Mariotti trials

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The criminal justice building in Hamburg, where Eva Mariotti was tried three times between 1963 and 1965.

The Mariotti trials were three criminal trials before the Hamburg Regional Court between 1963 and 1965. Eva Mariotti, who was accused of being involved in a robbery in 1946, was indicted in each trial . The first trial ended with the court issuing a suspension order that resulted in the trial being broken. In the second Mariotti process, the defendant was found guilty and to a lifelong imprisonment sentenced - the judgment was by the Federal Court , however, canceled. In the third trial, Eva Mariotti was finally acquitted . The trials attracted considerable attention from the West German public.

The defendant

Eva Maria Mariotti was born Eva Maria Stiebeck on December 24, 1917 in Prague . She grew up as the child of wealthy parents in Prague and married a certain Nemecek at the age of 18. The marriage ended in divorce after ten months, but had a daughter. After the " smashing of the rest of the Czech Republic " and the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia , she came to terms with the occupation authorities and traded in antiques. During this time she was with a certain Dr. Kunze engaged. As the Red Army approached , she helped to bring the antiques from the Czech Republic to Germany and ultimately fled to Hamburg . After the war she wanted to leave Germany for South America , which was only possible for family members of citizens of Allied countries immediately after the end of the war . So she married the French André Mariotti, who was active in the black market . One of his business partners was the widow Moser, who later became the murder victim.

Shortly before the body was found, Eva Mariotti had left Hamburg for Esslingen am Neckar with an acquaintance, Erich Sterba. She wanted to travel from there to Switzerland . However, she and Erich Sterba were picked up behind the border and deported to Germany a few days later . Eva Mariotti and Erich Sterba now parted ways: he went back to Czechoslovakia , she first lived under a false name in Munich and then in Paris . In 1951 she emigrated to South America with her mother and daughter. She first set up a fashion shop in La Paz , but left Bolivia again in 1953. After living in Buenos Aires for a time , she moved to Brazil ; there she lived under different names in Rio de Janeiro and finally in São Paulo . There she lived under the name Sylvia Sousa-Leith. In 1960 she was recognized by a German-Brazilian from a picture in the Neue Illustrierte . She was arrested by Brazilian authorities on the basis of an international arrest warrant and extradited to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1961 .

After the trials, Eva Mariotti received DM 200,000 in  compensation and moved to Gran Canaria , where she opened a craft shop in Vecindario . In 1972 she fell off a ladder and was the victim of medical malpractice in a subsequent operation . She then suffered from constant pain and had to use crutches. She wanted to go to Germany for further treatment, but since her passport had expired, she was refused entry. In 1979 she died lonely and impoverished.

did

On June 28, 1946, the dentist widow Maria Moser was murdered in her apartment, Loogestieg 8, fourth floor, in Hamburg-Eppendorf . Her body was found on June 30, 1946 with green glass shards in her hair and around her head in a pool of blood in the kitchen of the apartment. Larger shards could not be found, but the stopper of a bottle or a carafe . The autopsy revealed skull injuries that indicated exposure to a blunt object, but these were not directly causative of the death. The cause of death was rather a strangulation with a red cloth that was still around the neck of the dead.

Mrs. Moser was a wealthy widow of a former dentist at the court of the Greek king , who had been able to increase her wealth on the black market of the post-war period . She had a relationship with Eva Mariotti, who was later accused of murder.

Eva Mariotti had left Hamburg on June 28, 1946 together with an acquaintance, the Czech Erich Sterba, initially for Eßlingen am Neckar . She later traveled to South America after stays in Munich and Paris .

Investigations

The Criminal Investigation of Hamburg had the murder a shortage of experienced detectives, as many detectives as part of the time denazification had been dismissed as charged. As a result, forensic evidence was only insufficiently carried out. The officers assumed that the kitchen was the scene , other rooms in the apartment were only glimpsed. A list of the valuables found in the apartment was omitted, so that it was difficult to determine to what extent something was stolen by whom and when. The traces of blood in the kitchen were recorded but not photographed. It was not possible to clarify whether the bloody shoe print was caused by the officers or the perpetrator. It was also not possible to reconstruct later whether there was a bloody impression of a woman's shoe.

