evident from a memo.
The reason for the separation was that Mollath was very jealous and controlled them, as a former colleague could testify. The issue of black money was never an issue between her and Mollath during the relationship, but only after the separation, as her family members could confirm. He stalked her after the separation , wrote her many letters and called her constantly, which he also documented himself. He also harassed and followed her and people around her and took photos of her and her new partner. There were repeated outbreaks of violence by Mollath. Although he didn't always hit, he always struck when he felt cornered. He once described this in a letter as if he had defended himself, but she did not attack him; she also weighed only 54 kg and he over 90. Mollath had beaten her before the marriage, and he had also beaten his mother. In the early years of their marriage, during the 1990s, she fled to her family several times because of Mollath's violence. Their family members and witnesses outside the family could testify to this. Despite their advice, she returned to Mollath because Mollath had always promised to change and she had taken pity on him. Mollath tried several times to kill himself, the first time before graduating from school.
Investigators had found no black money with her. The bank withdrew the extraordinary termination and agreed on a normal termination of the employment relationship with severance pay ; She does not want to say more about this matter because of the ongoing proceedings. Edward Braun was not a good friend of the family. They met at Ferrari days, but he was only with them once in Nuremberg. You also did not make a threatening phone call. Contrary to Mollath's own account, she was attacked by Mollath and held until her sister-in-law came to the rescue, who then spent the entire day with her. The sister-in-law herself stated that Mollath's ex-wife was in no condition to threaten. The new partner of Mollath's ex-wife replied to Mollath's allegations of having made common cause with Judge Brixner that he was only his handball coach for one season in 1981/82. After that there was no more contact. An entrepreneur who had kept the Ferraris from Mollath's company until they were foreclosed and who was a victim of tire punctures said that Mollath himself had his lawyer explain in one of his many court hearings that he suffered from a serious mental illness. Although he was always friendly, his verbal expression had given cause for concern. The courier also reported on his own research, which had shown that Mollath had sold all of his inventory from the house to a friend himself. When Mollath said that he didn't even have a picture of his mother left, he had sold it himself. However, the buyer was not available for the courier .
A spokesman for the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court commented that the ex-wife's statements were likely to influence the outcome of a possible retrial.
Edward Braun described the statements of Mollath's ex-wife on the fringes of the investigative committee the following day as protective claims . Mollath himself also expressed himself there and rejected any use of physical violence against his wife, as well as the tire stabbing. On June 13, the Nürnberger Nachrichten reported that they had letters that contradicted their statements. Corresponding information can be found in the correspondence of 2002 about money that Mollath had been offered to keep silent. Also in 2000, before the separation of black money allegations, there was talk.
Before deciding on the retrial application
Ursula Gresser was visited by two plainclothes police officers at noon on June 10, 2013, who, according to their account, expressed concerns about the security of an event by Justice Minister Merk in connection with a tweet . She had previously written there “When will Mollath be released? Ms. Merk could be asked this question on Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 7 pm in the Landgasthof Hofolding ”. Gresser rated the police visit as an attempt at intimidation. The Justice Department and the police denied it, claiming that it was about other, earlier tweets about family disputes on Gresser's own cause and a related, planned disruption of the Justice Minister's appearance.
After the penal enforcement chamber of the Bayreuth District Court refused to release Mollath after the annual review of Mollath's placement on June 12, 2013, Spiegel journalist Beate Lakotta reaffirmed her view of the case. So far, violations of internal banking guidelines and tax evasion by small investors were found. The accusation that it was illegal money has not yet been proven; nor the tax evasion scandal alleged by Mollath in thousands of cases. In this respect, Mollath was in part right, but the question arises whether the allegations against him must therefore also be false. Expert Pfäfflin had been selected by Mollath's defense attorney and in a full-day conversation with Mollath he had determined that Mollath was not moving away from the delusion of a plot against himself. Just like the judgment, Pfäfflin had expressly taken into account that Mollath's statements about his wife's black money deals could be correct. She criticized that expressions of solidarity by some Mollath supporters would overshoot the mark. Judge Brixner, Minister of Justice Merk and expert Pfäfflin were threatened personally. The chief physician of psychiatry had personal protection for some time.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung reiterated its opposite view of things. She accused the judiciary of having ignored the rule of law in a row in order to bring Mollath into psychiatry, but now using all registers of legal subtlety with the help of a circular argument to prevent his release.
Late in the evening of June 14th, a forged court order was faxed to several news agencies and the responsible psychiatry. The forgery relied on court documents from the Mollath case available online and ordered Mollath to be released immediately. The dpa recognized the document as a forgery and contacted the Ministry of Justice , which in turn contacted the Public Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutor General Hasso Nerlich then called the clinic on the morning of June 15 and informed them. However, the head of the clinic, the Leipzig expert, mistrusted the caller and did not forward the warning, so that the deputy head Zappe first classified the fax as genuine on June 17 and notified Mollath. After that, however, he had doubts because of unusual passages and he had reassured himself with the Regional Court of Regensburg, which had pointed out the forgery.
On June 17, the SZ criticized the fact that it had a draft of the prosecutor Meindl's application for retrial, which was much more stringent and accused the judge of multiple perversions. The Ministry of Justice then stated that the Chief Public Prosecutor Hasso Nerlich had not approved the first version and that Meindl was responsible for making changes.
On June 19, the courier reported that , according to Beate Klarsfeld, no evidence had been deposited with her. Mollath only wrote her a few letters, the only subject of which was the Federal Cross of Merit, for which he proposed her. According to Beate Lakotta, Jean Ziegler could not confirm a "suitcase full of evidence" either.
On June 25, Inge Aures (SPD), a member of the investigative committee, called on the public prosecutor's office to uphold the allegation of perversion of the law. According to a subsequent written statement by the judge a. D. Heinemann before the investigative committee, the current husband of Mollath's ex-wife and judge Otto Brixner met and talked to each other at the court hearing against Mollath, which contradicts her statement that she has not had any contact since the early 1980s. Hasso Nerlich then announced that he would investigate the matter.
Joachim Braun from the Nordbayerischer Kurier complained that the media attention cast a crooked light on the affair and that the media carried out one-sided reporting in favor of Mollath and to the disadvantage of the opposing side.
The deputy chairman of the Walter von Baeyer Society for Ethics in Psychiatry (GEP), Klemens Dieckhöfer, sued Beate Merk for disrespect because she had described his statement on the Mollath case as unscientific in the state parliament. He had previously sharply criticized the reports on Mollath as part of the association's work and accused psychiatry of political abuse.
On June 29, Seehofer asked the courts to investigate the Mollath case at a faster pace.
On July 4th, the lay judge Westenrieder accused Brixner in Report Mainz of having spoken of his possible bias himself. On July 5, Brixner admitted the possibility that an encounter with the new husband of Mollath's ex-wife could have taken place during the proceedings.
On July 5th, the BKH Bayreuth rejected representations of the press. Mollath is not sitting alone in psychiatry because of black money allegations. Leipziger had spoken to Mollath before the report was prepared and his report was not the only one to be taken into account.
On July 8th, the North Bavarian Courier reported that Mollath's belongings were still there. The ex-wife packed them up and stored them with their relatives.
On July 9th, the leader of the Greens asked the Nuremberg-Fürth public prosecutor's office to check whether possible criminal acts by former Hypovereinsbank employees had not yet expired.
On July 10, the Nürnberger Zeitung questioned the background to Mollath's ex-wife's inheritance of millions. The following day, the ex-wife dismissed the speculation as completely unfounded.
On July 17, Seehofer addressed the impotence of politics in relation to the judiciary in a meeting of his cabinet ; he sharply criticized the length of the proceedings and the courts involved, which was rejected by the judiciary. In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung on July 18, 2013, the Bavarian Justice Minister Merk said that she had opened three avenues in the Mollath case that her office allows: Mollath had been offered another expert who had not yet dealt with the matter. The principle of proportionality is not only taken into account when the question of whether Mollath is to be dismissed, but rather when it is enforced; Mollath's existing easing of enforcement should be relaxed again. She is waiting for the court decision on the application for retrial made months ago by the public prosecutor.
Change of law
In the summer of 2013, Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger and Bavaria's Vice-Prime Minister Martin Zeil (both FDP ) called for tightening the requirements for admission to psychiatry. A briefing should be checked at shorter intervals than before, reviewers should change regularly and the requirements for their reports should be increased. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger wanted to limit the placement in the psychiatry in the future to threatened serious criminal offenses. It should be kept in mind, however, that the reason for the placement in psychiatry can also be minor. The first review of a placement should be carried out after four months instead of the current one after a year.
The then Bavarian Justice Minister Beate Merk ( CSU ) considered involving external experts after one year instead of five.
In April 2016, the Bundestag passed the law presented by the Ministry of Justice to amend the right of placement. When it was passed, Minister Heiko Maas pointed out that the aim of the amendment was to "better protect those affected from disproportionate and disproportionately long detention" - see measure enforcement # Amendment of the law 2016 .
Responses to the rejection of the readmission request
On July 24, 2013, the regional court of Regensburg refused to accept the resumption. Gustl Mollath's defense attorney Gerhard Strate told Spiegel online about this: “The court is trying with tooth and nail to maintain the legal force of an unjust judgment”. "That has nothing to do with finding the truth, this is only about the self-defense of the judiciary." He told the dpa news agency that the court was biased: "I didn't expect anything different from this criminal chamber".
