Criminal Rehabilitation Act

Basic data
Title:	Law on the Rehabilitation and Compensation of Victims of Unlawful Prosecution in the Accession Area
Short title:	Criminal Rehabilitation Act
Abbreviation:	StrRehaG
Type:	Federal law
Scope:	Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter:	Criminal procedural law , social law
References :	253-1
Original version from:	October 29, 1992 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1814 )
Entry into force on:	4th November 1992
New announcement from:	December 17, 1999 ( BGBl. I p. 2664 )
Last change by:	Art. 12 G of December 12, 2019 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2652, 2695 )
Effective date of the last change:	January 1, 2024 (Art. 60 G of December 12, 2019)
GESTA :	G026
Weblink:	Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Criminal Rehabilitation Act ( StrRehaG ) regulates the legal and social redress for criminal injustice and unlawful deprivation of liberty in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany (SBZ) or in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and in East Berlin between May 8, 1945 and May 2, 1945. October 1990. On the one hand, it specifies the conditions under which unlawful acts can be declared unlawful and repealed and on the other hand contains provisions on reparation payments for victims.

History and basics

The Rehabilitation Act of the GDR

According to research in 2008, around 330,000 people were imprisoned for political reasons in the GDR between 1945 and 1989 . In addition, there are victims of other illegal measures. As early as the end of 1989, the GDR recognized the need to repeal acts of injustice and provide the victims with special social care. Initially, politically justified court decisions could only be overturned by way of cassation by the GDR Supreme Court , until the People's Chamber passed a rehabilitation law on September 6, 1990 . The law provided for the rehabilitation of persons who had been prosecuted for an act by which they had exercised constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Victims of administrative and professional injustice should also be rehabilitated under similar conditions. The rehabilitation of former inmates of Soviet internment camps after the Second World War was also planned. Before the GDR acceded to the Federal Republic, however, the law no longer acquired any practical significance.

Robert Havemann's conviction for an alleged foreign exchange offense was overturned in 1991 according to the GDR cassation regulations that were still in force.

Development after the reunification

Because of the unpredictable financial consequences associated with the reparation payments provided for in the GDR Rehabilitation Act and the regulations, which were perceived as being unbalanced, only that part of the Rehabilitation Act that concerned criminal rehabilitation continued to apply temporarily after reunification. People who had been admitted to psychiatric facilities in violation of the rule of law could also be rehabilitated. Furthermore, the provisions of the GDR Code of Criminal Procedure on cassation were temporarily adopted in a modified form. After the Federal Government had presented a first draft law in June 1991 , the First SED Law on Injustice Correction Act came into force on November 4, 1992 after it was passed by the Bundestag . Article 1 contained the Criminal Rehabilitation Law. Further regulations for the reparation of SED injustice were later incorporated into the Administrative Rehabilitation Act (VwRehaG) and the Occupational Rehabilitation Act (BerRehaG). With the three laws, the Federal Republic of Germany also complied with the obligation contained in the Unification Treaty (Art. 17) to create a rehabilitation option including appropriate compensation arrangements for all victims of politically motivated criminal prosecution or other legal decisions contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional. Already in the legislative process, the victims of the SED regime criticized the compensation payments, which were perceived as inadequate and too low, and demanded an honorary pension and special social benefits such as additional vacation and free use of public transport.

The Penal Rehabilitation Act has been amended several times since it came into force , in particular the scope of application in the case of deprivation of liberty contrary to the rule of law has been considerably expanded. The law was republished in 1999 after, among other things, the rehabilitation deadlines had been extended and compensation amounts increased. In 2007, the monthly victim pension for victims of at least six months imprisonment , which has long been required by the victims' associations, was added. Extensive changes were made in December 2010, for example, the application deadlines were extended to 2019, placement in a children's home was expressly recognized as deprivation of liberty ( see below ) and the provisions on granting a special allowance for victims of imprisonment (victim's pension) were modified ( see below ).