The man, who left Hamburg with Eva Mariotti in 1947, was arrested while attempting to leave Czechoslovakia illegally . He confessed to the Czechoslovak authorities that he had killed the widow Moser, but at the instigation of Mrs. Mariotti, who was also the main culprit. In 1950 he was sentenced for this by the district court in Mährisch-Ostrau . According to the legal principle ne bis in idem , Sterba could not be charged again because of the conviction and punishment that had already taken place. It therefore had a significance comparable to that of the key witness for the trials against Eva Mariotti .

Processes

The trial against Ms. Mariotti was opened three times before the jury court of the Hamburg district court. Gerhard Mauz compared this to "an execution with the hand ax , in which the hangman 's nerves fail". At the time, the jury was still made up of three professional judges and six lay judges . The job of the lay judges was and is not comparable to that of an American jury , which only has to decide on guilt and innocence, while the professional judge then speaks the verdict; Rather, lay judges in German criminal procedure law were and are on an equal footing with professional judges in reaching a verdict and were able to overrule the professional judges at the jury due to the necessary two-thirds majority due to the composition of six lay judges to three professional judges. Today there are only two lay judges with three professional judges at jury courts, so that it is no longer possible to overrule the professional judges there. At the lay judge's court (two lay judges with one professional judge) it is still possible to overrule the professional judge.

Eva Mariotti was defended in all three lawsuits by the then 31-year-old lawyer Bernhard Servatius , who would later hold an important position at Axel Springer AG . Allegedly, Servatius owes the mandate of confusion with Robert Servatius , the defense attorney in the Eichmann trial . The ultimate success in these proceedings became the basis for his fame as a lawyer, even if he appeared in only four criminal cases in total. After the trials, Eva Mariotti said: “Dr. Servatius was the only person I still believed in during all those difficult years. He always gave me courage. ” Eva Mariotti was very affected by the trials and pre- trial detention . Already at the end of the second process she was described as a broken woman who was no longer able to control her mind and limbs and who looked like she was 65.

First trial in 1963

The main hearing for the first murder trial against Eva Mariotti was opened on July 3, 1963 under the chairmanship of the district court director Kurt Steckel. Steckel was born in 1901 and completed his legal studies with the first state examination at the age of 22 . He then began his legal clerkship and in 1927 became a public prosecutor at the Königsberg regional court . During the Second World War he was also a prosecutor at the special court in Königsberg . From February 1945 to April 1945 he was seconded to the People's Court as a prosecutor . After the war, Steckel worked in the housing department in Hamburg until 1947, before becoming an assistant judge in October 1947 and a judge for life and district court director in March 1948 . Steckel's conduct of negotiations in the Mariotti trial was perceived as sharp.

Eva Mariotti testified and denied the alleged act. When she stuck to her statements, the witness Erich Sterba was unexpectedly called on the afternoon of the first day of the trial. Before the appeal, only the chairman of the court and the representative of the prosecutor's office knew that Sterba would appear to testify. Sterba testified that he and Mrs. Mariotti robbed and murdered the widow Moser.

The first trial against Eva Mariotti before the Hamburg Regional Court did not end with a judgment, but with a decision to prove that a subtenant of the murdered person should still be identified and questioned, as well as the decision to suspend the proceedings. This ending came as a surprise to the press. The background to this decision, which led to the failure of the first trial, should a juror over the loud message tabloids have been that over the proceedings of the aldermen Schwurgerichtes Eva Mariotti acquit , but the three professional judges they wanted to condemn. A vote on the question of guilt therefore resulted in a majority in favor of an acquittal , whereupon Steckel declared this to be a trial vote. Kurt Steckel, however, denied this version.

Second trial 1964

On Monday, February 24, 1964, the second trial of Ms. Mariotti began. At the beginning of the main hearing there was a considerable crowd. The presiding judge was the then regional court director Ehrhardt. Wolf-Dietrich Ehrhardt, born in Münster in 1913, had passed his second state examination in law in 1938 and entered the judiciary in 1946. He was later to be President of the Hamburg Regional Court from 1972 to 1980. Associated with him were two other district court directors as professional judges as well as a senior administrative director, a machine fitter, a typist, a teacher, a plumber and a locksmith as lay judges.