Christian Ude , the SPD's top candidate for the state elections, said the decision violated the sense of justice. The court found errors, but also declared them irrelevant because breaches of duty were statute barred. All hopes in the Mollath case now lie with the Federal Constitutional Court. Inge Aures (member of the Bavarian state parliament) pointed out that the Regensburg public prosecutor had put forward fourteen reasons for a reopening, all of which were rejected by the Regensburg regional court. The chairman of the Greens parliamentary group, Martin Runge , emphasized that the public prosecutor's original request for resumption was massively weakened at the instigation of the Nuremberg Public Prosecutor Hasso Nerlich. From the accusation of perversion of the law (which was initially affirmed by the public prosecutor's office), the wording "some procedural norms were not adhered to" in the final version.
On July 27, 2013, 500 people demonstrated in Nuremberg for the rehabilitation of Mollath. A possible pardon from the Prime Minister was not enough for most of them. In addition to calls for reforms in psychiatry and the judiciary, calls were made to hold those responsible to account. Judge Brixner, who led Mollath's trial with questionable methods, and Roland Jüptner, head of the State Tax Office, who many MPs accuse of making false statements in the state parliament, were named. It was also announced that 52,000 supporters of Mollath have signed a petition on the Internet (as of July 28, 2013).
On August 2, 2013, almost 20 defense lawyers demonstrated in front of the Regensburg judicial building for the freedom of Mollath. During this demonstration, too, the behavior of the judge Otto Brixner, who was responsible in the decisive earlier criminal proceedings against Mollath, was heavily criticized. The initiative Bayerischer Strafverteidigerinnen und Strafverteidiger e.V. called for the demonstration. V.
Public discussions after the order of the resumption
After the reopening of the criminal proceedings had been ordered by the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court on August 6, 2013, the chairman of the Greens in the Bavarian state parliament demanded the resignation of Justice Minister Merk on behalf of the Greens on August 7, 2013.
Mollath's first public appearance was on the Beckmann television program on August 15, 2013. Beate Merk and the journalist Beate Lakotta were invited to the show, but did not come. Other guests on the show were Uwe Ritzer (Süddeutsche Zeitung), Gerhard Strate and Hanna Ziegert. The psychiatrist Ziegert (she has been working as a reviewer for thirty years) said that there was a manageable scene of experts in Germany who were repeatedly appointed by the public prosecutor's offices and, due to their previous work, were so easily assessed by the public prosecutor's offices and courts that one could can basically foresee in advance what would come of an expertise from them. In other words: the reviewers would be commissioned according to the desired result and usually deliver it. Ziegert emphasized that this is known and clear to everyone “in the scene”: “That is practice, the public does not know; it is not talked about; that wasn't of interest so far. "
After the broadcast, the Munich I public prosecutor's office tried to reject Ziegert as an expert in several proceedings "because of concerns about bias"; their requests for bias failed at the regional courts in Munich and Augsburg. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the reasons given by the two courts read like a "tutoring in civics".
Ziegert's statements were later supported by a study conducted by Ursula Gresser at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich , in which every fourth expert surveyed had received a tendency from the judiciary. Every second psychologist had this experience, and every third psychiatrist.
In 2014 it became known that in July 2006 Mollath was put on the list of NSU suspects.
After his release from psychiatry, Mollath campaigned for Ilona Haslbauer to be released from the closed penal system. She had spent seven and a half years in forensic psychiatry. In the Haslbauer case, parallels to the Gustl Mollath case were repeatedly drawn in the reporting.
Proceedings from 2012
Criminal charges
Numerous criminal charges from the end of 2012
The lawyer Rainer Schmid, who was not involved in the proceedings, filed a criminal complaint in November 2012 for all possible offenses in the matter . However, the public prosecutor's office in Augsburg dropped these proceedings in May 2013. There are no sufficient indications "for criminal offenses, in particular perversion of the law , deprivation of liberty , false suspicion and false insulting testimony". There were no indications of this either from the notifications or from the files consulted. The reports filed by numerous citizens were directed against participating judges, public prosecutors, experts, doctors, Mollath's wife at the time and those in charge of Hypovereinsbank. In April 2014, the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office confirmed the decision of the Augsburg Public Prosecutor's Office that there were “no indications of initial suspicion” and therefore no investigations against those involved in the proceedings.
Lawsuit filed by defense attorney Strate in January 2013
On January 4, 2013, Strate filed a criminal complaint against judge Armin Eberl and the head of the forensic department at the Bayreuth Clinic, who caused Mollath's briefing for observation or did not cancel, for serious deprivation of liberty. In it he argued that the briefing and continued placement was not compatible with the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court . On February 26, 2013, the public prosecutor decided not to initiate an investigation due to a lack of initial suspicion. The next day, Strate appealed against the non-opening. He pointed out in his supplementary grounds of appeal indicates that it only delayed until end of December 2005 transfer of files through Judge Eberl to the appropriate district court and by further extraordinary delays in the inbox on contained in the annex Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth was possible that the 7. The criminal chamber under Otto Brixner was responsible for the Mollath case. If the files had been passed on without delay - as requested by the public prosecutor in August 2005 and which was to be assumed because of “endangering the general public” - an allocation to the 7th criminal division would have been impossible due to the business distribution plan still in force in 2005.
Review of the forced placement, in particular through a constitutional complaint
Filing a constitutional complaint
In January 2012, the Freiburg lawyer Michael Kleine-Cosack filed a constitutional complaint on behalf of Mollath against two decisions of the Higher Regional Court of Bamberg and the Regional Court of Bayreuth from 2011. He was trying to get Mollath out of psychiatry. Article 2 of the Basic Law is said to have been violated because placement in psychiatry no longer complies with the principle of proportionality . A repetition of the bodily harm Mollath committed to his wife in 2001 is no longer to be expected after the divorce, and the means of police requirements and supervision are sufficient.
In the meantime, the compulsory placement has been re-examined by the Bayreuth Regional Court and the Bamberg Higher Regional Court
On November 27, 2012, the Nuremberg Public Prosecutor's Office announced that they would review Mollath's detention. Among other things, "the proportionality of the duration of the placement" should be checked. The Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer also joined the discussion that day. In his opinion, the judiciary is "well advised to reassess the case". On February 4, 2013, the Bayreuth Regional Court ruled against the public prosecutor's request for a new psychiatric report on the question of Mollath's further placement. Mollath's statement (“superfluous and downright grotesque measure”) indicated that he would again refuse to participate, and consequently no new knowledge could be expected from such an opinion.
The Penal Execution Chamber of the District Court Bayreuth announced on April 8, 2013, preferred routinely scheduled for late July annual audit of accommodation. In the statement on the course of the placement, the Leipzig assessor confirmed the previous assessment. The Public Prosecutor then applied for the detention to be continued, citing this opinion. It is still proportionate, even taking into account the reopening application of the Regensburg public prosecutor's office. Mollath's defense attorney Erika Lorenz-Löblein criticized the fact that legal phone calls between her and Mollath were at least partially logged by the district hospital. The documentation of the phone calls was included as a statement in the annual court report of the district hospital.
In his brief, Strate tried to convince the Penal Enforcement Chamber that the reopening application of the Regensburg public prosecutor and the witness statements on which it was based made it clear that the prerequisites for placement did not exist from the start and that, according to the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court , the enforcement proceedings were also investigated must be. On April 18, 2013, Mollath's hearing took place before the Bayreuth Penal Enforcement Chamber.
On April 26, the Penal Enforcement Chamber decided to obtain a supplementary expert opinion from the expert Pfäfflin. Pfäfflin, however, refused the report and justified this with wave-like insults against his person by Mollath supporters and with Mollath's own rejection of another external report as a "superfluous and downright grotesque measure". On June 12, the court then refused to lift the detention.
On July 16, it became known that the Bamberg Higher Regional Court had partially granted a complaint by Mollath. Mollath had protested against a decision by the Bayreuth Regional Court, which in June had ordered his detention to be continued. The OLG overturned this decision and instructed the regional court (LG) to have the placement checked again. The district court had "failed to clarify the facts required by ruling on the matter without having to initiate a new external assessment of the detainee". The assessment from 2011 was not sufficient, among other things because new findings had emerged in the course of the applications for readmission. The district court must also answer the question or decide whether "a possibly further diagnosed mental illness is so serious that it still fulfills the requirements for further placement".
Progress of the constitutional complaint procedure and success of the constitutional complaint
In June 2013, the Federal Constitutional Court requested statements from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice and the Federal Prosecutor General with a deadline of July 23, 2013. On June 30, Merk declared that she would make it clear in her statement to the Federal Constitutional Court that Mollath's placement would be disproportionate with increasing duration . The Bavarian Judges Association accused Merk of having assessed the work of courts.
On September 5, 2013, the Federal Constitutional Court upheld Gustl Mollath's constitutional complaint and overturned the decisions of the Bayreuth Regional Court and the Bamberg Higher Regional Court from 2011, which had ordered Mollath to remain in the closed psychiatry. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, these two decisions violate Gustl Mollath's fundamental right to personal freedom (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Clause 2 in conjunction with Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law). Neither court had given sufficiently specific reasons to justify the order to continue his detention. The alleged risk of future illegal acts from him was not sufficiently specified and exonerating circumstances were not taken into account. In addition, the risk allegedly emanating from Mollath has not been weighed up against his fundamental right to freedom, and it is not examined whether there have been any milder measures than placement in psychiatry. The Federal Constitutional Court therefore referred the matter back to the OLG Bamberg for a new decision.
