NSU trial

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The place of the trial: The criminal justice center at Nymphenburger Strasse 16 in Munich

The NSU Trial was the criminal case against five persons who were accused in the crimes of the extreme right-wing terrorist group National Socialist Underground (NSU) involved to have been, including nine murders of migrants , a policeman murder , two bomb attacks and 15 robberies and 43 attempted murders .

The main hearing took place from May 6, 2013 under the chairmanship of Manfred Götzl before the 6th Criminal Senate of the Munich Higher Regional Court with over a hundred participants. The taking of evidence ended in July 2017, the pleadings in June 2018. The court sentenced the companion of the two perpetrators, the right-wing terrorist Beate Zschäpe , to life on July 11, 2018 for complicity in these acts and membership in the NSU terrorist organization and serious arson Imprisonment. Ralf Wohlleben , Carsten Schultze, Holger Gerlach and André Eminger were different because ofSentenced to aiding and abetting prison terms of between ten and two and a half years. On January 17, 2019, the verdict against Schultze was the first to become final when the defendant withdrew his appeal. With two decisions of August 12, 2021, the appeals of the defendants Zschäpe, Wohlleben and Gerlach were rejected, with Zschäpe with a slight change in the guilty verdict that did not change the life imprisonment imposed on them. In the Eminger case, at a main hearing on December 2, 2021, the appeals by the defendant and the Federal Public Prosecutor General were rejected with a judgment of December 15, 2021 (see #judgment at the end).

Process framework

Place of jurisdiction and costs

Security precautions and media interest on the day the trial begins in front of the entrance for the co-plaintiffs

The place of jurisdiction was in Munich, as the NSU had committed five murders in Bavaria and the Munich Higher Regional Court has a state security senate , the 6th criminal senate responsible for this area  . The main proceedings of the criminal proceedings against Zschäpe and the four co-defendants took place in the criminal justice center at Nymphenburger Strasse 16, near Stiglmaierplatz , in Munich- Neuhausen-Nymphenburg ( ). The courtroom A 101, with 250 seats, the largest of the Munich Justice, was rebuilt for safety and capacity reasons. Additional rooms and security checks were set up, and the co-plaintiffs' seats were provided with microphones. A simultaneous interpreting system, which is unusual in German courts , was installed; the statements of the co-plaintiffs were projected onto screens for visitors and press representatives. A secured waiting area has been set up for visitors on the forecourt. An average of 57 visitors came on each day of the trial, an estimated 24,500 by May 2018. World icon

In May 2018, the cost of the procedure was estimated at 28 million euros, including around 23 million in legal fees and 1.25 million for the preparation of the courtroom and 2.7 million in administrative costs, for example for paramedics and security services. In October 2018, the President of the Higher Regional Court, Peter Küspert, named costs of 30 to 37 million euros only for the preliminary investigation.

accused

The Munich Higher Regional Court declared the National Socialist Underground to be dissolved on January 7, 2013, before the trial began. As a result, the defendant Beate Zschäpe received relief from prison, whereupon her lawyers withdrew their objection to the indictment.

Zschäpe and four supporters were accused. Zschäpe had to answer for complicity in ten murders , particularly serious arson and founding and membership in a terrorist organization , among other things .

The other defendants were charged with:

Since their arrest, Zschäpe (November 8, 2011) and Wohlleben (November 29, 2011) have been in custody . From September 13, 2017, Eminger was also in custody because of the high sentence that the federal prosecutor's office demanded for him. The latter two were released from custody after the verdict was announced. Ten separate investigative proceedings are ongoing for possible further NSU members and supporters (see review of further criminal offenses ).

judge

The court had five professional judges and three supplementary judges . The presiding judge was Manfred Götzl . He had previously directed proceedings such as the Rudolph Moshammer murder case and the proceedings against the war criminal Josef Scheungraber . After that, in December 2018, he became the first Vice-President of the Bavarian Supreme Regional Court (BayObLG), which had been re-established three months earlier .

The other judges were:

Federal prosecutor's office and accessory prosecution

The prosecuting attorney general at the Federal Court of Justice initially sent four, later three representatives. Federal Prosecutor Herbert Diemer (* 1953) had led the investigation from the start. Chief Public Prosecutor Anette Greger was responsible for Zschäpe, and Chief Public Prosecutor Jochen Weingarten was responsible for the other defendants. They were supported by public prosecutor Stefan Schmidt.

60 lawyers represented the 95 co-plaintiffs . These included Mehmet Daimagüler , Angelika Lex , and Alexander Seifert . Many engaged in witness interviews and research, some represented politically left-wing or explicitly migrant concerns, others tried to speed up the process. In October 2015 it became known that an alleged victim of the Cologne nail bomb attack, who had been represented as a joint plaintiff by lawyer Ralph Willms, did not exist; he was sentenced to repay over € 211,000 to the judicial coffers and was charged with fraud. In January 2018, sister Süleyman Taşköprüs withdrew from the proceedings as a joint plaintiff because her representative had denied the investigative authorities' institutional racism and described the evidence against Ralf Wohlleben as insufficient.

Ancillary plaintiffs submitted 154 motions, some of which led to essential findings. Numerous applications on the role of the offices and authorities were rejected, including the one on the destruction of files in the NSU departments. Therefore, the judge Götz was accused of having successfully prevented the in-depth investigation into the role of the authorities.

defender

The five defendants were represented by initially eleven and later fourteen defense attorneys . Zschäpe initially had three public defenders , the lawyers Wolfgang Heer , Wolfgang Stahl and Anja Sturm . Heer has been defending Zschäpe since the beginning of the preliminary investigation, Stahl and Sturm initially joined in as defense counsel in mid-2012 and continued their involvement in November 2012 when the Federal Prosecutor's Office rejected an application for two further public defenders suggested by Heer, referring to the complexity of the proceedings. Stahl and Sturm were appointed further public defenders in December 2012. After the break with her previous lawyers and 215 days of negotiations, Beate Zschäpe was additionally assigned the Munich-approved lawyer Mathias Grasel , who had previously advised her, in July 2015 . In December 2015, Grasel's colleague Hermann Borchert joined as the fifth (elective) defense attorney. The “fragile construction” of two defense teams working side by side caused the proceedings to stall again and again (see defense crisis ).

Wohlleben was represented by Wolfram Nahrath , Olaf Klemke and Nicole Schneiders , who are known as lawyers from the right-wing scene and who underlined this in the proceedings, for example with applications for evidence on the alleged murder of Rudolf Hess or on the demographic determination of the allegedly threatened "death of the people" of the Germans through foreign infiltration . Klemke in particular made a name for himself in the course of the proceedings. The less prominent defense counsel for the defendants Eminger, Gerlach and Schultze exercised more cautious influence. In March 2018, Eminger failed with the attempt to have the right-wing scene lawyer Björn Clemens assigned as the third public defender , in April he briefly presented another defender with Daniel Sprafke .

Journalist accreditation

When it came to the accreditation of journalists, the presiding judge Götzl initially proceeded according to the greyhound principle , whereupon the 50 press seats were soon allocated and no foreign, especially Turkish media representatives were allowed to take part in the process. The Federal Constitutional Court decided the process because of the special importance that the seats in the lottery were awarded newly. The start of the process in April was therefore postponed by three weeks to May 6, 2013. A total of 927 journalists were accredited.

Left rally and neo-Nazi actions

Before the trial, a demonstration against right-wing extremism and as a sign of solidarity with the bereaved took place in Munich in April 2013 (here on the Stachus ).