The second murder trial lasted two weeks. 65 witnesses were heard. The defendant denied the crime and testified, but with some inaccuracies got entangled in contradictions that severely shook her credibility. On the day the verdict was pronounced, there was such a rush of spectators that only part of the public could be admitted because the hall did not have enough seats. On March 12, 1964, Eva Mariotti was sentenced to life imprisonment and loss of honor by the jury for collective murder and serious robbery .

In December 1964 the judgment was overturned by the 5th criminal division of the Federal Court of Justice . Eva Mariotti's defense had given seven reasons for the appeal . A formal error was sufficient for the Federal Court of Justice to overturn the conviction. Before the main hearing was opened, the professional judges inspected the crime scene and made a record of this. These minutes were not included in the main hearing, but were used as the basis for the judgment. Gerhard Mauz described this as a "flat-footed form defect"; Rudolf Augstein called it in a discussion of Vera Brühne's retrial, “a gross formal defect”.

Third trial in 1965

The third trial, which began on March 31, 1965, was led by the then 45-year-old district court director Heinrich Backen, the rapporteur was district judge Peter Rieß , who had already taken part in the decision-making process in the second Mariotti trial. In addition to the three professional judges, a trade teacher, two housewives, a local councilor, a works council and a commercial clerk were appointed as jury members. The conduct of the negotiations by Chairman Backen was described as calm and friendly.

If the defendant had testified in the two previous trials, this time her defense attorney explained for her that she denied the crime, but would not make any further statements. This was recommended in this form by the defense. The witness Sterba testified again. He had contradicted himself over forty times, but stuck to the essence of the statement that he was instigated by Mrs. Mariotti. According to his statement, he had hit the widow Moser from behind with a chair leg he had brought with him when she was playing the Ave Maria on the harmonium in a bay room . Eva Mariotti strangled the widow. After the fact, the victim was dragged through the hallway of the apartment into the kitchen. The court was supposed to arrange an on-site visit in the former apartment of the widow Moser. The interrogation of Ms. Moser's former subtenant, who had seized various valuables after her death, turned into an unusual episode: the witness stated that his civic existence, which had now been built up, would be endangered if his actions at that time were again dragged into the public eye. The court asked the journalists not to mention the name of the witness. In the tabloid press there was a headline: “The court allowed itself to be put under pressure. Mariotti witness threatens suicide ”.

Events during the pleading by the public prosecutor's office caused a stir in the third trial . The plea was planned for two days. On the first day, Chief Public Prosecutor Heinrich Hellge, who dealt with the silence of the accused, among other things. He interpreted it to the disadvantage of the defendants, as this indicated that Ms. Mariotti had something to hide. On the 21st day of the hearing, the public prosecutor Zöller spoke and dealt with Sterba's statements. When Attorney General Hellge was supposed to plead again after him, a gentleman from the audience spoke up. The chairman gave him the floor. It was about Ernst Buchholz , Hamburg's attorney general at the time . Contrary to the lecture of the Chief Public Prosecutor the day before, he declared: “ The accused must be able to exercise his right to silence without risk and without fear. If, as she claims, the defendant Mariotti did not commit the crime, her silence would also be psychologically understandable. “According to his own statements, he wanted to preserve the liberal reputation of his agency by making this public statement. Nevertheless, after a brief interruption, the chief public prosecutor applied for life imprisonment. This public intervention by a public prosecutor during the public hearing is a unique process in the legal history of the Federal Republic. The defense's plea lasted six hours. The defense attorney Bernhard Servatius spoke free, only supported by a sheet with key words.

On July 14, 1965, the verdict was announced, it was an acquittal . The judgment was justified with serious contradictions in Sterba's statements. The on-site visit also revealed that the corpse would have had to be pulled through a long and narrow hallway if Sterba's testimony was to be believed. However, this does not match the location of the tracks. The district court left it open whether the silence could be used against the accused; in any case, an approach recommended by the defense should not be used against her.