Due to the positive decision of the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court on August 6, 2013, which had deprived the psychiatric placement of any basis due to the renegotiation, Mollath had already been free for three weeks at the time (see four sections further); Nevertheless, the Federal Constitutional Court demanded a new decision by the Higher Regional Court of Bamberg, with the aim of determining the point in time from which Mollath was wrongly placed in psychiatric accommodation. The OLG Bamberg, on the other hand, rejected a new decision on the matter on March 27, 2014 (see five sections further), as this had meanwhile been "procedurally obsolete" with the implementation of the retrial and thus "became irrelevant", and declared the case "settled." “Without repealing wrong decisions. Strate filed another constitutional complaint on April 26, 2014.
Retrial
Mollath's motion for readmission by Defense Counsel Strate
On February 19, 2013, Gerhard Strate , who had accepted a mandate in the Mollath case in December 2012 (in addition to Mollaths' attorney, Erika Lorenz-Löblein), was the first to apply for a retrial . This was expressly based only on old evidence and files. Because of the bank's audit report, he also referred to Section 359 No. 5 StPO , but mainly argued with Section 359 No. 3 StPO: Judge Otto Brixner had violated the law . Brixner have the public defender Mollaths not dismissed, although this clearly as a prosecution witness had come into question and is therefore in a conflict of interest had been. Brixner bowed to the law by rejecting, ignoring or failing to submit a large number of requests for dismissal from Mollath, the public defender himself and the public prosecutor's office.
In the application, Strate also accuses Brixner of having arbitrarily determined the composition of the court, neglecting to hear the defendant and deliberately falsifying the facts with the files available to him ; these were further deliberate legal infractions. Strate relied (in anticipation of a possible retrial ) in particular on a blog entry by the former public prosecutor Gabriele Wolff , according to which evidence was manipulated with regard to the tire punctures , without which at most the level of evidence of a presumption was reached. In addition to the audit report, new facts were that a decision on the opening of the main proceedings had not yet been made and that the initial briefing for the investigation had not met the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court; it should be assessed as a prohibited method of interrogation .
Strate assumed in his application that a retrial from the prosecution with new investigation results was imminent and that the two applications would complement each other. The Nuremberg Attorney General Hasso Nerlich denied this; a separate application for readmission will only be examined. Nerlich had recently withdrawn from the public prosecutor's office in Regensburg , which was entrusted with the case and subordinated to him ; this was criticized in the Süddeutsche Zeitung . In the Legal Affairs Committee on March 7, 2013, the Ministry of Justice announced that the public prosecutor's office would soon apply for a retrial.
On May 1, 2013, Strate added to his request for reopening, stating, among other things, that the doctor's office, from which Petra M. had attested the injuries, was in a relationship with the brother of Mollath's former wife.
In Report Mainz on June 11, Strate accused the judiciary of delaying the case. In an interview with Report Mainz , the court spokesman for the Regensburg Regional Court (Johann Piendl) emphasized that the review of the case could still take some time. On June 28, the court named July 19 as the date.
On June 24, the author of the certificate, Markus Reichel, rejected Strate's claim that it was possibly not written by himself but by Mollath's ex-wife.
After the Higher Regional Court Nuremberg had rejected Strates' complaint against the court's inaction, it filed the announced constitutional complaint on July 5. On July 6th, he moved to deny a judge for bias. The latter had falsified a submission from Edward Braun to the public prosecutor's office regarding a reopening application and charged him with costs of over 60 euros on the grounds that Braun was not entitled to reopen.
On July 11th, Mollath's ex-wife submitted the original of the 2001 certificate to public prosecutor Nerlich through her lawyer, which clearly contained the remark “i. V. "before the signature. Nerlich then turned to the court and argued that by comparison one could see that on the duplicate submitted in 2006 an “i. V. “, which so far has only been misinterpreted as part of the name. From a legal point of view, it is not a bogus document.
Reopening application from the Regensburg public prosecutor
Justice Minister Beate Merk had already declared on December 13, 2012 that she saw the call from Judge Brixner to the tax investigation department as a new fact and had instructed the Regensburg public prosecutor to initiate the reopening of the proceedings before the competent regional court in Regensburg . The prospect of submitting applications was proposed for the third week of December. However, this did not happen; then Gerhard Strate applied for readmission. It was not until March 18, 2013 that the Regensburg public prosecutor's office provided its own. She based this on the certificate signed by the son as a false certificate i. S. d. § 359 No. 1 StPO and as "new facts" i. S. d. § 359 No. 5 StPO on the circumstances of the issuance of the certificate, the credibility of the wife to be reassessed as a witness and the information provided by Mollath on the money movements at Hypovereinsbank, which the audit report can prove, but which in the judgment is "delusional expansion". In a statement on the defense's request for retrial, the public prosecutor described some of the allegations of perversion of the law raised there as correct.
On May 28, 2013, the Penal Enforcement Chamber noted that, due to the complexity of the case, it was not yet able to adequately assess the chances of success of the retrial applications; the put forward reason for the reopening of the false document does not appear to her to be absolutely admissible; therefore she rejects a decision to suspend the execution of the sentence for the time being. Heribert Prantl , a senior SZ editor and lawyer, accused the Penal Enforcement Chamber in a commentary of judicial failure. Defense attorney Strate lodged a complaint with the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg against the failure to decide on the retrial and threatened with a constitutional complaint . When he was unsuccessful, as the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court temporarily decided to wait for the delayed examination of the Regensburg Regional Court, Strate filed a constitutional complaint on July 5, which became obsolete due to the later ruling of the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court of August 2013.
Rejection of the resumption by the Regional Court of Regensburg
On July 24, 2013, the Regional Court of Regensburg rejected the retrial applications as inadmissible.
The court emphasized that the only question that was at stake was whether the proceedings against Mollath, which were finally concluded by the judgment, should be reopened as part of a retrial. Questions of proportionality or the existing or no longer existing danger were not considered in the examination; this is checked by the responsible enforcement chamber in Bayreuth.
Mollath's lawyer Gerhard Strate and the Bavarian Minister of Justice announced on the same day a complaint against the decision at the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court.
Order of resumption by the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court and release
On August 6, 2013, the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court ordered the reopening of the proceedings and Mollath's immediate release following a complaint by the public prosecutor and the defense. The 1st Criminal Senate assessed the certificate , in which injuries to Mollath's wife were attested, as a “ fake document ”, which is a reason for reopening according to § 359 No. 1 StPO. This means that the ruling of the Regional Court of Regensburg, issued in 2006, has no legal force and thus the legal basis for Mollath's placement has ceased to exist. The reason for the decision of the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court was that the name of the practice owner was mentioned in the letterhead and practice stamp in the certificate, although she had not treated Mollath's wife herself. At the time, the court assumed that the certificate came from an experienced doctor, not from her son. The OLG does not accept that it is permissible in business dealings for a representative to sign with the name of the person represented. A certificate is about " highly personal perceptions" of a doctor; there is no admissible substitute here . Since the certificate was of great importance in the first process, there was a reason for reopening. As to the opinion of the regional court, if the document is greatly enlarged, the abbreviation “i. V. "recognizable, the OLG replied that the" i. V. "not to be recognized (neither for the Senate nor for those involved in the main proceedings).
The Nuremberg Higher Regional Court passed the case on to another, new chamber of the Regensburg Regional Court. This familiarized itself with the procedure again and investigated the allegations. Mollath left the psychiatric early evening of August 6 accommodations .
Mollath said he hoped the retrial would result in "complete rehabilitation". In an interview with the SZ, he criticized Justice Minister Beate Merk pretending that he owed her the resumption of his case. On August 26, 2013, Mollath's defense lawyer, Strate, published all psychiatric reports that were available to him and those relating to his clients on his website. Strate wrote in the introduction: "In view of the new discussion about the role of psychiatry, [...] but also to clarify the responsibilities in dealing with Gustl Mollath, a high degree of transparency seems appropriate to us".
The LG Regensburg announced in December 2013 that the retrial against Mollath would start on July 7, 2014; there are 15 appointments until August 14, 2014 in the 6th criminal chamber of the LG Regensburg.
Rejection of the final review of the forced placement by the OLG Bamberg and third constitutional complaint
The OLG responded to the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of September 5, 2013, which, even after Mollath's dismissal for other reasons, had demanded a better weighing of basic rights and alleged danger and a review of the need for psychiatric placement or alternatives, by it declared the review on March 24, 2014 because of the interim dismissal as "procedurally obsolete" and "done" instead of re-examining and consequently correcting or repealing the earlier decisions of the Bayreuth Regional Court and Bamberg Higher Regional Court, which would determine how long Mollath had been unjustly forcibly detained. After unsuccessful objection to the termination, Strate filed a constitutional complaint on April 26, 2014 against the decision of the OLG Bamberg of March 24, 2014, after the original complaint against the decision of the OLG Bamberg and the interim complaint against the OLG Nuremberg, the third constitutional complaint.
Retrial and verdict
On July 7, 2014, the new first-instance main hearing began before the Regensburg Regional Court under the presiding judge Elke Escher; it was scheduled for 17 days and 41 witnesses were summoned to begin. The co-plaintiff Petra M. stayed away from the hearing with reference to her right to refuse to testify .