On April 13, 2013 - four days before the originally planned start of the trial - seven to ten thousand people , organized by two hundred left-wing groups, demonstrated in Munich “against Nazi terror, state and everyday racism”. In addition to a survivor of the Mölln arson attack, the widow of the NSU murder victim Theodoros Boulgarides and her co-plaintiff in the NSU trial, Angelika Lex, spoke . They pointed out that education is the most important concern of the loved ones. It was the largest anti-racist demonstration in Munich in twenty years.

In the evening, the building of the Bavarian Refugee Council was allegedly damaged by neo-Nazis . On April 16, neo-Nazis distributed leaflets in front of the courthouse demanding Wohlleben's release (“freedom for wool”) and calling the trial a “ show trial ”. For the content of the leaflets in which denigrates journalists and the judges in the language of Nazism as " system judges were designated" which drew Free Network South responsible. After the start of the trial, there was a presumably right-wing extremist series of property damage in Munich, including to Lex's law firm and migrant aid institutions.

Process flow

Overview data

The main hearing began on May 6, 2013 and dealt with an extensive network of actors and events that had dragged on for fourteen years. The indictment consists of 488 pages, the investigation results of the federal prosecutor's office 650 files. By July 2014, the case files contained over 486,000 pages, which were expanded once or twice a month with supplementary deliveries of several hundred pages in some cases. At the end of the process, the files contained 1200 folders.

The taking of evidence was not always linear given the complexity of the matter. The court reporter Annette Ramelsberger made the following focal points: In the first year it was mainly about the ten murders and two accused explosive attacks by the NSU, which were shaped by the presence and statements of relatives and victims. In the second year, the possible government involvement in the NSU complex, in particular the constitutional protection and the police, came into focus. In the third year, the taking of evidence on the 15 robberies accused was completed. From 2015 the process became increasingly slow. The preoccupation with Zschäpe's change of defense lawyer, the testimony and the subsequent months-long written questionnaire as well as the more than half a year preoccupation with her psychological report and two counter-reports delayed the proceedings. The time that followed was marked by further requests for evidence from defense attorneys and accessory prosecutors, while the Senate had completed its trial program. According to Ramelsberger's assessment, the judges allowed this in order not to provide a reason for an appeal .

A total of 541 witnesses and 46 experts were heard and 264 requests for evidence were made, 154 of them by accessory prosecutors, some of whom provided essential information, for example about Zschäpe's presence at a synagogue observation in 2000 or her help with the creation of the third confessional video . Many applications were rejected, including those relating to the destruction of files related to the NSU . A total of 776 charges were made, several times for some people. 333 of the summons can be traced back to the indictment - the Federal Prosecutor did not request any further interrogations in the process; 190 summons were issued from the Senate, 33 from co-plaintiffs, 37 from defense lawyers Wohlleben, 3 Zschäpes and 1. The defense lawyers of the other defendants made no motions. 13 Constitutional Protection employees, mainly from Thuringia and Hesse, were heard, as well as 8 V-persons - only one V-man was questioned on the initiative of the Federal Prosecutor's Office ( Tino Brandt ). Applications to summon two more V-men closely related to NSU were rejected, namely Michael See (code name “Tarif”) and Ralf Marschner (code name “Primus”). 43 people were included in the Jena prehistory of the NSU trio, 23 people during the early days of diving in Chemnitz , but hardly during the long Zwickau underground period, which NSU Watch describes as an investigation error; A total of 20 neighbors of the NSU trio were questioned, 19 of them from Zwickau. The 310 people summoned directly related to the NSU crimes, 53 of them related to the nail bomb attack in Cologne and 26 each related to the two most complex and mysterious murders of Halit Yozgat and Michèle Kiesewetter , while other murders in the NSU series of murders in particular - also due to the lack of witnesses - barely were treated. Of the 43 requests for bias against the court, Zschäpe's defense lawyers made 9, Eminger's 10 and Wohlleben's 24; the only successful person was additionally represented by an accessory prosecutor against Zschäpe's expert Joachim Bauer . According to NSU-Watch, around forty days of negotiations were canceled due to requests for bias alone .

Refusal to give evidence, confessions and evidence

Zschäpe, Wohlleben and Eminger made use of their right to refuse to testify before the main hearing . As the only defendant, Carsten Schultze was ready to give a comprehensive testimony. On June 4, 2013, he confessed to having been involved with Wohlleben in the procurement of a Česká zbrojovka type firearm with a silencer for Mundlos and Böhnhardt, which put a heavy burden on Wohlleben. The nine murders in the NSU series of murders were committed with a weapon of this type. The statement made it possible to assign an explosives attack in Nuremberg in 1999, presumably to Mundlos and Böhnhardt, which was not negotiated in the process for "procedural reasons". Co-defendant Holger Gerlach confessed on June 6, 2013 to having organized passports and a driver's license for Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos. Gerlach admitted to having deposited 10,000 euros for the trio at his place of residence in Lauenau, Lower Saxony . For this he apologized in a read-out statement. In earlier interrogations he had stated that he had perceived Zschäpe as an equal part of the trio; she is "assertive" and "not a guy who would subordinate". He did not allow inquiries during the entire course of the process.

For further evidence, the prosecution largely relied on circumstantial evidence; In just a few months, the investigators had evaluated over 7000 pieces of evidence and over 1000 testimony, which the former Federal Prosecutor Harald Range described as "Herculean work" and, according to Tanjev Schultz, was prone to errors . Most of the right wing witnesses summoned to court said they could not remember anything. Sometimes they revealed that they did not take the court seriously or despised it. None of them was sanctioned for this by regulatory means . The physical evidence such as confessional videos and weapons were often more productive. In the Paulchen Panther video sent by Zschäpe after November 4, 2011 , the NSU confessed to the murder and explosives, but did not provide any information about the identity of the perpetrators. The perpetrators had never left fingerprints or DNA traces at any crime scene and were never observed during the ideologically motivated acts. The assignment to Mundlos and Böhnhardt was made through testimony and evidence. In the immediate temporal and spatial context of various NSU acts, witnesses observed two fair-skinned and blond men with bicycles. For some robberies and for the Keupstrasse attack, images from surveillance cameras show the perpetrators (without revealing their faces). In the burned-out mobile home and in the rubble of the burned-out Zwickau apartment of the NSU, the investigators found incriminating objects, including the murderous weapons, some with DNA adhesions from Mundlos and Böhnhardt and with cases and projectiles that prove the handling of these weapons. The apartment contained media reports (newspaper clippings, TV recordings) and spying documents (such as city maps with markings and location sketches) as well as pants with DNA traces of Mundlos' and blood splatters from Michèle Kiesewetter in the apartment . Vehicles were rented for the periods of the crime under the aliases of the trio and its supporters, and members of the trio were identified by the rental companies.

Since Zschäpe - with the exception of the arson on November 4, 2011 in Zwickau - could not prove that he had personally committed a crime and that it was not present at the crime scenes, the legal assessment of their role was controversial. The Federal Prosecutor's office based its assumption of complicity in the NSU crimes on Zschäpe's central function as a "magic hat" in the background, in particular giving alibis and maintaining the bourgeois facade through everyday contact with neighbors and outsiders as well as managing the finances. Therefore, Zschäpe should be seen as an equal member of the terrorist group. Similar arguments were made in the trials against the RAF if a presence at the scene of the crime could not be proven, even if the Federal Court of Justice has not yet recognized the legend as a case group of complicity. The criminal lawyer Claus Roxin expressed doubts about Zschäpe's complicity; the category for their behavior would remain supportive allowance with mandatory mitigation. In addition, Zschäpe's involvement in keeping the media archive through fingerprints, recordings of television programs on NSU acts and adaptations of the confessional video could be made likely - and her participation in the spying on the Berlin Synagogue Rykestrasse in May 2000, presumably as a potential target.