Processes in the media

General public

Gerhard Mauz wrote in 1965 on the occasion of the third Mariotti trial:

“In 1963 and 1964, the Mariotti trials made headlines for weeks. The piece was over too much. The jury, three men, three women, know it as the three judges know it, although none of them in 1963 and 1964 were directly involved and undoubtedly wanted to enter the matter as freshly as a blank sheet of paper. The Mariotti - that sounds like "the Callas ", like "the Tebaldi "; everyone switches to reception. "

At that time it was already pointed out at the first trial that a hearing 17 years after a robbery was rather unusual. The fluctuation of the aversions in the press and the public was described as just as “sensational” as the case itself: If both were initially set against Eva Mariotti, the aversion turned to the disadvantage of the chairman of the court. Even before the main hearing was opened, Stern had published a description of the course of the crime, which was based unilaterally on statements by Erich Sterba. The Bild newspaper published a picture of the witness Sterba and one of the defendants Ever from 1946 during the first trial on July 9, 1963. While he was described as ready to do anything for the woman he loved, it was over she wrote that she was blonde, cool, calculating. She abuses him for her goals . Image titled on July 10, 1963: Acquittal for Eva Mariotti? , and also showed on page 2 a picture of the celebration of the 40th service anniversary of the presiding judge with the comment: Mariotti judge celebrated his anniversary yesterday - the day before the judgment. On page 3 there was a picture of the accused slumped in the arms of a guard after the closing remarks. The Hamburger Morgenpost suspected following the decision to suspend the proceedings that was still strongly suspected to be interviewed former lodger fact, the picture newspaper even had a reward for the capture of the alleged volatile subtenant awarded . The man then had to take temporary police protection.

In 1964, Helmut Schmidt criticized the reporting on the Mariotti trial. Both the portrayal of the accused in the press at the beginning of the trial, which was treated like a convicted person, and the later switch to portrayal as innocent before the verdict was pronounced, would have impaired judicial independence. The prejudice was also criticized in other ways during the period .

The second Mariotti process was in 1964 in the time of witch trials compared and called "witch trial in 1964".

Forty years after the Mariotti Trials, Die Welt still described the third Mariotti Trial as an absolute sensation .

In the 1970 television series Right or Wrong , the Marrotti trial was portrayed in two episodes . The script came from Robert Adolf Stemmle , who also directed , the role of Mariotti was played by Maria Becker . The broadcast about the Mariotti case was extremely authentic, statements were taken verbatim from trial protocols, scenes were based on original recordings, the leading actress was dressed like the defendant. Like the entire series that dealt with errors of justice , the SWR broadcast was intended to provide suggestions for reforms in criminal law. In the series Justizirrtum! First broadcast in early 2005 and co-produced by NDR and Radio Bremen . The Mariotti case was also dealt with under the title Murder on the Ave Maria by Raymond Ley . According to the Berliner Zeitung , this series was worth seeing, even if the contributions were less based on their own research and were designed as a staging. In the world it was written that the series was only slightly more sophisticated than documentaries about so-called "true crimes" on private channels; especially in the episode Murder on Ave Maria , the game scenes are "embarrassingly naive". The Tagesspiegel judged that in view of the murder scene recreated in different variations, one was happy about the late broadcast date. The documentary filmmaker Jörg Kunkel and the historian Thomas Schuhbauer published an accompanying book for the 2005 series.

Professional public

As a result of the appearance of the Attorney General during the pleading in the last Mariotti trial, an expert discussion arose on the question of the usability of the silence of a defendant in the main hearing. The debate was opened by an article by the Federal Prosecutor Max Kohlhaas in the German judge newspaper . In this essay, Kohlhaas criticized the attorney general's behavior on the one hand and also contradicted Buchholz's view on the other, legally. In Kohlhaas' view, the denial of the act should be a partial admission, the silence was incomplete and thus accessible to judicial assessment of evidence. Buchholz exposed himself to the risk of putting himself in an embarrassing position with his surgery without a robe , he also caused a “moral devaluation of the meeting representative” and thus caused general damage to the public. In the legal review, the public prosecutor Hans Fuhrmann took up Kohlhaas' criticism of Buchholz. In Fuhrmann's view, a defendant's right to refuse to testify is limited to a complete refusal to submit any submissions. In all other cases, like that of the Mariotti, the principle of free assessment of evidence must be maintained, everything else is alien to life. Before making his statements about the legal situation, Buchholz should have assured himself that such a high representative of the judiciary owed his office. Buchholz's view was shared by Gerhard F. Kramer, one of his predecessors in the public prosecutor's office, who accused Kohlhaas of relying on an outdated version of the law and the supreme court rulings on it. In 1964 the so-called “minor reform of criminal procedure law” came about, which was part of a lengthy reform process of criminal and criminal procedural law.