The success rate of rehabilitation applications in 2010 was 50 percent in Berlin, 59 percent in Brandenburg and 67 percent in Thuringia. By the end of 2007, around 184,000 rehabilitation applications had been made. The criminal rehabilitation is now largely complete. However, it is still difficult for those affected to find out how health impairments suffered by injustice can be proven in order to measure compensation payments. In Brandenburg, a state parliament commission found that the experts deployed to assess such damage “sometimes lacked… qualification and sensitivity”. In the Bundestag debate on the “Report of the Federal Government on the Status of the Processing of the SED Dictatorship” on March 22, 2013, Wolfgang Thierse pointed out that victims of SED injustice, such as former inmates of the Hoheneck Prison , “professionalization, simplification and Standardization of the administrative handling of the victims ”. Criticism is also expressed that the monthly victim's pension ( see below ) is only paid in the event of at least 180 days (with effect from November 29, 2019, reduced to 90 days). The Union of Victims' Associations of Communist Tyranny also calls for improvements to be made in favor of victims in terms of criminal rehabilitation, in particular:

• the expansion of the group of those entitled to compensation payments,
• the introduction of a reversal of the burden of proof for evidence of health damage caused by persecution.
• the elimination of neediness requirements when granting compensation,
• the increase in benefits.

The lack of reparation for forced labor performed in political detention is also criticized . From the point of view of the Federal Foundation for the Processing of the SED Dictatorship , the regulations for the compensation of victims of the SED dictatorship are not satisfactory in 2013 either. With effect from January 1, 2015, the victim's pension was increased to a maximum of 300 euros. Further demands for improvements in criminal rehabilitation were not taken into account in the legislative process. However, on December 4, 2014, the German Bundestag passed a resolution in which Parliament advocated improvements in the medical assessment of the victims, the elimination of the application deadlines (under previous law, an application for rehabilitation could only be submitted until December 31, 2019) and for the Express the right of victims to be heard personally in the rehabilitation process. With effect from November 29, 2019, the special monthly allowance was increased to a maximum of 330 euros (see Section 17a (1) sentence 1 StrRehaG). With the amendment to the law of November 22, 2019, applications can also be submitted for an unlimited period (see the amended Section 7 (1) StrRehaG).

Constitutional foundations

The Federal Constitutional Court had to because of constitutional complaints several times with the provisions of the Penal Rehabilitation Act deal. It emphasized that the legislature had to create a possibility of rehabilitation for those affected by an unjustified punitive measure because of the individual's right to value and respect, which is derived from human dignity ( Art. 1 Basic Law ). In its judgment of December 7, 1999, the court declared that it was constitutionally unobjectionable that Section 1 (1) No. 1 of the StrRehaG only named certain facts in which political persecution is generally suspected, but for which a case-by-case examination is provided for other facts is. The Federal Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court of the State of Berlin attach particular importance to the obligation of the rehabilitation courts, derived from the rule of law ( Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law), to re-investigate the facts on which the challenged measure is based, if necessary, ex officio and exhausting all possibilities for knowledge.

• Example: According to Section 1 (1) No. 1 StrRehaG, convictions for certain GDR criminal law offenses listed there are to be rehabilitated as a rule without individual examination. Political persecution is suspected in these cases. For example, a conviction for eviction or refusal to serve in the GDR must be overturned. On the other hand, the offense of desertion is not listed in Section 1 (1) No. 1 StrRehaG. The Federal Constitutional Court found that this did not constitute a violation of the principle of equality ( Article 3 of the Basic Law), because the legislature had a large degree of flexibility in dealing with the injustice committed in the GDR. The legislature was therefore allowed to filter out the facts that are questionable from its perspective and always lead to rehabilitation and to list some specific facts in Section 1 (1) No. 1 StrRehaG. In the case of offenses that are not mentioned in Section 1 (1) No. 1 StrRehaG (such as desertion), however, the legislature allows an individual examination of whether the conviction is contrary to the rule of law. and thus fulfills the requirement to redress convictions that are contrary to the rule of law.

overview

The criminal rehabilitation is basically structured as a two-stage process: First, rehabilitation must be pronounced. Compensation payments can only be granted afterwards.