Mollath's lawyer, Strate, requested " to withdraw the appointment of Professor Norbert Nedopil as a reviewer". His client would not testify in the presence of the expert, whom Mollath had refused to examine. Nedopil therefore prepared a psychiatric statement based on the files and his observations. Without the possibility of assessment, however, the gain in knowledge is small. He therefore also considers the diagnoses of the previous reports to be largely understandable, but in some cases uncertain. Currently, a personality disorder, like a delusional disorder at the time of the marital crisis, cannot be justified with certainty, but it cannot be ruled out either. From his point of view, a dangerousness of the accused could not be proven and a placement according to § 63 StGB was therefore not appropriate.
Mollath's former public defender Dolmany testified that he had been intimidated and threatened by Mollath.
Edward Braun described in detail in court (based on telephone notes that he had made at the time and transferred to an agenda) how Mollath's wife had announced to him that she would "finish off" Mollath and take him to psychiatry through her relationships if he and she and the bank ad. Braun was unable to produce the aforementioned notes himself; its existing entries did not reflect significant parts of its detailed statement. With regard to the black money and the courier trips to Switzerland, he admitted in court that it was “quite possible that my statement to the television team is incorrect”. This was "the script" and a "bit of folklore". This statement, on which he was sworn in, was judged to be untrue by the district court of Regensburg and at the beginning of April 2017, Braun finally sentenced Braun to a suspended prison sentence of 14 months for perjury .
One witness stated that Mollath's wife had told her that she was regularly beaten by Mollath. When Mollath's wife fled to her once, she too was mistreated by Mollath. When Petra M. Mollath wanted to get married, she broke off contact.
Judge Otto Brixner, who was summoned as a witness, admitted errors in his 2006 judgment. He testified that he did not remember the case well and claimed that he had his personal records destroyed when he retired.
On July 23, Mollath's lawyers Gerhard Strate and Johannes Rauwald resigned from their mandate. The court appointed her the same day as public defender. Previously, an expert had declared the tire punctures unprovable and the tire damage not dangerous and the certificate, which was supposed to document Mollath's mistreatment of his wife, had been criticized by an expert as deficient and not according to the standards. The color of the hematomas and strangulation marks are not documented; neither were any photos taken of the injuries. In addition, there were contradictions in the descriptions of the injuries. After further arguments with Mollath, Strate asked for his release. Mollath had claimed that he had not yet had time to discuss further requests for evidence with his lawyers. Strate rejected this representation. Mollath would not be satisfied with an acquittal for lack of evidence. He demanded that the court summon employees of the Hypo-Vereinsbank and various Swiss banks. The aim was to find out whether he ended up in psychiatry as a result of a plot. Strate explained to him why his 30 applications were "crap". The court refused the obligation, as there was no seriously disturbed relationship of trust.
On August 8, the prosecutor and the defense pleaded. Mollath himself read a single written statement - his lawyers had declined to help him prepare it. He affirmed his view of a large-scale conspiracy that led to the highest levels of Bavarian politics, from which there was "unbelievable influence". He submitted numerous requests for evidence, which were rejected by the court as unfounded. Regarding the receipt of numerous criminal charges against those involved in the proceedings (witnesses, experts and judges), the court declared that it was not responsible.
On August 14, 2014, Mollath was acquitted; he was awarded compensation for his forced psychiatric placement. The court considered it proven that Mollath had severely physically abused his then wife in 2001, even strangling her. The presiding judge Elke Escher explicitly pointed out that especially choking to unconsciousness is potentially life-threatening. According to the judgment, however, it is not certain "whether the defendant acted in a state of incapacity or not". Mollath's reduced culpability at the time of the crime is quite possible. The assumption that Mollath had a “delusional disorder” at that time is not far removed. In favor of the accused, therefore, a “inability to control” can be assumed. The court saw no evidence of mental illness . The presiding judge Elke Escher stated that Mollath had wrongly been forcibly placed in psychiatry. The court acquitted him on the charges of deprivation of liberty on May 31, 2002 and of stabbing dozens of tires, as no evidence could be obtained. Mollath's view that his wife and other conspirators had tried to take him to a psychiatric hospital to prevent him from disclosing information about a black money affair, the court found "questionable"; Mollath "only made the allegations public after the separation". The court could not see that Petra Mollath was particularly eager to stress her husband.
Mollath, represented by the Munich attorney Adam Ahmed, appealed against the acquittal. The reason for this was the findings contained in the judgment that Mollath had committed violence against his former wife. With a decision of October 14, 2015, the 1st Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice rejected the appeal because Mollath was not adversely affected by the acquittal judgment . Mollath did not suffer any direct disadvantage.
Mollath's claim for damages
In February 2018, Mollath rejected an offer of damages from the Free State of Bavaria in the amount of 170,000 euros as too low. He referred to a net loss of earnings of 90 months, compensation for pain and suffering and the loss of his house in Nuremberg. After a message from the Bavarian Ministry of Justice that it had "gone to the limits of what is legally possible", Mollath announced that he would sue the Free State before the Munich I Regional Court for damages amounting to 2.1 million euros . Had the lawsuit failed, Mollath would have had to bear the legal costs , which would have exceeded the compensation paid to him up to that point. In fact, Mollath finally sued the Free State of Bavaria for damages and immaterial compensation from official liability starting from 2003 in the amount of 1,779,200 euros, because he had spent a total of 2747 days in various psychiatric facilities. At an appointment on March 20, 2019 at the Munich Regional Court I (Az. 15 O 4267/18), the prospects for success were assessed as largely positive by the presiding judge Frank Tholl. In a judicial settlement , the Free State of Bavaria then undertook to pay Mollath 600,000 euros on November 12, 2019, without recognizing any legal obligation .
literature
- Uwe Ritzer , Olaf Przybilla : The Mollath Affair. The man who knew too much . Droemer, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-426-27622-8 .
- Sascha Pommrenke, Marcus B. Klöckner (ed.): State failure at the highest level: What must change after the Mollath case . With a final word by Gustl Mollath. Westend Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2013, ISBN 978-3-86489-062-8 .
- Gerhard Strate : The Mollath Case: On the Failure of Justice and Psychiatry . Orell Füssli Verlag, Zurich 2014, ISBN 978-3-280-05559-5 .
- Thomas Darnstädt , The judge and his victim: When the judiciary is wrong. Piper, Munich 2013, pp. 291-300 ISBN 978-3-492-05558-1 .
- Eckart Roloff , Karin Henke-Wendt: In the Mollath case, everyone fails: psychiatry, justice and politics . In: dies .: Damaged instead of healed. Major German medical and pharmaceutical scandals. Hirzel, Stuttgart 2018, pp. 171-182, ISBN 978-3-7776-2763-2 .
See also
Web links
Original documents
- gustl-for-help.de - support page for Gustl Mollath (with chronology, original documents and video section, not updated since 2014)
- Documents on the trial against Gustl Mollath on the website of Mollath's lawyer Gerhard Strate
- Bavarian State Parliament: 16th electoral period: Printed matter 16/17741 ( Memento from February 19, 2014 in the Internet Archive ). July 10, 2013 (final report of the Mollath case investigation committee - PDF, 146 pages; 949 kB)
Chronologies
- The Gustl Mollath case ( memento of March 23, 2013 in the Internet Archive ). Extensive dossier from Bavarian Broadcasting .
- Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Chronology of the Gustl Mollath case - Difficult search for the truth. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung online . Status: August 6, 2013 (registration required).
- ABC index. In: gustl-glossar.de. Archived from the original on October 11, 2014 .
- a critical reconstruction of the events at www.ansTageslicht.de/Mollath
- Henning Ernst Müller : Mollath case - some comments on the written grounds for the judgment of the LG Regensburg. In: Beck blog . 20th November 2014 .
Television reports
- The complete interview with the Bavarian Justice Minister Beate Merk on the case of Gustl Mollath / Hypovereinsbank , Report Mainz (ARD) from November 13, 2012
- Video Merk in the ZDF Morgenmagazin (November 28, 2012) in the ZDFmediathek , accessed on January 26, 2014. (offline)
- Report Mainz: Reports December 13, 2011, November 13, 2012, June 3, 2013
- Gustl Ferdinand Mollath in the Internet Movie Database (English)
Radio reports
- BR alpha: Mollath Talk of the Day (MP3; 51.1 MB) on November 30, 2012
- Michael Watzke : A Bavarian Crime - The Gustl Mollath Case . In: Deutschlandradio Kultur . April 5, 2013
- Michael Watzke: The Gustl Mollath case - a hair-raising justice story from Bavaria . In: Deutschlandfunk - " Background " , April 22, 2013
- Wolfgang Heim in an interview with Gustl Mollath - freed forced psychiatric patient in SWR1 - people on August 28, 2013
- Wolfgang Heim's second interview with Gustl Mollath - ex-psychiatric patient and justice victim in SWR1-People from August 22, 2014
Adaptations, fiction and film adaptations
- The detective radio play Grauzone (first broadcast in September 2014) by Südwestrundfunk from the ARD series Radio-Tatort takes some elements of the Mollath case into the plot.
- Documentary Mollath - “And suddenly you're crazy” , directed by Leonie Stade and Annika Blendl , in cooperation with Bayerischer Rundfunk, premiere at the Munich Film Festival 2015, cinema release on July 9, 2015.
- The TV crime thriller Polizeiruf 110: Wetlands (first broadcast November 27, 2016) contains plot elements from the Mollath case.