With a decision of August 29, 1974, the 4th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice decided the legal issue to the effect that the silence of a defendant should not be used against him if he was otherwise only denying the act. The 5th Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice followed suit in 1992 and decided:

“However, if the defendant admitted partially, his silence on individual questions may be used against him (BGHSt 20, 298; 32, 140, 145; BGH at Dallinger MDR 1968, 203). A partial admission in this sense is not given if the accused merely denies his guilt in principle. "

literature

  • Raymond Ley : Murder in the "Ave Maria" - The case of Eva Maria Mariotti . In: Jörg Kunkel, Thomas Schuhbauer: Justizirrtum !: Germany in the mirror of spectacular misjudgments . Campus, Frankfurt am Main 2004, ISBN 3-593-37542-7 , pp. 53-93.
  • Gerhard Strate : The twenty-first day of the Mariotti Trial - in memory of Attorney General Ernst Buchholz in: Albers u. a. (Ed.), Law and Jurists in Hamburg, 1995, p. 153 ff. ( Online version with additions )
  • Gerhard Mauz : Execution with the ax , in: Gerhard Mauz, The great processes of the Federal Republic of Germany (edited by Gisela Friedrichsen ), zu Klampen, Springe 2005, ISBN 3-934920-36-5 , pp. 129–135; first published under the title Gerhard Mauz: Stick, Stab, Stuhlbein or whatever . In: Der Spiegel . No. 24 , 1965 ( online - June 9, 1965 ).

Web links

  • MARIOTTI PROCESS, Nice fight, PRESS . In: Der Spiegel . No. 29 , 1963 ( online - 17 July 1963 ). Quote: "The professional judges of the jury court wanted to convict the accused, the jury wanted to acquit Eva Mariotti"