The rehabilitation court only acts upon application. It must declare the criminal measure or a measure depriving of liberty taken in the Soviet occupation zone, the GDR or in East Berlin to be contrary to the rule of law and, if necessary, revoke it, i.e. declare rehabilitation . The prerequisites for this are specified in Section 1 of the Act in Sections 1 and 2. The first section also contains regulations on certain consequences of the repeal (Sections 3–6 StrRehaG). The judicial procedure and the formal requirements for a rehabilitation application are regulated in Section 2 of the Act (Sections 7–15 StrRehaG).

Section 3 of the Act regulates the second stage of the rehabilitation process and contains the provisions on social compensation benefits (Sections 16-25a StrRehaG), which are usually only granted after rehabilitation has taken place. Finally, the fourth section contains transitional and final provisions (Sections 26, 27 StrRehaG).

Formal rehabilitation requirements

Rehabilitation only takes place on application ( Section 1 (1) StrRehaG). In particular, the victim of the illegal measure (“affected person”) and close relatives after his / her death are entitled to apply (cf. Section 7 (1) StrRehaG). Since the amendment to the law of November 22, 2019, the application can be made indefinitely and must contain a reason (Section 7 (2) StrRehaG).

Rehabilitation courts are special criminal chambers at the regional courts of Berlin , Chemnitz , Cottbus , Dresden , Erfurt , Frankfurt (Oder) , Gera , Halle , Leipzig , Magdeburg , Meiningen , Neubrandenburg , Potsdam , Rostock and Schwerin . The local jurisdiction of the courts depends on where the illegal measure was taken ( Section 8 StrRehaG with reference to the district court boundaries). Representation by a lawyer is permissible, but not compulsory ( Section 7 (4) StrRehaG).

The procedure is free of charge with regard to the pure court costs ( Section 14 (1) StrRehaG). If the application is partially or completely successful, the costs for a lawyer and the other costs of the applicant will be charged to the state treasury. If the rehabilitation application is rejected, the lawyers' fees and other costs will be paid by the state if the court considers something else to be unreasonable (Section 14 (2) StrRehaG).

Rehabilitation of criminal measures (§ 1 StrRehaG)

requirements

In 1960 the Supreme Court of the GDR sentenced Theodor Oberländer for his role in the Third Reich. GDR Justice Minister Benjamin and State Secretary Toeplitz (pictured here) also took part in the trial . In 1993, the Berlin Regional Court overturned the judgment because the trial was grossly unlawful in the absence of the defendant.

The conditions under which a criminal measure can be declared contrary to the rule of law and repealed are regulated in § 1 StrRehaG. All requirements must be met for rehabilitation . They are in detail:

Measure by a German agency in the Soviet Zone / GDR

It must be a matter of the measure of a German court (§ 1 Abs. 1 StrRehaG) or a German authority (§ 1 Abs. 5 StrRehaG) in the area of ​​the GDR or East Berlin. Not so decisions after StrRehaG to a Soviet military tribunal be rehabilitated about. The Russian authorities are responsible for this. However, there may still be entitlements to social compensation under the Criminal Rehabilitation Act (see Section 25, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the StrRehaG; see below ).

On the other hand, rehabilitation is possible if German authorities have only applied the regulations of the Allied Control Council or the Soviet occupying power. It can all forms of criminal prosecution (arrest warrants as investigative measures) to be rehabilitated, not just convictions.

Between May 8, 1945 and October 2, 1990

The measure must have taken place during the existence of the Soviet occupation zone or the GDR. The period before the GDR was founded is also recorded.

Criminal character of the measure

This requirement is fulfilled in any case if a conviction has been made on the basis of a criminal offense contained in the Criminal Code. Convictions under Article 6 of the GDR Constitution of 1949 ( boycotts ), under the Economic Penal Ordinance , under Control Council Act No. 10 and Control Council Directive 38 and, for example, on the basis of Order No. 160 of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany (SMAD) on " Acts of sabotage and diversion ”.