Defense Crisis

On July 16, 2014, Zschäpe withdrew the confidence of her defense lawyers. The court suspended the process. Two days later, she submitted a written statement. This did not contain any detailed allegations that would suggest a long-term broken relationship of trust, which is why the process was continued and Zschäpe's "Wall of Silence" initially remained unchanged. The arguments between Zschäpe and her lawyers shaped the entire further process.

On the 209th day of the hearing in June 2015, Zschäpe filed an application for indemnification against defender Sturm. Zschäpe was of the opinion that they had made confidential information public, had not been adequately prepared, had put them under “massive psychological pressure” and had not passed on important information to the other defense lawyers. Sturm rejected the allegations as well as army and steel. Zschäpe commented on this in a four-page letter and declared in a Post Scriptum that she was willing to testify, but her lawyers had announced that they would not defend her any further. The lawyers contradicted Zschäpe's account. The Higher Regional Court rejected Zschäpe's application for release from obligations, as a disruption of the relationship of trust had not been sufficiently proven. At the beginning of July 2015, however, the Zschäpe court assigned Mathias Grasel as the fourth public defender , who was supported by the criminal defense lawyer Hermann Borchert, and from December 2015 as a further elected defense attorney. The Senate rejected an appointment as the fifth public defender in February 2016.

On July 20, 2015, the defense lawyers Heer, Sturm and Stahl applied for the exemption from obligation because they no longer considered a "proper defense" to be possible. The federal prosecutor's office and joint plaintiffs' attorneys opposed the obligation. The higher regional court rejected the application. On July 21st, Zschäpe requested that He be recalled. The public prosecutor at the Munich I Regional Court announced on July 24, 2015 that Zschäpe had reported her three former defenders for violating private secrets . The public prosecutor closed the investigation because they did not consider any criminal offense to be fulfilled.

In October 2015, Wolfram Nahrath , one of Wohlleben's defense lawyers, requested that the proceedings be suspended and his client's custody lifted, as Zschäpe's proper defense was no longer guaranteed. Zschäpe followed suit. The higher regional court rejected the application. Heer, Stahl and Sturm were incorporated and took part regularly and actively in the negotiation, even after the dispute in summer 2015. The lack of communication was insignificant.

Admissions of Zschäpe and Wohlleben

Zschäpe initially kept her silence and, during the gathering of evidence, even when the murder and explosive attacks were dealt with and the victims' relatives were heard with sometimes emotional appeals, often acted uninvolved and “hypothermic to callous”, according to Spiegel Online . According to a report by Norbert Nedopils from April 2015, the silence became increasingly difficult for her. It was only on the 211th day of the hearing in June 2015 that she responded briefly to the chairman's question as to whether she was on the matter.

On December 9, 2015, Zschäpe expressed himself for the first time in the NSU trial through a 53-page statement read by her defense lawyer Mathias Grasel . She denied that she was involved in the murders and attacks and that she was a member of the NSU, which was just an idea Mundlos'. She confessed to having set fire to the apartment in Zwickau and apologized to the victims and relatives. Their statements, especially their stylization as weak and dependent, are generally assessed as not very credible. The Federal Prosecutor described Zschäpe's statement in the closing lecture as a "strategy of an adapted partial silence"; the “obvious divergences to incriminating evidence” therefore indicate Zschäpe's guilt.

On December 16, 2015, Ralf Wohlleben got down to business. He himself read a nearly two-hour statement in which he denied having obtained the pistol used in the murder. Instead, he accused the co-defendant Carsten Schultze, who had incriminated him at the beginning of the trial. The subsequent survey of Wohlleben continued until January 2016. Wohlleben's statements were also widely described as untrustworthy. Zschäpe and Wohlleben did not accuse each other and presented themselves as victims in the ongoing process. Wohlleben's statement, according to Annette Ramelsberger , had a clear tactic that his appearance was cleverly staged. Several neo-Nazis - apparently informed in advance - were present, including the right-wing terrorist Karl-Heinz Statzberger .

In the course of 2016, the Zschäpe court submitted further questions, which she answered in writing and had her lawyers read out. On September 29, 2016, she read a brief statement in the courtroom for the first time, in which she reiterated her apology and stated that she had distanced herself from “nationalist ideas”. The observers agreed that Zschäpe had remained formulaic and abstract and had "explained nothing".

Psychiatric report

Henning Saß , appointed by the court as a psychiatric expert , who was present for long stretches of the main hearing, gave his opinion on Zschäpe on January 17 and 18, 2017. He described the subject as “fully culpable”; there was no evidence of a relevant mental disorder or of addictive alcohol consumption. He does not recognize a “weak personality”, as Zschäpe tried to describe in her statements. Rather, it is characterized by a willingness “to fight self-assertion, to an almost hostile perseverance and to successfully endure massive interpersonal conflicts”. She says she is superior to men - which has also been confirmed by various testimony - and has a "tendency towards dominance, toughness, assertiveness". Sat recommended subsequent to the sentence due to ongoing danger preventive detention .

Zschäpe's defense lawyers tried to shake the conclusions of the expert opinion, among other things by declaring Zschäpe about her emotional dismay, which she was only unable to show because of her previous strategy of silence. In March and April 2017, the defenders had a methodological criticism of Saß's report by Pedro Faustmann . The new defenders brought a counter-opinion by Joachim Bauer into the process, with whom Zschäpe, unlike Saß, had spoken. This expert opinion attested that Zschäpe had a severe dependent personality disorder and, accordingly, a reduced culpability according to § 21 StGB due to previously unknown details from childhood and violent relationship with Uwe Böhnhardt . Bauer's report was widely viewed as inadequate forensically. It was astonishing that Bauer offered his report to the world for publication and complained about the "burning of witches" by Zschäpes. At the request of several co-plaintiffs and the federal prosecutor's office, the court rejected Bauer in July 2017 because of concerns about bias.

On July 18, 2017, the taking of evidence came to an end after 373 days of trial.

Pleading

The Federal Prosecutor's Office began on July 25, 2017 with their approximately 22-hour plea . She stated that the charges against Zschäpe had essentially been confirmed; As a founding member of the NSU terrorist organization, she was complicit in their acts. As a sentence, the Federal Prosecutor's Office for Zschäpe demanded life imprisonment and the determination of the particular gravity of the guilt as well as subsequent preventive detention; She applied for twelve years imprisonment for Wohlleben, five years for Gerlach and three years for Carsten Schultze. For Eminger, who was previously at large, she demanded the high sentence of twelve years, whereupon the court ordered pre-trial detention due to the risk of escape.

The concluding lectures of the co-plaintiffs began on November 15, 2017 and ended on February 8, 2018. 50 of the 60 co-plaintiffs planned their pleadings together, which were designed to last at least 55 hours, the longest being Mehmet Daimagüler with five hours. Several coordinated their presentations, some victims' relatives spoke themselves. As an example, the widow of the Dortmund kiosk operator Mehmet Kubaşık , Elif, said that "my questions were not answered" in this process, including about possible helpers, the selection of victims and knowledge of the authorities. She concluded with the sentence: “We are part of this country and we will continue to live here”. According to Lotta, the closing lectures made "the historical role and social relevance" of the court proceedings clear by illuminating the way in which the NSU is embedded in the personal and ideological network of the right-wing extremist scene and, in particular, criticizing the Federal Prosecutor's Office's limitation to the trio. Many demanded that this process should not be an end.