Individual evidence

  1. a b c d e Ruth Herrmarm, Mrs. Knorr knows everything , Die Zeit issue No. 9/1964 of February 28, 1964.
  2. ^ Dierk Strothmann, Eva Maria Mariotti: A volatile life , Hamburger Abendblatt, July 14, 2007.
  3. Raymond Ley , Murder on the "Ave Maria" - The case of Eva Maria Mariotti . In: Jörg Kunkel, Thomas Schuhbauer: Justizirrtum !: Germany in the mirror of spectacular misjudgments , pp. 72–75.
  4. ^ Anne K. Strickstrock: On the trail of serial killers , Bergedorfer Zeitung , September 12, 2009.
  5. ^ Bettina Mittelacher, Eva Mariotti - a life drama in court , Hamburger Abendblatt from February 20, 2006.
  6. Raymond Ley: Murder in the "Ave Maria" '- The case of Eva Maria Mariotti . In: Jörg Kunkel, Thomas Schuhbauer: Justizirrtum !: Germany in the mirror of spectacular misjudgments . Pp. 54-55.
  7. a b c d e f Gerhard Mauz , execution with the ax , in: Gerhard Mauz, The great processes of the Federal Republic of Germany (edited by Gisela Friedrichsen ), to Klampen Verlag, Springe 2005, ISBN 3934920365 , pp. 130/131; first published under the title Gerhard Mauz: Stick, Stab, Stuhlbein or whatever . In: Der Spiegel . No. 24 , 1965 ( online - June 9, 1965 ).
  8. ^ Gerhard Mauz : Execution with the ax . In: Gerhard Mauz: The great processes of the Federal Republic of Germany (edited by Gisela Friedrichsen ), to Klampen Verlag, Springe 2005, ISBN 3934920365 , p. 129; first published under the title Gerhard Mauz: Stick, Stab, Stuhlbein or whatever . In: Der Spiegel . No. 24 , 1965 ( online - June 9, 1965 ).
  9. a b c d e f g h i j k Gerhard Strate , The twenty-first day of the Mariotti Trial - in memory of Attorney General Ernst Buchholz
  10. Raymond Ley: Murder on the "Ave Maria" - The case of Eva Maria Mariotti . In: Jörg Kunkel, Thomas Schuhbauer: Justizirrtum !: Germany in the mirror of spectacular misjudgments , p. 76.
  11. Handlebars and servants of the house , Die Welt, April 14, 2007.
  12. The media strategist behind the scenes , Die Welt, April 13, 2007.
  13. Gerhard Mauz , Ten Pounds of Rhubarb , Der Tagesspiegel of April 14, 2002.
  14. a b In case of doubt against the woman , Die Zeit , edition No. 14/1964 of April 3, 1964.
  15. Gerhard Mauz: Remember us with indulgence . In: Der Spiegel . No. 20 , 1992 ( online - May 11, 1992 ).
  16. a b c d e Trial without judgment , Die Zeit issue No. 29/1963 of July 19, 1963.
  17. a b c Mariotti Trial: Nice fight . In: Der Spiegel . No. 29 , 1963 ( online - 17 July 1963 ).
  18. Jürgen Franke, In honore robur (obituary for Wolf-Dietrich Ehrhardt on the homepage of the Hamburg Judges Association)
  19. a b Probability and Truth , Die Zeit issue No. 12/1964 of March 20, 1964.
  20. a b c d e Duel of the prosecutors in the courtroom , Die Welt, July 3, 2005.
  21. a b Rudolf Augstein: The many columns of the judge Seibert . In: Der Spiegel . No. 18 , 1970 ( online - 27 April 1970 ).
  22. a b c d e f Ruth Herrmann , Des Morddramas third act , Die Zeit from June 18, 1965.
  23. ^ Mariotti Trial . In: Der Spiegel . No. 27 , 1965 ( online - June 30, 1965 ).
  24. a b Joy and Wood . In: Der Spiegel . No. 29 , 1965 ( online - 14 July 1965 ).
  25. Hans-Dieter Otto , Das Lexikon der Justizirrtäne , Ullstein-Verlag, 2003, ISBN 3548364535 , p. 135.
  26. ^ Gernot Facius, Servatius is 80 years old , Welt Online from April 14, 2012.
  27. Possible mosaic , Die Zeit issue 30/1965 of July 23, 1965.
  28. Gerhard Mauz , execution with the ax , in: Gerhard Mauz, The great processes of the Federal Republic of Germany (edited by Gisela Friedrichsen ), to Klampen Verlag, Springe 2005, ISBN 3934920365 , p. 129 f .; first published under the title Gerhard Mauz: Stick, Stab, Stuhlbein or whatever . In: Der Spiegel . No. 24 , 1965 ( online - June 9, 1965 ).
  29. a b c Which women are "unsympathetic"? , Die Zeit issue No. 14/1964 of April 3, 1964.
  30. ^ Helmut Schmidt , Privilegien und Oblichten der Presse , Die Zeit issue No. 5/1964 of January 31, 1964.
  31. Trial Marrotti (Part 1) in the Internet Movie Database (English) , Trial Marrotti (Part 2) in the Internet Movie Database (English)
  32. According to templates . In: Der Spiegel . No. 42 , 1970 ( online - 12 October 1970 ).
  33. "Justizirrtum! (2) Murder at Ave Maria" (information from Nordmedia) ( Memento of the original from March 9, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.nordmedia.de
  34. ^ Rainer Braun, When the murderer wasn't the murderer , Berliner Zeitung of January 3, 2005.
  35. ^ In case of doubt against the accused , Die Welt, January 3, 2005.
  36. ^ In front of the court , Der Tagesspiegel of January 3, 2005.
  37. Review by Parnassus .
  38. a b Gerhard F. Kramer, The Rights of the Defendant , Die Zeit No. 40/1965 of October 1, 1965.
  39. ^ DRiZ 1965, 29.
  40. Hans Fuhrmann, The Silence of the Defendant in the Main Trial, JR 1965. pp. 417–419.
  41. ^ Ulrich Eisenhardt , Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte , 3rd edition, CH Beck, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-406-45308-2 , Rn. 782-783a, in particular marg. 783.
  42. BGH 4 StR 171/74 , BGHSt 25, 365 (368) = NJW 1974, 2295
  43. BGH judgment of May 26, 1992, Az. 5 StR 122/92 , BGHSt 38, 302 (308) = NJW 1992, 2304 = MDR 1992, 792.