Incompatibility of the measure with essential principles of a free constitutional order

The measure must be seriously contrary to the rule of law. The following reasons can be considered for this:

• It was a conviction issued in the Waldheim trials (Section 1 (2) StrRehaG).
• The measure was based on one of the criminal offenses listed in Section 1 (1) No. 1 StrRehaG and was therefore used for political persecution, such as agitation against the state , unlawful border crossing or boycotting . The conviction for one of the offenses listed gives rise to the presumption of political persecution. Rehabilitation is not considered, however, if it can be proven that, despite the persecution for one of the offenses listed, the measure did not serve political persecution as an exception. The fact that the legislature has restricted the presumption of political persecution to certain facts is not constitutionally objectionable.
• For other reasons, the measure served political persecution (Section 1 (1) No. 1 StrRehaG).
• The legal consequences of the measure ordered are grossly disproportionate to the act committed (Section 1 (1) No. 2 StrRehaG). This can be the case if the sentence is clearly too high or if the entire property has been confiscated as a penalty.
• The measure is seriously flawed for other reasons, e.g. because of considerable procedural errors (Section 1 (1) StrRehaG). This is the case, for example, when a defendant was unable to defend himself or to hire a lawyer to defend himself.

If a measure is only partially contrary to the rule of law, it can also be partially lifted (Section 1 (3) and (4) StrRehaG).

Selected problem cases

General

The rehabilitation courts deal with all areas of GDR criminal law. Problems with the application of the Criminal Rehabilitation Act arise above all if the offenses on which the challenged decisions are based are not expressly listed in Section 1 StrRehaG or other offenses not listed there, in particular those of "ordinary crime" (such as property damage or Bodily harm), were committed.

• Examples: (1) In the unsuccessful attempt to cross the border to the Federal Republic, GDR citizens damaged the border installations. They were therefore convicted of attempting to illegally cross the border and damaging property by a GDR court. Because of this conviction, those affected apply for criminal rehabilitation. In § 1 StrRehaG only the illegal border crossing is explicitly mentioned as a crime, which has to be rehabilitated regularly because of its political character. Nonetheless, the property damage can also be rehabilitated because it was a so-called necessary accompanying crime: Without damage to the border installations, the escape would not have been possible. Those affected are fully rehabilitated. (2) The case is different if the person concerned stole a paddle boat before fleeing with which he wanted to flee to the Federal Republic. Since he could have obtained the paddle boat legally, there is no necessary escort act. The person concerned can only be partially rehabilitated, solely because of the attempted illegal border crossing.

It is discussed - for example in the case of white-collar crime - whether the penal provisions on which the sanctions are based were grossly contrary to the rule of law and therefore the measures must be repealed in all cases, or, predominantly the rehabilitation courts see whether an examination of the rule of law has to be carried out in individual cases.

Desertion

In rehabilitation jurisprudence and in literature it is controversial as to the conditions under which desertion is to be rehabilitated. In contrast to the offense of eviction from military service and conscientious objection, leaving the troops after taking up service (desertion) is not listed in the catalog of § 1 StrRehaG, which is constitutionally unobjectionable. According to one opinion, a conviction for desertion must always be rehabilitated because the act should be regarded as a political offense in view of the task of the armed forces of the GDR to protect the socialist order of society. The case law, on the other hand, differentiates: If the GDR border troops deserted, political persecution is usually affirmed because of the special tasks of these units, as well as if the act was based on reasons of conscience or a negative attitude towards the communist regime. How to proceed under rehabilitation law if the desertion was connected with an attempt to leave the GDR is again controversial.

Violent acts of resistance against state power

It is generally recognized that violent acts of resistance against the state and the associated damage to property, for example during the popular uprising on June 17, 1953 or during the autumn revolution of 1989 , can in principle be rehabilitated if the act of violence was proportionate and not directed against uninvolved third parties. According to a ruling by the Jena Higher Regional Court in 2009, which, however, concerned a prisoner mutiny case, the GDR courts were in principle entitled to pronounce condemnations for active acts of resistance, since GDR citizens were “in a legal procedure against state interference defend themselves ”and the rehabilitation courts had to respect the“ statehood of the GDR ”.