On April 25, 2018, the defense lawyers began to plead with the new lawyers Zschäpes, Borchert and Grasel. They did not consider Zschäpe guilty of being an accomplice in the murders and attacks, but only involved in the robberies and responsible for the explosion of the last NSU apartment, and they demanded a prison sentence of no more than ten years. Schultzes' defense lawyers pleaded for acquittal because their client had no idea that the firearm that was procured would be used to kill people. Eminger's lawyers demanded an acquittal, while Gerlach's lawyers demanded a low sentence; both assumed that the NSU only existed until 2007. Wohlleben's lawyers also demanded acquittal for their client and used their closing lectures to spread Nazi propaganda . The pleadings ended on June 22, 2018 with those of the former defenders Zschäpes, who only declared them guilty of simple arson and demanded immediate release from custody.

The last words of the defendants on July 3, 2018 contained "nothing new" according to the private prosecutor Peer Stolle.

verdict

The Senate announced the verdict on July 11, 2018. Beate Zschäpe was sentenced to life imprisonment as an accomplice in the murders and bomb attacks, for membership in a terrorist organization and for serious arson. The court determined the particular gravity of her guilt. The assumption of complicity was based on Zschäpe's great self-interest in the NSU acts because of their "xenophobic and subversive" ideology and on the concept of the commission developed jointly with Böhnhardt and Mundlos: The ideologically founded acts are to have the greatest possible public effect Achievement, initially waived a confession in order to later achieve “the final goal of the series of attacks” through self-accusation at a self-chosen or forced point in time, namely to reveal its ideological orientation and at the same time destroy further evidence by demolishing the apartment. According to the agreement, Zschäpe always stayed at the apartment during the crime so that, in the event of a blow, he could take the necessary steps to achieve the crime target - and implemented them from November 4, 2011. Therefore, their contribution to the crime is “indispensable” and “not of a subordinate nature” - according to Tanjev Schultz, a “complicated construction” that lawyers can keep busy in practice and research for a long time to come.

The four co-defendants as NSU helpers were each sentenced to imprisonment, Wohlleben to a prison term of ten years. He was guilty of assisting the murder in nine cases by acquiring the weapon used in the series of murders against migrants together with Carsten Schultze. Schultze was sentenced to three years of youth imprisonment for aiding and abetting murder on nine counts. Schultze had confessed to handing over the Ceska pistol to Mundlos and Böhnhardt and to Wohlleben's involvement. The sentence corresponded to the demands of the Federal Prosecutor's Office, which assessed his educational aid and the admission of guilt positively. Schultze was the only defendant whose remorse appeared credible to the families of the murder victims. During the trial, he expressed his “deep sympathy” for the incalculable suffering and injustice that the NSU had done to the victims and their families; “I have no words to describe how I feel about it”. Gerlach was found guilty of supporting the NSU terrorist organization and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He had admitted that he had given the NSU trio a weapon and helped those in hiding with false papers. Eminger was also sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment for support, but was not found guilty of complicity in attempted murder and robbery, as the federal prosecutor had demanded - with a sentence of 12 years imprisonment. He was released on the same day from pre-trial detention, which the court found no longer proportionate, which caused cheers among the neo-Nazis present in the audience. His defense lawyer had described him as a "National Socialist with skin and hair".

Enver Şimşek's son , Abdulkerim, with his lawyer Seda Başay-Yıldız after the verdict was pronounced at a no -draw event in Munich

Many relatives and victims of the NSU acts were disappointed, especially about the, in their eyes, unexpectedly mild prison sentences for Wohlleben and Eminger. The court reporter Annette Ramelsberger commented that the verdict left the impression that repentance is not worthwhile, but silence; the neo-Nazi scene celebrated the judgment on Eminger as their victory. On the other hand, Tanjev Schultz spoke of a “tremendous achievement” despite criticism of Götzl's technocratic judgment; the victims have been rehabilitated and at least some guilty parties have been identified. The verdict was accompanied by demonstrations in German and Austrian cities. Around 10,000 people called for further clarification under the motto “ No closing line” . The Turkish government criticized the “unsatisfactory” verdict, as the connections to the authorities had not been adequately identified; The end of the proceedings was not an important issue in the Turkish press. Some relatives announced that they would continue to pursue state liability suits that had already been filed (see further legal proceedings ).

The defense lawyers of all five defendants appealed against the judgment, the federal prosecutor's office only with regard to Eminger. The victims' family of the 2001 attack were the only co-plaintiffs authorized to revise the law to refrain from revising Eminger. On July 17, 2018, the court decided to release Wohlleben from pre-trial detention, as there was no longer any risk of escape given the amount of the remaining sentence. The court submitted the written judgment on April 21, 2020 - one day before the expiry of the deadline, which according to Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been 93 weeks in accordance with the length of the proceedings. The judgment comprises 3,025 pages, the appendices 44 files. The joint plaintiffs 'representatives criticized in a joint statement that the Senate had not addressed the suffering of the victims' families on the 3,025 pages of the reasons for the judgment. Lawyers accused him of the fact that the verdict was a much shortened form of evidence, negated the right-wing terrorist network of helpers, concealed the failure of the constitutional protection authorities and showed no interest in helping to establish the truth in the NSU complex.

On January 17, 2019, the verdict against Schultze was the first to become final when the defendant withdrew his appeal. He was subsequently imprisoned.

With two decisions of August 12, 2021, the 3rd Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (3 StR 441/20) rejected the appeals of the defendants Zschäpe, Wohlleben and Gerlach, with a slight change in the guilty verdict: she was an accomplice in case 24 (murders of April 4 and 6, 2006 in Dortmund and Kassel) not guilty of murder in two cases, but of two uniform cases of murder (in an offense with membership in a terrorist organization) as well as in case 2 (attack on a supermarket in Chemnitz on 18 December 1998) of attempted murder in unity with particularly serious predatory extortion and with attempted predatory extortion (not: attempted robbery) resulting in death.

In the André Eminger case, a main hearing on the appeals of the defendant and the Federal Public Prosecutor General was held on December 2, 2021 , and both appeals were then rejected by judgment of December 15, 2021.

reception

The NSU trial has been described as the most important criminal trial since reunification and the largest and most costly that has been brought against neo-Nazis in Germany . The court reporters of the Süddeutsche Zeitung saw the proceedings in a row with the Nuremberg trials , the Auschwitz trials and the RAF trial . Annette Ramelsberger characterized the process as a “deep drilling into German society” and “a look into the abyss”; it shows "a panopticon of the German post-reunification period with all faults and all errors".

The process was barely received in the legal literature; Critical voices predominated, warning against emotionalising and politicizing the criminal procedure and seeing the neutrality of the law and the rights of the accused in jeopardy, while advocates of critical legal doctrine see the procedure in connection with social power relations and as a starting point for the demand for institutional racism to make the subject of jurisprudence. The political dimension of the case, which was being dealt with in NSU investigative committees at the same time , could not be split off, especially since the state actors in the proceedings certainly made political decisions on the approval of statements or the inspection of files. In order to enable a discussion of right-wing terrorism, this criminal procedure is particularly suitable because it reaches the public better than the difficult-to-understand parliamentary investigations.