- The television film Gefangen - Der Fall K. , directed by Hans Steinbichler (first broadcast on February 23, 2018 on arte ), is inspired by the Mollath case. In it Jan-Josef Liefers plays the main character, who bears the name Sebastian "Wastl" Kronach there .
Individual evidence
- ↑ Asked on April 29, 2016 - "Mollath Paragraph" changed. Bundestag resolves higher hurdles for placement in psychiatry. Website for an article in the television magazine Report Mainz . In: swr.de. April 29, 2016, accessed April 6, 2019 .
- ↑ Bavaria pays justice victim Mollath an additional 600,000 euros. In: br.de . November 12, 2019, accessed November 14, 2019.
- ↑ a b The case of Gustl Mollath - Chronology. In: gustl-for-help.de. Gustl Mollath, November 6, 2014, accessed February 23, 2018 .
- ↑ a b c d e f g Monika Anthes and Eric Beres: The Story in the First: The Mollath Case - In the Clutches of Justice, Politics and Psychiatry ( Memento from June 8, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) in Das Erste from June 3 2013
- ↑ Gustl Mollath's ex-wife died. In: sueddeutsche.de. May 30, 2017. Retrieved August 11, 2019 .
- ↑ a b c d Olaf Przybilla , Uwe Ritzer : Case Mollath and Hypo-Vereinsbank - The man who knew too much . In: sueddeutsche.de . November 13, 2012, accessed October 16, 2019
- ↑ a b c d e f Internal Audit Report No. 20546 (PDF, 4.98 MB) of Hypovereinsbank , copy of the Internet Archive (PDF; 245 kB)
- ↑ a b The judgment of the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court (PDF, 7.79 MB) of August 8, 2006 - Az. 7 KLs 802 Js 4743/2003, openJur 2012, 131519
- ↑ Jurisdiction: LG Nürnberg-Fürth, 08.08.2006 - 7 KLs 802 Js 4743/2003. In: dejure.org. Retrieved March 17, 2019 .
- ↑ Beate Lakotta: Justice - "I step out of the rule of law" . In: Der Spiegel . No. 27 , 2013 ( online ).
- ↑ a b c d Christian Rath: Dispute over psychiatric admission: delusion or banking scandal? In: the daily newspaper . December 18, 2011, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Background to the Mollath case - victims of justice or paranoid? In: sueddeutsche.de. November 28, 2012, accessed January 3, 2020 .
- ↑ Daniel Müller: Gustl Mollath - One man, two faces . In: The time . No. 30 , 2014 ( zeit.de [accessed November 16, 2019]).
- ↑ August 6, 2013 - Press release 12/13 corrected version: Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg orders the reopening of the proceedings in the Mollath case. In: justiz.bayern.de. August 6, 2013, archived from the original on August 21, 2013 ; accessed on March 30, 2019 .
- ↑ Gustl Mollath is released. In: sueddeutsche.de. August 6, 2013. Retrieved August 6, 2013 .
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Psychiatrist in the Mollath case - expert opinion from a distance. In: sueddeutsche.de. December 22, 2012, accessed August 24, 2020 .
- ↑ 1557448-2
- ↑ a b c Gerhard Strate: Brief on the declaration of completion of the accommodation (PDF; 11.5 MB) from April 12, 2013
- ↑ a b c Documents on the criminal proceedings against Mollath 2003–2005. (PDF; 2.4 MB) gustl for help, November 9, 2012, archived from the original on April 11, 2013 ; Retrieved April 21, 2013 .
- ^ A b c d Til Huber: Dispute over expert opinion in the Mollath case. In: donaukurier.de . December 5, 2012, accessed February 16, 2020 (updated April 20, 2017).
- ^ Simmerl report , p. 36
- ↑ Statement on the previous reporting period since December 18, 2012. March 4, 2013 ( online ; PDF; 5.0 MB)
- ↑ Ursula Hildebrand, Alexander Schmid: Mollath case: process delay due to unresolved expert question . In: Wochenblatt , October 30, 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2014.
- ↑ Wächterpreis: 17 SZ journalists honored. In: sueddeutsche.de. March 13, 2013, accessed March 29, 2018 .
- ↑ a b c d Innocent in psychiatry? Article in the program Report Mainz on December 13, 2011, article and video accessed on December 19, 2011.
- ↑ Jens Kuhn and Katharina Kistler: The Mollath Case ( Memento from November 18, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) on Bavarian TV - Controversy broadcast from November 15, 2012.
- ↑ a b c Walter von Baeyer Society for Ethics in Psychiatry e. V. (GEP): Circular 2/12 - September 2012 (PDF; 669 kB)
- ↑ Patrick Guyton: How Gustl Mollath cleared up a criminal offense and ended up in psychiatry. In: time online . November 21, 2012, accessed August 9, 2020.
- ↑ Peter Mühlbauer : Black money whistleblowers deported to psychiatry? In: Telepolis , November 13, 2012.
- ↑ bayern.landtag.de: Print 16/10699 from December 14, 2011
- ↑ Note: Gustl Mollath is right in the psychiatry . In: Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung , December 15, 2011.
- ↑ "71. VF, March 8, 2012 “Report by the Bavarian State Minister for Justice and Consumer Protection on the urgency request by MPs Hubert Aiwanger u. a. on the allegations in the Mollath case in the Legal Affairs Committee (PDF; 4.7 MB) on March 8, 2012.
- ↑ Gustl Mollath case - Opposition senses judicial scandal ( memento of November 2, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) of October 31, 2012.
- ↑ Justice Minister Merk sharply rejects allegations of the opposition to the Mollath case: "The legal committee was comprehensively informed". Press release No. 279/12 of the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. In: justiz.bayern.de. October 30, 2012, accessed May 24, 2020 .
- ↑ Confidential special audit report from Hypovereinsbank refutes statements made by the Bavarian Justice Minister Beate Merk (CSU) in the Bavarian state parliament , Report Mainz (ARD) of November 13, 2012.
- ↑ a b c Pitt von Bebenburg: Bank report brings minister in need . In: Berliner Zeitung , November 14, 2012.
- ^ Christian Eckl: Mollath and the death driver - madness in Regensburg . In: Die Welt , August 10, 2013. Retrieved August 15, 2013.
- ↑ a b c Report Mainz: Justice scandal in Bavaria from November 13, 2012.
- ^ Report Mainz full interview with Beate Merk from November 13, 2012
- ↑ Bank scandal uncovered - instructed by his wife. In: Die Welt , November 22, 2012.
- ^ Contradicting statements - Minister of Justice in need of explanation ( memento of December 2, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) of November 14, 2012.
- ↑ Interview with the Bavarian Minister of Justice Beate Merk on the case of Gustl Mollath / Hypovereinsbank from November 12, 2012.
- ↑ Note: Mollath is not a victim of justice . Die Welt on November 28, 2012.
- ↑ Merk: Mollath's placement in psychiatry justified. In: nordbayern.de , November 28, 2012.
- ↑ a b Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Gustl and the black money. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 13, 2012, accessed November 13, 2012 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Now the tax authorities are investigating. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 13, 2012, accessed November 13, 2012 .
- ↑ SWR: The Mollath Case - Why Politics and Justice Failed. REPORT MAINZ from December 4, 2012 from the program Report Mainz from December 4, 2012.
- ↑ Michael Kasperowitsch: A call to the tax authorities stopped the explosive process. In: Nürnberger Nachrichten. November 30, 2012. Retrieved November 30, 2012 .
- ^ Bavarian Television: Justice - The Gustl Mollath Case ( Memento from May 16, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) from November 14, 2012.
- ^ BR Middle Franconia: Gustl Mollath case - "No interest in locking someone up" ( Memento of November 30, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) of November 28, 2012.
- ^ A b Olaf Przybilla, Frank Müller: After placement in psychiatry - Schöffe criticizes Mollath proceedings . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 15, 2012.
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Mollath case - "maltreated and provoked" by the judge . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 24, 2012.
- ↑ Tobias Rudolph: The Gustl Mollath Case - Judicial Scandal or Everyday Court Life? In: rudolph-recht.de. September 21, 2013, accessed August 1, 2018 .
- ↑ a b Jens Kuhn, Uli Hagmann: The Gustl Mollath Case - The Events in Review ( Memento from August 12, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) in BR, August 6, 2013, accessed on August 16, 2013
- ^ Katrin Martin: Plain text in the justice drama Gustl Mollath . In: Münchner Merkur . January 23, 2013
- ↑ Letter from the human rights officer of the Bavarian Medical Association (PDF; 76 kB), Dr. Maria E. Fick to the Bavarian Minister of Justice, Dr. Note in the wording of October 29, 2012.
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Human rights commissioner demands compensation for Gustl Mollath. In: Telepolis . November 23, 2012, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ^ Olaf Przybilla: Case Gustl Mollath - criminal lawyer accuses the judiciary of serious errors. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 18, 2012, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla and Uwe Ritzer: Proceedings against Gustl Mollath - The third man. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 29, 2012, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ a b Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Readers' questions about the Mollath case - “Is he crazy after all?” . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 8, 2012.
- ↑ Peter Mühlbauer: Free voters demand Merk's resignation In: Telepolis, heise online from November 16, 2012.
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Mollath case - stamped as "delusional disorder". In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 16, 2012, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Merk wants to reopen the Mollath case - court checks Mollath's judge. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. November 30, 2012, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Patrick Guyton: New Trial for Mollath. In: Südwest Presse . December 1, 2012, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Beate Lakotta : Gustl Mollath case: Why the judicial scandal isn't one . In: Spiegel Online , December 13, 2012.