Anti-social behavior

Anyone in the GDR who stubbornly withdrew from “work reluctance to do regular work” even though he was able to work could be punished for anti-social behavior since 1968. The rehabilitation courts have mostly denied the question of whether the relevant provision of the GDR Criminal Code was of a political nature and justified this with the fact that it does not constitute “a violation of individuality and human dignity” to “encourage a working adult person to work in order to finance his livelihood ". Corresponding rehabilitation applications are therefore only successful if there are special reasons, for example if the sanctions imposed were grossly disproportionate. Then, as a rule, only partial rehabilitation comes into consideration (Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the StrRehaG): That part of the sentence that is imposed is lifted and declared to be contrary to the rule of law that is disproportionate. For sentencing on probation in the workplace, see immediately.

Assaults in the investigation or in prison

The Criminal Law Rehabilitation Act also provides for rehabilitation in Section 1 (5) if an act has been carried out by the public prosecutor's office or other authorities that is not compatible with essential principles of freedom and the rule of law. The decisive factor is whether the measure was linked to behavior that was regarded as criminal and was thus criminal in character. Therefore, encroachments of organs in a preliminary investigation or during the execution of a prison sentence can be rehabilitated as an independent measure under the conditions of § 1 StrRehaG even if the conviction in question was passed without errors by the criminal court.

Sentenced to probation in the workplace

GDR courts could refrain from imposing a prison sentence and instead condemn the person concerned to prove themselves for a certain period of time at their previous job or at another job assigned to them (Sections 33, 34 of the GDR StGB). A change of job was only possible with the consent of the court and only for compelling reasons. In the event of non-compliance with the obligation, a prison sentence was threatened. This type of punishment was used in particular for convictions for anti-social behavior (see above). According to the case law of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court, a sentence on probation in the workplace violates the prohibition of forced labor (Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law). A corresponding conviction is to be repealed as contrary to the rule of law. If the person concerned did not comply with the obligation and a custodial sentence was enforced, there are claims to social compensation benefits (see section " Follow-up claims "). According to this, placement in a children's home should also be contrary to the rule of law if the need for care of the children from the imprisonment of a parent due to non-compliance with the Obligation and its associated imprisonment resulted.

Soil and industrial reform

It is controversial whether those affected by the seizure of property during the land reform in the Soviet Zone - here a move on the occasion of the division of the Helfenberg estate near Dresden - can be rehabilitated under criminal law in the Soviet Zone in 1945/46.

Land reform

It is disputed whether the land reform measures taken in 1945/46 , which are recognized as political persecution, can be rehabilitated. This depends on whether the measures are presented as criminal acts . This affirms a view in favor of the confiscation of real estate with an area of less than 100 hectares, with the fact that prior to the confiscation (unlike in the case of property over 100 hectares), a commission examined individually whether the person concerned could be accused of Nazi and war crimes. Even for the deprivation of real estate of over 100 hectares , a criminal law character of the land reform is sometimes assumed in the literature. The case law overwhelmingly rejects the criminal rehabilitation of all land reform measures , since it was not a matter of criminal law but of administrative law measures . In some cases, it is also argued that the land reform was a sovereign occupation in character and that corresponding measures are therefore excluded from rehabilitation. The Federal Constitutional Court has not yet objected to this case law.

Industrial reform

With the same arguments, the rehabilitation courts also reject the criminal rehabilitation of victims of the so-called industrial reform (also economic reform ) between 1946 and 1948, which was also political persecution. Decisive for the imposition of the corresponding sanctions were guidelines drawn up for Saxony in all states of the Soviet Zone, which contained certain criminal offenses (“Nazi criminals”, “activist Nazis”, “those interested in war”). According to these guidelines, the industrial reform was expressly “not an economic measure”; In East Berlin, the basis of the measures was Control Council Directive No. 38 . For example, Section 2 of the Law on Confiscation of Assets of War Criminals and Nazi Activists states that this directive is decisive for the assessment of a person. However, the SMAD had issued Order No. 201 as a guideline for this directive and the German Economic Commission had issued a number of implementing provisions defining the Nazi activist and war criminal. Due to this historical background, the opinion is held in the literature that the industrial reform was a criminal prosecution and that the measures associated with it should therefore be repealed.