The conduct of the negotiations by the presiding judge Götzl, who was characterized as meticulous and impulsive, caused criticism at the beginning, as he was accused of lacking sensitivity in the allocation of media spaces and the questioning of victims' relatives. In the course of the trial, respect for his thoroughness increased, among other things, during the examination of witnesses and for his authority in the courtroom. In addition, he opened the proceedings in accordance with the demands of the secondary prosecution for the investigation of behavior by the authorities and neo-Nazi networks. The investigation and negotiation of the federal prosecutor have been criticized because they are early set at the three-perpetrator theory and local networks with right-wing extremists and tangles with authorities and their V-people have largely ignored. She refused to carry out further investigations and access to the files. On the other hand, the Federal Prosecutor's Office objected that they had limited themselves to their mandate to bring charges against them that were criminally relevant. The co-plaintiff, Alexander Kienzle, criticized the Federal Prosecutor's Office for creating a forensic truth with an impact on follow-up litigation. During the closing lectures, court reporters debated the meaning of the accessory prosecution. While Gisela Friedrichsen attacked them as the “fifth wheel on the car”, which disrupted the “balance between defense and prosecution” and had no influence on the verdict, Frank Jansen defended them against the accusation of delay: They had contributed a lot; “Liberality and staying power” are elements of the rule of law that are worth preserving. As a mediator, Annette Ramelsberger spoke of the fact that the co-plaintiffs were perceived as "sand in the gears" and that they brought another, sometimes aggressive, front into the proceedings, but also the most important evidence. The accessory lawsuit in the NSU trial was also not oversized.

Media coverage was hampered by the length and complexity of the process. At the beginning of the process, according to Nanett Bier, superficial to discriminatory terms such as “NSU show” or “Zschäpe bride” dominated. By fixating on Zschäpe as a person, Hans Leyendecker saw the danger of ignoring the actual scandals. The media scientist Tanja Thomas cited the NSU process blog at Zeit Online and NSU-Watch as an example of closer inspection . Overall, lessons learned from the language patterns of the first few weeks, as reflected by the journalists 'reflections and the sensitization of the victims' relatives. On the other hand, a linguistic analysis found that both actors in the process and its reporter continued the we / your dichotomy linguistically, which had criminalized and marginalized those affected prior to the NSU's self-exposure. In Greece, the trial was increasingly noticed because of the simultaneous trial against the Golden Dawn party ; The initially great interest in the Turkish media decreased and was largely suppressed by speculation about a deep state in Germany.

According to Tanjev Schultz , the process quickly tired outsiders and made them wonder whether it was worth the great material and psychological costs. Özlem Topçu and Frank Jansen explained the dwindling interest of the public after the initial "charisma" had died down on the one hand with the long duration, so that the tension could not have been sustained. On the other hand, they pointed to the changed social climate due to the refugee crisis in Germany in 2015/2016 and the shift in the discourse to the right. Jana Hensel summed up that the choice of the place of the court made the trial an “empty space in the consideration of the East”: the media had limited themselves to the western perspective; for the media and politically marginalized East, the process has fallen out of sight - “and maybe the East was okay with it”. Frank Jansen described the length of the process as torture, especially for the victims and members of the NSU acts, Annette Ramelsberger pointed out that as the public's concentration decreased, knowledge was being forgotten and conspiracy theories on the NSU complex threatened to gain the upper hand . Heribert Prantl replied that the rule of law needs time to thoroughly establish the truth.

literature

The Börsenblatt published a literature review in July 2018.

Process observer

Associate Prosecutor

  • Mehmet Daimagüler : Indignation is not enough! Our state has failed. Now it's our turn. My plea in the NSU trial. Bastei Lübbe, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-7857-2610-5 .
  • Antonia von der Behrens (Ed.): No closing words. Nazi Terror - Security Authorities - Support Network. Pleading in the NSU trial. VSA, Hamburg 2018, ISBN 978-3-89965-792-0 .
  • Angela Wierig: Nazis Inside. 401 days of the NSU trial. Osburg, Hamburg 2018, ISBN 978-3-95510-152-7 .

documentation

The court hearings are not officially documented (audio, video or minutes). Process observers such as the NSU-Watch initiative prepared their own verbatim protocols. The court reporters of the Süddeutsche Zeitung published their transcripts on the entire trial in abbreviated form, but unchanged in terms of the wording on about 2000 pages:

Film and radio

  • The Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin published shortened transcripts for each of the six trial years and had them spoken by actors in films for the first four years.
  • The Free Sender Kombinat Hamburg beamed to 2017 usually weekly radio series A process - A country - No society - Lots of NSU from.
  • Fatih Akin's feature film Out of Nowhere from 2017 fictionally processes a murder attack by right-wing extremists and is inspired by the NSU trial, which Akin attended three times.
  • In the feature film Winter's Tale from 2018, Jan Bonny deals with a three-man right-wing terrorist cell and processes in it his impression from visits to the NSU trial that the “monstrosity” of the NSU has not yet been “adequately artistically captured”.
  • At the end of the trial, documentaries were released:
  • On February 19 and 20, 2021, all of the ARD and Deutschlandfunk cultural waves broadcast the first broadcast of the 24-part, 12-hour radio drama produced by Bayern 2 in Saal 101 , which is based on minutes from the ARD court reporters.
    • Katarina Agathos, Julian Doepp, Katja Huber, Ulrich Lampen (arrangement): Room 101. Documentary radio play on the NSU trial . With Bibiana Beglau, Katja Bürkle, Florian Fischer, Martina Gedeck, Gonca de Haas, Ercan Karacayli, Barbara Nüsse, Michael Rotschopf, Thomas Schmauser, Thomas Thieme. In the original sound: Holger Schmidt, Tim Aßmann, Ina Krauss. Advice: Holger Schmidt, Tim Assmann, Ina Krauss. Composition: Jakob Diehl and Sven Pollkötter. Director: Ulrich Lamps. 24 parts. Second release: 12 audio CDs. The Hörverlag. Munich. 2021. ISBN 978-3-8445-3938-7 and in the ARD-Audiothek and in the Deutschlandfunk-Audiothek (accessed on August 21, 2021).

Web links

Commons : NSU process  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Process observer