- ↑ Anita Blasberg, Kerstin Kohlenberg, Sabine Rückert : Justice scandal: a sick person becomes a hero . In: The time . No. 51, December 13, 2012.
- ↑ Frank Müller, Olaf Przybilla: Bavarian State Parliament - Mollath and the role of the judge. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. February 28, 2013, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ a b Frank Müller, Olaf Przybilla: Mollath case - Justice wants to decide quickly on reopening. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. March 7, 2013, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ^ Sabine Rückert : Justice scandal: Processed away . In: The time . No. 10, February 28, 2013
- ↑ Frank Müller and Olaf Przybilla: Mollath case - Nuremberg justice checks itself. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. March 5, 2013, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Mollath case: Nuremberg's attorney general remains responsible ( memento of March 10, 2013 in the Internet Archive ). In: Bayerischer Rundfunk . March 7, 2013
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Mollath case - “M. = Spinner ". In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. March 3, 2013, accessed June 14, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Lost Past. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. April 8, 2013, accessed April 8, 2013 .
- ↑ a b Beate Lakotta: The other half , Der Spiegel No. 33 of August 12, 2013, p. 45
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Controversial judge with explosive acquaintance. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. April 13, 2013, accessed April 13, 2013 .
- ↑ Frank Müller: U committee on the Mollath case. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. April 11, 2013, accessed April 11, 2013 .
- ↑ Marlene Halser : Hasty finding the truth. In: the daily newspaper . April 17, 2013, accessed April 17, 2013 .
- ↑ First witnesses in the Mollath case. Overload and document errors led to the breakdown. In: Bayerischer Rundfunk , May 14, 2013 ( online ( memento from April 14, 2013 in the Internet Archive ))
- ↑ Uwe Ritzer, Olaf Przybilla: Eviction of Mollath's house probably unlawful. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 16, 2013, accessed June 3, 2013 .
- ↑ A completely irrelevant phone call. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 17, 2013, accessed May 17, 2013 .
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Mollath case: "It's not my judgment". In: telepolis - Heise online . May 18, 2013, accessed May 18, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Richter ignored evidence. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 21, 2013, accessed May 21, 2013 .
- ^ Olaf Przybilla: Mollath case - Nuremberg's strange Rotarians. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. June 4, 2013, accessed June 4, 2013 .
- ^ Ralf Müller: Public prosecutor criticizes judicial errors in the Mollath case. In: Schwäbische Zeitung . June 6, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: When the public prosecutor tells . 6th June 2013.
- ↑ Albert Schäffer: His best lawyer. - The most famous psychiatric patient in the republic appears before the investigative committee of the Bavarian State Parliament as a witness on his own behalf: Gustl Mollath is the best lawyer of himself with precise language and extremely rational. In: FAZ . June 11, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ↑ a b Ingrid Fuchs: Abused by the judiciary. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. June 11, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ^ A b Gustl Mollath before the investigative committee: The accounting. In: Spiegel Online. June 11, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ↑ a b Mollath case puts the judiciary in a bad light - psychiatry inmate testifies before the Bavarian investigative committee in dradio aktuell dated June 11, 2013
- ↑ Lisa Rokahr: Gustl Mollath before the investigative committee "Please no longer this institution" in Stern online from June 11, 2013
- ↑ Mollath settles before committee with justice and psychiatry in the Südwestpresse from June 11, 2013
- ^ Frank Preuß: Was Gustl Mollath mistakenly in psychiatry? in the WAZ from June 12, 2013
- ↑ Bavarian State Parliament: Gustl Mollath settles with justice . In: The time . 11th of June 2013
- ↑ Minister Merk expresses sympathy for Mollath. In: The world. June 14, 2013, accessed August 7, 2013 .
- ^ Opposition calls for Merk's replacement. In: Bayerischer Rundfunk . June 13, 2013, archived from the original on June 16, 2013 ; Retrieved May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Committee of inquiry in the Mollath case - “Everything too general”. In: sueddeutsche.de . June 13, 2013, accessed December 16, 2019 .
- ↑ Bavaria's Minister of Justice Merk blames Mollath. In: Focus . June 14, 2013, accessed May 12, 2014 .
- ↑ I don't see any fault. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . June 14, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Minister Merk expresses sympathy for Mollath. In: The world . June 14, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ The Mollath case is busy with the Bundestag committee. In: Handelsblatt . June 26, 2013, accessed May 13, 2014 .
- ↑ Backing for the expert. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . June 14, 2013, accessed May 13, 2014 .
- ↑ FDP wants to make instruction more difficult - change in law because of Mollath? In: merkur.de. July 9, 2013, accessed February 25, 2018 .
- ↑ Gustl Mollath divides Bavaria's politics. In: augsburger-allgemeine.de . July 10, 2013, accessed March 1, 2018 .
- ^ Bavarian State Parliament: 16th electoral period: Printed matter 16/17741 ( Memento from February 19, 2014 in the Internet Archive ). July 10, 2013 (final report of the Mollath case - PDF; 926 KB)
- ↑ Bavarian State Parliament: Dr. Gabriele Pauli - Speech to the Bavarian State Parliament on the Gustl Mollath case, 132nd plenary session of the Bavarian State Parliament on July 17, 2013: TOP 27 July 17, 2013 (video)
- ↑ Frank Müller, Olaf Przybilla, Andrea Vyslozil: The Mollath Case and Politics - Justice Minister without backing , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 17, 2013
- ↑ Albert Schäffer: “The Mollath Case” in the First - Nobody wanted to know anything about black money in the FAZ online from June 3, 2013
- ↑ Mollath can explain himself - he has been in psychiatry since 2006. Now the state parliament offers him a stage in the world online from June 5, 2013
- ↑ Thomas Gehringer: Gustl Mollath: Only a victim or also a perpetrator? in the Tagesspiegel of June 3, 2013
- ^ The Mollath case - tax investigators carried out raids in April. In: swr.de. June 3, 2013, accessed February 27, 2019 .
- ↑ Otto Lapp: Mollath's ex-wife breaks her silence for the first time . In: Nürnberger Zeitung . June 12th, 2013.
- ↑ Otto Lapp: Mollath's ex-wife speaks for the first time - Before Gustl Mollath's hearing in the investigative committee, Petra M. speaks in: Main-Post . June 11, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ↑ Patrick Guyton: The Gustl Mollath case - Better in prison than in psychiatry in Der Tagesspiegel from June 11, 2013
- ↑ Michael Kasperowitsch: Justice continues to consider Mollath dangerous. In: nordbayern.de . June 13, 2013, accessed March 2, 2018 .
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Mollath case: Police visit CSU member after critical tweet - Beate Merk's security service was on, former wife von Mollath spoke for the first time in telepolis - heise online on June 11, 2013
- ^ A b K. Antonia Schäfer: CSU woman receives a police visit after Mollath tweet. In: welt.de . June 12, 2013, accessed February 8, 2016 .
- ↑ Mollath tweet: Now the police express themselves in: Abendzeitung Muenchen from June 12, 2013
- ↑ The Mollath case - goodbye to the rule of law! In: the Friday of June 12, 2012.
- ↑ Bavarian State Ministry for Justice and Consumer Protection: Justice Minister rejects representations of a tweet by a “Mollath supporter” dated June 11, 2013
- ↑ Beate Lakotta : Gustl Mollath case: The eighth year of psychiatry . In: Spiegel Online , June 12, 2013.
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Mollath stays in psychiatry - scandalous decision . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. June 12th, 2013
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Mollath case: "Senior Public Prosecutor Meindl was not forced to do anything". In: heise.de . June 19, 2013, accessed March 2, 2018 .
- ↑ Mollath case: Seehofer urges the judiciary to hurry. In: sueddeutsche.de . June 17, 2013, accessed March 5, 2018 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Mollath case - strange draft burdens judges. In: sueddeutsche.de . July 17, 2013, accessed March 14, 2018 .
- ^ The "decoration" in the Mollath judgment. Annotated version of the article of the same name in the Nürnberger Nachrichten of June 20, 2013. In: gustl-for-help.de. Retrieved March 24, 2018 .
- ↑ Otto Lapp: Mollath: no evidence in Paris. In: nordbayerischer-kurier.de. June 19, 2013, accessed March 25, 2018 .
- ↑ Mollath: Sick, but no longer dangerous? Conversation with the Mollath expert Professor Hans-Ludwig Kröber, who justifies his expert opinion and accuses Mollath of a lack of cooperation. In: Telepolis . July 4, 2013, accessed March 31, 2018 .
- ↑ spd-landtag.de ( Memento from June 26, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
- ^ Case of Gustl Mollath: lawyer contradicts judge. In: br.de . June 25, 2013, archived from the original on July 27, 2013 ; accessed on April 1, 2018 .
- ↑ Joachim Braun : How the mainstream media manipulate in the Mollath case. In: ankommen.nordbayerischer-kurier.de . June 24, 2013, archived from the original on June 27, 2013 ; accessed on April 17, 2018 .
- ↑ Klaus Rimpel: Because of "honor cut" - Mollath case: Psychiatry-Prof sued Merk. In: tz.de . June 20, 2013, accessed April 17, 2018 .
- ↑ Seehofer urges the courts to hurry in the Mollath case. In: nordbayern.de . June 29, 2013, accessed April 17, 2018 .