Associate Prosecutor

additional

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Gerlinde Sommer: Poppenhäger on the upcoming NSU trial in Munich. In: Thüringer Landeszeitung , February 7, 2013.
  2. ↑ Hannelore Crolly: NSU courtroom is not for claustrophobics. In: Welt Online , April 12, 2013.
  3. ^ NSU trial: "No camps or camping". In: Abendzeitung , April 9, 2013.
  4. ↑ Tom Sundermann: The mammoth process. In: Zeit Online , May 6, 2018.
  5. ↑ Tom Sundermann: NSU-Prozess: Das Mammutverfahren. In: Zeit Online , May 6, 2018; Marc Kniepkamp, ​​Andreas Thieme: Verdict in the NSU trial: numbers, costs, facts. In: Rheinischer Merkur , July 11, 2018.
  6. ↑ The NSU trial was expected to cost 37 million euros. In: Zeit Online , October 11, 2018.
  7. ↑ Julia Jüttner: NSU trial What lawyers expect from the judgment . Der Spiegel , July 10, 2018.
  8. ↑ Marc Brandstetter: NSU officially dissolved - Beate Zschäpe was relieved of detention , terminus Rechts , January 10, 2013.
  9. ↑ Felix Hansen, Sebastian Schneider: The NSU process in numbers - an evaluation. In: NSU-Watch , July 9, 2018. Those involved in the process can be found at: Those involved in the NSU process. In: Bayerischer Rundfunk , October 6, 2015; Overview of those involved in the process. In: NSU-Watch ; Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, pp. 21–49.
  10. ↑ The court allows charges against Zschäpe. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 31, 2013.
  11. ↑ Rainer Erb: The supporters. In: Brandenburg State Center for Political Education , February 2012; Federal Prosecutor's Office brings charges in the "NSU" proceedings. Press release. In: Generalbundesanwalt.de.
  12. ↑ Christian Rust: Roughneck with robe. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 9, 2012; Wolfgang Dick: "Hard but brilliant" - the presiding judge in the NSU trial. In: Deutsche Welle , April 12, 2013.
  13. ↑ Manfred Götzl becomes Vice President. In: LTO . November 28, 2018, accessed May 3, 2020 .
  14. ↑ Bavarian "Oberstes" is reintroduced. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . July 11, 2018, accessed May 3, 2020 .
  15. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, p. 21; NSU trial loses the second judge. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 20, 2016.
  16. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, pp. 26–28.
  17. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, pp. 46–49.
  18. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, p. 47 f.
  19. ↑ Wiebke Ramm : joint plaintiff in the NSU trial breaks with a lawyer. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 23, 2018.
  20. ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Essay: Inconceivable. In: Welt Online , December 20, 2017; Frank Jansen: The secondary suit asks important questions. In: Der Tagesspiegel , January 8, 2018; Annette Ramelsberger: The merit of the co-plaintiffs in the NSU trial. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 14, 2018; Tom Sundermann: The NSU secondary lawsuit: valuable or superfluous? In: Zeit Online , January 22, 2018.
  21. ^ Jörg Diehl: Zschäpes lawyers: Heer, Stahl, Sturm. In: Spiegel Online , November 10, 2012; Frank Jansen: Beate Zschäpe is now represented by three public defenders. In: Der Tagesspiegel , December 17, 2012.
  22. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger: Fourth lawyer takes over Zschäpe's defense. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 6, 2015.
  23. ↑ Eberhard Reinecke: Lawyer JuDr Borchert: "One of the most experienced defense lawyers in Munich" - a portrait. In: The Snowflake , May 9, 2018; Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, pp. 42, 44.
  24. ↑ Stefan Geiger: The good lawyer scores with the rights. In: Stuttgarter Zeitung , November 14, 2013; Andreas Speit : Defense counsel for the NSU defendants: neo-Nazis have confidence. In: Die Tageszeitung , July 17, 2014; Annette Ramelsberger: NSU trial: the end of patience. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 13, 2018; this. among other things: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, p. 42 f.
  25. ↑ Wiebke Ramm : Defendant fails with application for third defense lawyer. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 23, 2018; Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, p. 43.
  26. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 409 f.
  27. ↑ The chronology of the NSU trial. In: München.de.
  28. ^ Yvonne Boulgarides: Speech on the occasion of the anti-fascist demonstration to kick off the NSU trial on April 13, 2013 in Munich. In: Imke Schmincke, Jasmin Siri (ed.): NSU Terror: Investigations on the Right Abyss. Event, contexts, discourses. Transcript, Bielefeld 2013, ISBN 978-3-8376-2394-9 , p. 53 f. Lex 'speech is printed as No leap of faith for this constitutional state when it comes to solving NSU crimes. In: Antonia von der Behrens (Ed.): No final word , Hamburg 2018, pp. 21–24 (there also for the demonstration).
  29. ↑ Bernd Kastner: Right attack Nazi opponents with feces. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , May 17, 2013.
  30. ^ Robert Andreasch: Munich: neo-Nazi action in front of the NSU process building. In: Aida-Archiv.de , April 21, 2013; Thies Marsen: The Bavarian Neo-Nazis and the NSU ( Memento from July 26, 2013 in the Internet Archive ). In: Bayerischer Rundfunk , May 2, 2013; Gisela Friedrichsen: The Trial , Munich 2019, p. 21.
  31. ↑ Attack on the left facility. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , May 24, 2013; Florian Fuchs: Suspects are well-known right-wing extremists. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , May 31, 2013.
  32. ↑ Barbara Hans, Birger Menke, Benjamin Schulz: Prosecutors take full risk. In: Spiegel Online , November 8, 2012.
  33. ↑ Seda Başay-Yıldız: “Not just a legal task” - representing the victims in the NSU trial. In: Barbara John (Ed.): Time cannot heal our wounds. What the NSU terror means for the victims and their families. Herder, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 2014, pp. 154–160, here p. 155.
  34. ↑ The NSU trial was expected to cost 37 million euros. In: Zeit Online , October 11, 2018.
  35. ^ Annette Ramelsberger: Three years of NSU proceedings: about perpetrators, helpers and survivors. In: Federal Agency for Civic Education , April 6, 2016.
  36. ↑ Felix Hansen, Sebastian Schneider: The NSU process in numbers - an evaluation. In: NSU-Watch , July 9, 2018.
  37. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger : The judges in the NSU trial have long since formed an opinion. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 1, 2016.
  38. ↑ Felix Hansen, Sebastian Schneider: The NSU process in numbers - an evaluation. In: NSU-Watch , July 9, 2018.
  39. ↑ Zschäpe wants to remain silent in court. In: Zeit Online , November 24, 2012.
  40. ↑ Carsten S. admits purchase of weapons for NSU trio. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , June 4, 2013.
  41. ↑ Marlene Halser : Helpers and accomplices of the NSU: Boasting right-wing terrorists. In: Die Tageszeitung , June 15, 2013; Nuremberg NSU bomb attack does not go to court. In: Nordbayern.de , April 20, 2015.
  42. ↑ Holger G. confesses help for NSU trio. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , June 6, 2013; Angelika Henkel: Holger G. from Lauenau and his role in the NSU. In: NDR.de , September 12, 2017.
  43. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, pp. 387 f. And 393–397. For the reasoning of the Federal Prosecutor's Office, see the largely verbatim recordings of the pleading held in 2017: Verbatim transcripts of the pleading of the GBA are now complete. In: NSU-Nebenklage.de , November 13, 2017; Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 375 to day 382, ​​pp. 1509–1552.
  44. ↑ Frank Bräutigam: The big question: “accomplice” or “helper”? In: Tagesschau.de , July 25, 2017; Tim Assmann: accomplice or follower? In: Tagesschau.de , July 6, 2018.