- ↑ New statement for Mollath investigation committee: Judge Brixner is said to have spoken of his possible bias himself. In: swr.de. July 4, 2013, accessed June 26, 2018 .
- ^ Minority report - Inquiry committee for the Mollath case. July 9, 2013, accessed May 4, 2018 .
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Mollath case: Bayreuth clinic tries to break free . In: Telepolis . July 5, 2013. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
- ↑ Mollath: Private property is still there . In: nordbayerischer-kurier.de , July 8, 2013. Accessed August 9, 2018.
- ^ Markus Klöckner: Mollath case: Investigations against bank employees? . In: heise online . July 9, 2013. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
- ^ Mollath case: Who is the "generally known" customer? . nordbayern.de. July 10, 2013. Retrieved on 2018-08-2214.
- ↑ Customer left Mollath's ex-wife an inheritance of millions . nordbayern.de. July 10, 2013. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
- ↑ Otto Lapp: Gustl Mollath's ex-wife inherited a fortune herself as a financial advisor . In: nordbayerischer-kurier.de , July 12, 2013. Accessed August 22, 2018.
- ↑ Seehofer: Anger over Bavaria's justice. In: merkur.de. July 17, 2013, accessed March 23, 2019 .
- ↑ I am worried about the public's doubts , sueddeutsche.de of July 18, 2013
- ^ Criminal law reform : Minister of Justice wants to make induction into psychiatry more difficult , zeit.de, July 13, 2013, accessed on October 18, 2013
- ↑ FDP wants to make briefing more difficult: change in law because of Mollath? , merkur-online.de, July 10, 2013, accessed on October 18, 2013
- ↑ BMJV.de: Law to amend the right of placement in a psychiatric hospital in accordance with Section 63 of the Criminal Code , accessed on September 10, 2018.
- ↑ a b spiegel.de: Mollath's tough fight
- ^ New trial in the Mollath case rejected , Berliner Zeitung Online, July 24, 2013, accessed on July 25, 2013.
- ^ A b Albert Schäffer: Gustl Mollath remains in psychiatry . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , July 24, 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2014.
- ↑ Uwe Ritzer: Nuremberg: 500 people demonstrate for Gustl Mollath . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 28, 2013. Retrieved September 8, 2018.
- ↑ Bayerischer Rundfunk from August 2, 2013: Retrial: Lawyers demonstrate for Mollath ( Memento from August 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Mollath case: "The damage to the judiciary is very great" .
- ^ Articles about lawyers in Auckland .
- ^ Daserste.de: Wrongly in psychiatry - the Gustl Mollath case ( Memento from August 17, 2013 in the Internet Archive ). Quote from Mrs. Ziegert Minute 54; Trailer on the role of the reviewer from minute 36:00
- ↑ FAZ: Mollath bei Beckmann: "But that is practice"
- ↑ sueddeutsche.de September 5, 2013: shelved after criticism
- ↑ sueddeutsche.de: Whistling public prosecutors (one comment)
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider: The court rejects criticism of the expert - tutoring in civics , Süddeutsche Zeitung of October 12, 2013
- ^ BR Controversy of April 2, 2014, accessed April 6, 2014
- ↑ Benedikt Jordan and Ursula Gresser: THEMEN DER ZEIT - Court opinion: Often the tendency is given , Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2014; 111 (6): A-210 / B-180 / C-176, accessed April 6, 2014
- ↑ Lisa Schnell, Hanna Ziegert: Psychiatrist on the Mollath procedure - "It is a legal free space" , TAZ of August 14, 2014
- ↑ How Gustl Mollath was targeted by NSU investigators. Sueddeutsche.de, July 15, 2013, accessed on August 8, 2014 .
- ↑ With Mollath as counsel in court ; in: Mittelbayerische Zeitung of March 25, 2014
- ^ Olaf Przybilla : Persilschein from Augsburg. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. June 1, 2013, accessed June 3, 2013 .
- ↑ gam / dpa: Gustl Mollath case: No investigations against those involved in the proceedings. In: Spiegel Online. April 14, 2014, accessed April 16, 2014 .
- ↑ No investigations against ex-wife, doctors, judges. In: Bayerischer Rundfunk. April 14, 2014, archived from the original on April 16, 2014 ; Retrieved April 16, 2014 .
- ↑ Gerhard Strate: Criminal charges - criminal offenses to the disadvantage of Mr. Gustl Mollath (PDF; 950 kB) from January 4, 2013
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: lawyer reports judges and clinic managers for deprivation of liberty . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 7, 2013.
- ^ Mollath case - public prosecutor's office closes investigations ( memento of March 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) in the BR of February 27, 2013
- ↑ StA Augsburg, ruling from 02.26.2013 - 101 Js 100614/13 - openJur .
- ↑ Gerhard Strate: Complaint against the order of February 26, 2013 regarding the non-initiation of preliminary proceedings (PDF; 319 kB) of February 27, 2013
- ↑ Gerhard Strate: Addition to the reasoning for the complaint against the order of February 26, 2013 regarding the failure to initiate investigative proceedings (PDF; 401 kB) of March 26, 2013, p. 33 ff.
- ↑ Peter Mühlbauer: Did judge Eberl unlawfully entrust the Mollath case to the "tough dog" Brixner? In: Telepolis , March 27, 2013.
- ↑ Facsimile of the constitutional complaint on the support side for Mollath. (PDF; 4.2 MB) Retrieved January 10, 2013 .
- ↑ Mollath's forced placement is to be reviewed. In: Die Zeit , November 27, 2012.
- ↑ Frank Müller and Mike Szymanski: Immured in the Palace of Justice . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 28, 2012.
- ↑ Placement in psychiatry: Mollath rejects new report. In: Spiegel Online. February 4, 2013, accessed February 5, 2013 .
- ↑ Gustl Mollath escapes new psychiatric assessment In: Die Welt , February 5, 2013.
- ↑ Press release of the Bayreuth Regional Court on the enforcement case “Gustl M.” ( Memento of December 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), April 8, 2013 (PDF, 233 KB).
- ^ Mollath's accommodation will be decided in April. In: nordbayern.de . April 8, 2013, accessed April 6, 2020.
- ↑ a b Klaus Leipziger, Ines Bahlig-Schmidt: Statement on the reporting period since December 18, 2012 . BKH Bayreuth and order of the Nuremberg-Fürth public prosecutor's office, March 27, 2013 (PDF, 4.76 MB).
- ↑ Psychiatrist still considers Mollath to be dangerous. In: nordbayern.de , April 18, 2013.
- ↑ Marcus Klöckner: Bayreuther Psychiatrie logged telephone calls between Mollath and his defense lawyer in Telepolis - heise online from April 20, 2012.
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Freedom or Psychiatry . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , April 18, 2013.
- ↑ Penal Enforcement Chamber at the Bayreuth Regional Court: Decision of the Bayreuth Regional Court of April 26, 2013, file number 802 Js 4743/03 StA Nürnberg-Fürth (PDF; 1.4 MB) on the website of Gerhard Strate, accessed on June 11, 2013
- ↑ a b Justice postponed decision ( memento of April 12, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) in the BR on April 18, 2013
- ↑ Press release of the Bayreuth Regional Court of 2013-06-12 ( Memento of August 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 243 kB)
- ↑ Bayreuth Regional Court: Gustl Mollath must remain in psychiatry until at least 2014 . In: Spiegel Online , June 12, 2013.
- ↑ Placement in psychiatry - Mollath achieves partial success in court. In: spiegel.de . July 16, 2013, accessed August 12, 2020.
- ↑ sueddeutsche.de / Heribert Prantl July 16, 2013: Correction of a farce (commentary / reception)
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Federal Constitutional Court wants information . June 22, 2013.
- ↑ Uli Bachmeier, Henry Stern: "I am not an iron lady" - Bavaria's Minister of Justice Beate Merk on her approach in the Gustl Mollath case. Interview. In: mainpost.de. June 30, 2013, archived from the original on August 8, 2013 ; accessed on September 19, 2018 .
- ^ BR July 18, 2013 ( Memento from July 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: Press release No. 56/2013 of September 5, 2013 , BVerfG, 2 BvR 371/12 of August 26, 2013 (full text).
- ↑ Reception (all September 5, 2013 and accessed on September 5, 2013): welt.de , faz.net , spiegel.de , zeit.de , sueddeutsche.de ( Memento from September 7, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), focus. de
- ↑ a b c d Uwe Ritzer: Attorney Strate files a new constitutional complaint , Süddeutsche Zeitung of April 28, 2014
- ↑ a b Olaf Przybilla: Case Gustl Mollath - A court refuses. In: sueddeutsche.de. March 29, 2014, accessed December 3, 2018 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Lawyer Strate represents Gustl Mollath. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. December 20, 2012, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Between anger and madness. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. February 20, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ↑ a b c Gerhard Strate: Gustl Ferdinand Mollath's request for resumption against the judgment of the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court (PDF; 1.1 MB), a: p. 3 f., B: fn. 101, p. 135, c: p 5
- ↑ Gabriele Wolff: The Gustl Mollath Case: War of the Roses and Failure of Justice & Psychiatry VIII of February 4, 2013
- ↑ a b Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: Attorney General puts colleagues to silence. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , February 23, 2013.