  45. ↑ Helene Bubrowski: interim results NSU Trial: Lessons from Stammheim. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , August 2, 2013.
  46. ↑ On Zschäpe's participation in the third confessional video, the plea of ​​the co-prosecutor Hardy Langer's: "Ms. Zschäpe, state your testimony comprehensively and truthfully". In: The Snowflake , January 13, 2018. On the synagogue observation Christoph Arnowski: New evidence against Zschäpe. In: BR.de , February 3, 2017.
  47. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 397.
  48. ↑ Frank Jansen: Beate Zschäpe and Anja Sturm - a complicated relationship. In: Der Tagesspiegel , June 15, 2015.
  49. ↑ Zschäpe's own lawyers accuse him of lying. In: Die Welt , June 15, 2015.
  50. ↑ As dramatic as possible. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , June 22, 2015.
  51. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: Zschäpe has to keep Sturm. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , June 26, 2015.
  52. ↑ Four lawyers for Ms. Zschäpe. In: Die Tageszeitung , July 6, 2015.
  53. ↑ Tom Sundermann: Zschäpe does not get a fifth public defender. In: Zeit Online , February 8, 2016.
  54. ↑ Zschäpe defense lawyers blame judges for procedural crisis. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 20, 2015.
  55. ↑ Reinhard Müller : In the context of the law. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , July 21, 2015.
  56. ↑ Beate Zschäpe wants to get rid of lawyer Heer. In: Spiegel Online , July 21, 2015.
  57. ^ NSU trial: Zschäpe reports her lawyers. In: Spiegel Online , July 24, 2015.
  58. ↑ Public prosecutors reject investigations against Zschäpe's lawyers. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 29, 2015.
  59. ↑ A secondary lawsuit scandal: Zschäpe and Wohlleben call for the NSU trial to be suspended. In: Spiegel Online , October 8, 2015.
  60. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger: The judge defends the defense lawyer. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , October 13, 2015.
  61. ↑ Björn Hengst: Beate Zschäpe in the NSU trial: Suddenly with feeling In: Spiegel Online , January 10, 2017.
  62. ↑ Zschäpe in the NSU trial: Silence is becoming increasingly difficult for her. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , April 26, 2015.
  63. ↑ Wiebke Ramm : NSU trial: "Ms. Zschäpe, are you in the business?" In: Spiegel Online , June 17, 2015.
  64. ^ NSU trial: What Beate Zschäpe testified. In: Spiegel Online , December 9, 2015; Documentation. The statement of Beate Zschäpe. In: Die Welt , December 9, 2015.
  65. ↑ Jörg Diehl: Explanation in the NSU trial: Zschäpe is not very credible on these points. In: Spiegel Online , December 9, 2015. For Zschäpe's personality, see Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 402.
  66. ^ Plea of ​​the Federal Prosecutor's Office 1st day. In: NSU-Nebenklage.de , July 25, 2017 (closing lecture by Annette Greger).
  67. ^ Düsseldorf NSU helpers in court. In: WDR.de , March 18, 2015; Wohlleben denies procuring the NSU murder weapon. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 16, 2015.
  68. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger : NSU trial: Ralf Wohlleben - another one who doesn't know anything. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 16, 2015; Wiebke Ramm : Wohlleben's statement in the NSU trial: Hardly a word about Zschäpe. In: Spiegel Online , December 16, 2015; Tom Sundermann: Statement based on Zschäpe's example. In: Zeit Online , December 16, 2015.
  69. ↑ NSU trial: Zschäpe breaks her silence. In: Zeit Online , September 29, 2016.
  70. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger: NSU trial: Zschäpe speaks, but she doesn't explain anything. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , September 29, 2016; Ulf Poschardt : NSU trial: Beate Zschäpe reveals that she is broken. In: Welt Online , September 29, 2016.
  71. ↑ Björn Hengst: Psychiatric expert in the NSU trial - conceal, disguise, deceive. In: Spiegel Online , January 17, 2017.
  72. ↑ Björn Hengst: Expert on Zschäpe - "tendency to dominance and toughness". In: Spiegel Online , January 18, 2017.
  73. ↑ Tom Sundermann: Caricature of Zschäpe's soul. In: Zeit Online , January 11, 2017.
  74. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger: NSU trial: Defense lawyers want Zschäpe to be declared incapable of guilt. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 30, 2017.
  75. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 401.
  76. ↑ Wiebke Ramm : Pleadings in the NSU trial are delayed. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 19, 2017.
  77. ↑ NSU trial: the prosecution sees Zschäpe as an accomplice. In: Tagesschau.de , July 25, 2017.
  78. ↑ Tom Sundermann: The prosecutors show severity. In: Zeit Online , September 13, 2017.
  79. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 375 to day 386, pp. 1509–1557.
  80. ↑ Tom Sundermann: Settlement in the terror process. In: Zeit Online , November 15, 2017; Thies Marsen: NSU trial: pleadings after almost five years. In: Tagesschau.de , February 8, 2018. On the wording Annette Ramelsberger et al: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 387 to day 411, pp. 1557–1679.
  81. ^ Frank Jansen: NSU trial: victim lawyers want to plead 55 hours. In: Der Tagesspiegel , July 27, 2017.
  82. ↑ Felix Hansen, Sebastian Schneider: "Here in the process my questions have not been answered". The pleadings of the accessory prosecution in the Munich NSU trial. In: Lotta No. 69, February 6, 2018.
  83. ↑ Tom Sundermann: A plea with few chances. In: Zeit Online , April 27, 2018; Tom Sundermann: Criticism of the acquittal claim for Carsten S. In: Zeit Online , May 3, 2018.
  84. ↑ Tom Sundermann: Disturbing plea by André Es Defender. In: Zeit Online , May 9, 2018; ders .: Holger G., the naive NSU supporter. In: Zeit Online , May 10, 2018.
  85. ↑ Marcel Fürstenau: NSU trial: The men in Zschäpe's shadow. In: Deutsche Welle , May 17, 2018; Tom Sundermann: Wohlleben lawyers let go of camouflage. In: Zeit Online , May 18, 2018.
  86. ↑ Tom Sundermann: The self-defense of the lawyers. In: Zeit Online , June 5, 2018; Tom Sundermann: A marathon called the NSU trial. In: Zeit Online , June 22, 2018. For the attorney's pleadings, see Annette Ramelsberger and others: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 412 to day 435, pp. 1679–1812.
  87. ↑ Frank Jansen: Beate Zschäpe speaks - but not plain text. In: Der Tagesspiegel , July 3, 2018; Tom Sundermann: How Beate Zschäpe misses her last chance. In: Zeit Online , July 3, 2018; Final words from the defendants in the NSU trial. In: DKA-Kanzlei.de , July 3, 2018. See Annette Ramelsberger and others: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 437, pp. 1817–1819.
  88. ↑ Life imprisonment for Beate Zschäpe. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , July 11, 2018. See the wording in Annette Ramelsberger et al: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 438, pp. 1820-1860. Judgment online at gesetze-bayern.de
  89. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 4, Munich 2018, day 438, p. 1850 f .; Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 417 f.
  90. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 406.
  91. ↑ Arrest warrant against André E. repealed - right-wing extremists cheer in court. In: Welt Online , July 11, 2018; Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, p. 24.
  92. ↑ Tom Sundermann: What kind of judgment is that? In: Zeit Online , July 11, 2018; Annette Ramelsberger: The court missed a historic opportunity. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 13, 2018.
  93. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 417.
  94. ^ Demand for further NSU investigations. In: Frankfurter Rundschau , July 12, 2018; Over 10,000 people demand and promise: No drawback! - Photo gallery. In: NSU-Watch , July 16, 2018.
  95. ↑ Hasan Gökkaya: This is how the Turkish media see the NSU judgment. In: Zeit Online , July 12, 2018.
  96. ↑ Markus Decker: Members of the NSU victims do not give up. In: Frankfurter Rundschau , July 12, 2018.
  97. ↑ Martín Steinhagen: Federal Prosecutor's Office takes action against judgment. In: Frankfurter Rundschau , July 18, 2018; Frank Jansen: Defendants in the NSU trial are appealing. In: Der Tagesspiegel , July 19, 2018.
  98. ↑ Ralf Wohlleben is free. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 18, 2018.
  99. ^ Annette Ramelsberger: Gigantic and historical. In: sueddeutsche.de , April 21, 2020.
  100. ↑ Konrad Litschko: "Formula-like, ahistorical and cold". In: taz , May 2, 2020, accessed on May 3, 2020.
  101. ^ Wiebke Ramm: NSU trial: judgment final - Carsten S. in custody. In: Spiegel Online , May 27, 2019.
  102. ^ Federal Court of Justice press release 157 ;
    Decision regarding Zschäpe ;
    Decision regarding Wohlleben and Gerlach
    In the BGH decision regarding Zschäpe it says on p. 15: “The presentation of the assessment of evidence chosen by the State Security Senate, the step-by-step communication of the - essentially one on top of the other - formation of convictions on each individual finding and the multiple repetition of the The same notification for each individual act leads to an extraordinary scope of the grounds of the judgment that is not factually necessary and detrimental to legibility. ”However, this is irrelevant because the assessment of the evidence does not show any legal errors. See also Konrad Litschko: "Federal Court of Justice considers NSU judgment to be unnecessarily long". In: Spiegel online , August 28, 2021, accessed on September 1, 2021.
  103. ↑ Federal Court of Justice press release 226/2021 ; the written reasoning for the judgment is expected in January.
  104. ^ The minutes of the second year. The whole movie. In: Bayerischer Rundfunk , December 29, 2014; Annette Ramelsberger: Three years of NSU proceedings: about perpetrators, helpers and survivors. In: Federal Agency for Civic Education , April 6, 2016.
  105. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger , Wiebke Ramm : View into the German Abyss. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 10, 2018. Tanjev Schultz also compares the process with the RAF and Auschwitz trials: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 393.
  106. ↑ Kaveh Kooroshy: Looking into the Abyss: Five Years of the NSU Trial. In: NDR.de , May 16, 2018.
  107. ↑ Doris Liebscher: The NSU complex in front of the court. On the need to broaden your perspective in the legal dispute with institutional racism. In: Juliane Karakayali, Çagri Kahveci, Doris Liebscher, Carl Melchers (eds.): Analyze the NSU complex. Current perspectives from science. Transcript, Bielefeld 2017, pp. 81–105, here especially pp. 85–87. Liebscher Heiner Alwart is one of the former : “Terrible theater” - when will the curtain finally fall in the NSU trial? A Critique of Disorganized Main Trials. In: JuristenZeitung . Volume 69, 2014, Issue 22, pp. 1091-1096. Among the latter is Mehmet Daimagüler, Alexander Pyka: "Politicization" in the NSU process. In: Journal for Legal Policy . Year 2014, pp. 143–145.
  108. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, pp. 410–412; Annette Ramelsberger among others: The NSU trial. Volume 5, Munich 2018, pp. 21-25.
  109. ^ Andreas Förster: Guilt and state failure. In: Friday , July 25, 2016; Konrad Litschko: NSU series part 5: The role of the federal prosecutor. In: Die Tageszeitung , November 4, 2016; Antonia von der Behrens: The network of the NSU, state contributory negligence and prevented clarification. In this. (Ed.): No conclusion , Hamburg 2018, pp. 197–322, here pp. 301–316.
  110. ↑ Interview with attorney Alexander Kienzle on the current status of the NSU proceedings, especially the “Kasseler case”. In: Freie Radios , August 8, 2016.
  111. ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Essay: Inconceivable. In: Welt Online , December 20, 2017; Frank Jansen: The secondary suit asks important questions. In: Der Tagesspiegel , January 8, 2018; Annette Ramelsberger: The merit of the co-plaintiffs in the NSU trial. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , January 14, 2018; Tom Sundermann: The NSU secondary lawsuit: valuable or superfluous? In: Zeit Online , January 22, 2018.
  112. ↑ Nanett Bier: Journalists and the NSU Trial. In: From Politics and Contemporary History No. 40, September 21, 2015. See also Astrid Hansen: Journalistic characterization of the actors in the 'NSU' process. A qualitative content analysis of the reporting over the first 150 days of the process. With a foreword by Volker Lilienthal . Master thesis, University of Hamburg, 2015 ( PDF ).
  113. ↑ Derya Gür-Şeker, Kristina Lamers, Sarah Malzkorn, Dilek Saka, Manuela Stöneberg, Tim Wübbels: Naming practices in the NSU process. A language and media analysis based on court transcripts and selected media articles about the NSU trial. In: Juliane Karakayali, Çagri Kahveci, Doris Liebscher, Carl Melchers (eds.): Analyze the NSU complex. Current perspectives from science. Transcript, Bielefeld 2017, pp. 107–122, here p. 119.
  114. ↑ Jannis Papadimitrou: A sign, also beyond Germany. In: Deutschlandfunk , July 15, 2018; Zia Weise: “People think Germany doesn't want to solve this case”. In: Zeit Online , September 6, 2017.
  115. ↑ Tanjev Schultz: NSU , Munich 2018, p. 392.
  116. ↑ Frank Jansen, Özlem Topcu: NSU trial: Was it all in vain? In: Zeit Online , June 27, 2018.
  117. ↑ Jana Hensel: NSU: Our empty space. In: Die Zeit , July 23, 2018. On the other hand, Martin Debes: As if one had understood something. In: Zeit Online , August 5, 2018.
  118. ↑ Frank Jansen: Four years of the NSU trial: 361 days of negotiations, 500 witnesses and no end. In: Der Tagesspiegel , May 6, 2017.
  119. ↑ Annette Ramelsberger: The NSU trial must finally end. And: Heribert Prantl: The truth in the NSU trial takes time. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 9, 2017.
  120. ↑ Michael Roesler-Graichen: Current books on the NSU trial: A judgment and many open questions. In: Börsenblatt , July 11, 2018. See also the keyword NSU trial at the Humanist Press Service .
  121. ↑ René Heilig: Murderous Harbingers. Meeting. In: Neues Deutschland , June 19, 2019.
  122. ↑ Tom Sundermann: "Like the Jews 80 years ago". Book review. In: Zeit Online , February 9, 2018; Andreas Speit : Lawyer writes book about NSU trial: Racism? Only a joke. In: Die Tageszeitung , February 9, 2018; Christian Rabhandl: “No kowtowing to the right”. Interview with Angela Wierig, Deutschlandfunk , February 10, 2018.
  123. ↑ See, for example, www.nsu-watch .
  124. ↑ Another picture of Germany on 2000 pages. Review. In: Saarbrücker Zeitung , December 2, 2018; Heike Kleffner : Deep drilling into German society. Book review. In: Sheets for German and International Politics , January 2019.
  125. ^ The NSU protocols in the SZ magazine. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , December 30, 2016 (with links to the videos).
  126. ↑ Blog of the project and contribution list .
  127. ^ Wenke Husmann: Nazi terror as a thriller. In: Zeit Online , May 27, 2017.
  128. ↑ Oliver Kaever: Birds, kills, drinking, arguing. In: Zeit Online , March 21, 2019.
  129. ↑ Dominik Reinle: WDR film portrays Zschäpe defenders. Conversation with Eva Müller. In: WDR.de , July 12, 2018.
  130. ↑ DocTopic: The NSU Trial and the Victims - The Long Suffering of Relatives. In: Bayerischer Rundfunk , July 25, 2018.
  131. ↑ NSU - The Trial. Beate Zschäpe's fault. In: ZDF.de , July 12, 2018.
  132. ^ Annette Ramelsberger: "Room 101" - five years in the NSU trial. An ARD radio play. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. February 19, 2021, accessed August 21, 2021 .