- ^ Public prosecutor for a retrial in the Mollath case. In: The world . March 7, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ^ Gerhard Strate: Letter to the Regional Court of Regensburg File number: 7 KLs 151 Js 4111/2013 WA of May 1, 2013 (PDF; 136 kB) p. 5
- ↑ Report Mainz : Why Gustl Mollath is still not free - Mollath and the Justice program from June 11, 2013. Minute 4:10
- ^ Mollath case: Will be resumed soon? . In: merkur.de , June 28, 2013. Retrieved October 17, 2018.
- ↑ Markus Klöckner: Mollath case: Nuremberg Higher Regional Court rejects the complaint . In: heise online . June 24, 2013. Accessed October 21, 2018.
- ↑ a b Case Gustl Mollath: Attorney Strate files a constitutional complaint . In: FOCUS Online . July 5, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2018.
- ↑ a b Olaf Przybilla and Uwe Ritzer: Case Mollath - Kuriose Volte , Süddeutsche Zeitung of April 26, 2013
- ^ Olaf Przybilla: The next complaint in the Mollath case , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 5, 2013
- ↑ Old certificate discovered - turning point in the Mollath case? In: merkur.de . July 11, 2013, accessed October 29, 2018 .
- ↑ Otto Lapp: Mollath case: reason for resumption is shaky. In: nordbayerischer-kurier.de. July 11, 2013, accessed October 20, 2018 .
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla, Uwe Ritzer: “New facts” based on a newspaper report? In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 13, 2012.
- ↑ Patrick Guyton: Error of Justice - Hope for Gustl Mollath. In: tagesspiegel.de . December 13, 2012, accessed January 18, 2020.
- ↑ a b Public Prosecutor's Office Regensburg: application for reopening by the public prosecutor's office in the sense of Gustl Mollath from March 18, 2013 on the website of Gerhard Strate (PDF; 8.49 MB), page 256 f.
- ↑ Reopening application of the Regensburg public prosecutor in the Mollath case , press release 3/13 of the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court of March 18, 2013.
- ↑ Olaf Przybilla: Public Prosecutor requests resumption. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 18, 2013.
- ↑ Gerhard Strate: Press release on criminal matters against Gustl Mollath (PDF; 14 kB) from May 28, 2013
- ↑ Heribert Prantl: When mistakes scream to heaven. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 31, 2013, accessed June 3, 2013 .
- ^ Olaf Przybilla: Justice in the Gustl Mollath case - lawyer Strate files a complaint. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 31, 2013, accessed June 12, 2013 .
- ^ Decision of the LG Regensburg in the retrial in Mollath . Regional Court of Regensburg, July 24, 2013. Retrieved July 24, 2013.
- ↑ a b Gustl Mollath must remain in psychiatry in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 24, 2013
- ↑ Higher Regional Court Nuremberg, decision of August 6, 2013 - 1 Ws 354/13 WA - openJur .
- ↑ Press release 12/13 of the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court of August 6, 2013. justiz.bayern.de, accessed on August 6, 2013.
- ↑ Henning Ernst Müller: Gustl Mollath free! Regarding the decision of the Higher Regional Court Nuremberg and some open questions . In: beck-blog , August 6, 2013. Accessed on January 22, 2014. Quote: "The medical certificate is a personal certificate for which the substitute rules of legal business theory simply do not apply."
- ↑ Albert Schäffer: The legal magnifying glass swept aside . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , August 6, 2013. Accessed January 22, 2014.
- ^ Resumption of the Gustl Mollath case: Two letters brought Mollath freedom , Spiegel Online from August 6, 2013, accessed on August 6, 2013.
- ↑ Uwe Ritzer: Mollath wants to keep fighting . 7th August 2013.
- ↑ SZ print edition of August 8, 2013; the interview can also be read / accessed online for SZ subscribers. Merk published the following press release on August 6th . See also SZ August 6, 2013: The cynical sentences of Beate Merk
- ^ Proceedings against Gustl Mollath (status: April 27, 2014). In: strate.net. Gerhard Strate, 2014, archived from the original on November 13, 2018 ; Retrieved on November 13, 2018 (The original page is continuously updated. The information in the article is based on the documents linked in the archived version.).
- ↑ Legal notice on the publication of documents from criminal proceedings (PDF; 16 kB)
- ^ Gerhard Strate: Verfassungsbeschwerde , strate.net of April 26, 2014
- ↑ Beate Lakotta: Regional Court Regensburg: The new trial against Gustl Mollath , SPON from July 6, 2014.
- ↑ Thierry Backes, Ingrid Fuchs, Elisa Britzelmeier and Anna Fischhaber: The process begins with a dispute over the Mollath expert , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 7, 2014.
- ↑ Thierry Backes and Ingrid Fuchs: "Morally that's not okay" , sueddeutsche.de, July 7, 2014.
- ↑ Annette Ramelsberger: Psychiatrist without fear , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 9, 2014.
- ^ Comment by Heribert Prantl : New proceedings in the Mollath case - reparation for merciless sloppiness , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 6, 2014.
- ^ Mollath - penetrating, but not disturbed . Central Bavarian, July 25, 2014.
- ↑ Beate Lakotta: Ex-defender in the Mollath trial: "I was really scared". In: spiegel.de. July 10, 2014, accessed December 3, 2018 .
- ↑ a b Beate Lakotta: Witness in the Mollath Trial: As learned by heart , SPON of July 10, 2014, cf. The couple's friend accuses ex-wife of a plot , picture from July 10, 2014; Reporting with original sound in Bavaria 5.
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider : friend of Gustl Mollath convicted of perjury. Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 5, 2017, accessed on April 6, 2017 .
- ↑ Beate Lakotta: Witnesses in the Mollath trial: "I had his hands on my neck" , SPON from July 14, 2014.
- ↑ Ingrid Fuchs: Brixner's testimony in the Mollath trial - Richter Ahnungslos , SZ from July 17, 2014.
- ^ Richter does not want Mollath's pity , Mittelbayerische Zeitung of July 17, 2014.
- ↑ Ingrid Fuchs: Scandal in the Mollath trial - the defendant wants to be the accuser. In: sueddeutsche.de. July 23, 2014, accessed July 31, 2019 .
- ↑ Ingrid Fuchs: Reviewer considers tire repair shops to be undetectable , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 23, 2014.
- ^ Trial against Gustl Mollath - expert sees no evidence of mistreatment , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 18, 2014.
- ↑ a b Zoff in the courtroom - Mollath defense attorneys want to quit , BR of July 28, 2014.
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider: The court decides - Mollath defense lawyers must stay , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 28, 2014.
- ↑ a b c Ingrid Fuchs: Gustl Mollath - The defendant has the floor , Süddeutsche Zeitung of July 28, 2014.
- ↑ spiegel.de August 8, 2014: Pleading in Regensburg: Mollath's difficult hours
- ↑ FAZ.net: Now it should be good for once (Mollath wants a first class acquittal)
- ^ Ingrid Fuchs, Anna Fischhaber: Pleadings in the Mollath Trial - Public Prosecutor considers Mollath guilty . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , August 8, 2014.
- ↑ The Chief Public Prosecutor dismantles Mollath's every application . In: Die Welt , August 8, 2014.
- ^ Court awards Mollath compensation , Der Standard, August 14, 2014.
- ↑ Beate Lakotta: third class acquittal . In: Der Spiegel . August 18, 2014 ( (SPON) ).
- ↑ Judgment: Mollath acquitted despite being assessed as a violent criminal . In: Abendzeitung , August 14, 2014.
- ^ Trial in Regensburg: acquittal for Gustl Mollath . In: Spiegel Online , August 14, 2014.
- ^ Christian Eckl: Mollath does not get a first class acquittal . In: Die Welt , August 14, 2014.
- ↑ Ingrid Fuchs: Despite acquittal in the retrial: court sees accusation of bodily harm confirmed . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , August 14, 2014.
- ↑ Albert Schäfer: Mollath does not agree with his acquittal . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , August 22, 2014.
- ↑ Gustl Mollath fails with an appeal at the BGH , Süddeutsche Zeitung of December 9, 2015.
- ↑ Az. 1 StR 56/15, NJW-Spezial 2016, 57.
- ^ Justice victim Mollath demands 2.1 million euros from Bavaria. , Spiegel online from March 1, 2018
- ↑ Maximilian Gerl: Justice Victim - Mollath threatens Bavaria with a million dollar lawsuit. In: sueddeutsche.de. March 1, 2018, accessed December 13, 2018 .
- ↑ Appointment notice in the official liability proceedings Gustl Mollath ./. Free State of Bavaria. Press release 03/2019. Regional Court Munich I, March 13, 2019, accessed on March 15, 2019 .
- ↑ Justice victim Mollath can hope for high compensation . 20th March 2019.
- ↑ Gustl Mollath receives 600,000 euros
- ↑ Movie about Gustl Mollath. In: sueddeutsche.de. May 6, 2015, accessed April 18, 2019 .
- ↑ Harald Keller: The moralist as a troublemaker. In: fr.de . February 23, 2018, accessed February 13, 2019 .
- ↑ David Denk: TV film about the Mollath case - "I got into an absolutely unbelievable story". In: sueddeutsche.de. September 10, 2018, accessed April 9, 2019 .
| personal data | |
|---|---|
| SURNAME | Mollath, Gustl |
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES | Mollath, Gustl Ferdinand (full name) |
| BRIEF DESCRIPTION | German self-employed person and victim of justice |
| DATE OF BIRTH | November 7, 1956 |
| PLACE OF BIRTH | Nuremberg |