Because of the lack of rehabilitation, victims of the land and industrial reforms have lodged a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee . Previously, in 2005 a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights was unsuccessful.

Rehabilitation of admissions to children's and youth homes (§ 2 StrRehaG)

Accommodation in a youth work center can also be rehabilitated. Here in the picture a room in the youth work yard at the Königstein Fortress (1950).

One focus of rehabilitation law practice is currently the home placement of children and adolescents. The Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 2009 that rehabilitation is fundamentally an option under the conditions of § 2 StrRehaG. At the same time, a public debate about what was happening in children's homes, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, had started. The " Round Table Home Education " set up by the Federal Government limited its work to the old federal states. According to the Jena Higher Regional Court, “a harsh authoritarian upbringing and discipline that was severely violating human dignity and therefore no longer acceptable by today's standards” prevailed in the GDR homes.

Home types

The system of children's and youth homes was very differentiated in the GDR. The youth welfare authorities were subordinate to:

• "Normal homes" for orphaned and development-endangered children and young people (pre-school, children's, auxiliary school and youth residences),
• “ Special homes ”, which were used to re-educate hard-to-educate and delinquent youngsters; The special homes were divided into special children's homes, youth work yards and special homes for children and adolescents with behavioral disorders (especially a combination of special homes for psychodiagnostics and educational-psychological therapy in East Berlin and the surrounding area).

The placement in these facilities was determined by welfare and youth welfare regulations, the relevant authorities were responsible; Until the GDR Criminal Code came into force in 1968, however, juvenile courts could also order home education as an educational measure.

In addition to the normal and special homes, there were transit homes run by youth welfare , into which children and young people who were picked up were temporarily admitted, and reception and observation homes for assessing the need for action. Institutions of the health and social authorities were responsible for children up to three years of age.

Young people served criminal sanctions in youth detention centers and work education units and later in youth centers. In these cases, the rehabilitation is measured according to § 1 StrRehaG ( see above ).

The “labor and education camp” for young people in Rüdersdorf (also the Rüdersdorf property ), which was under the Ministry of the Interior, was a special case from November 1966 to September 1967 .

requirements

The arrangement of placement in a children's or youth home must be rehabilitated under the following conditions:

Deprivation of liberty

With the amendment made by the law of December 2, 2010, it was made clear that any placement in a home for children and young people is to be regarded as a deprivation of liberty (Section 2 (1) sentence 2 StrRehaG). An examination of whether the placement should be viewed as a deprivation of liberty in each individual case is therefore not carried out.

For rehabilitation, it does not depend on how old the interned child was, and the placement of small and very small children is also considered a deprivation of liberty. According to the wording of the amended regulation, only official orders from the rehabilitation are covered. According to the case law, agreements concluded with the legal guardians on the admission of a child to a home can also be rehabilitated if the legal guardians were in custody for political reasons and had no alternative.

The instruction is non-criminal in nature

The non-criminal character necessary for rehabilitation is also presumed by law for placement in children's and youth homes.

Incompatibility of the briefing with essential principles of a free constitutional order

Such an incompatibility with essential principles of a free constitutional order does not already exist if problematic conditions prevailed in the child or youth home in question from today's perspective, but only if one of the reasons for rehabilitation specified in the law is present. In particular, in those cases in which the admission to the home was due to educational problems, extreme behavioral problems or school failure of the child, difficulties at work, drifting around or the commission of criminal offenses, the rule of law is only given in exceptional cases. Even rude educational methods or attacks by individual educators do not lead to rehabilitation.

A distinction must be made between the following groups of cases:

• Political persecution of the child: If the institutionalization served for political persecution, rehabilitation is to be pronounced. Political persecution exists in particular if the placement took place in connection with one of the criminal offenses listed in § 1 StrRehaG, e.g. as a reaction to an attempt to illegally cross the border (escape from the republic). But political persecution can also exist in other cases, for example if the person concerned was admitted because he was a fan of Western “beat” music. However, the rehabilitation courts are reluctant to establish political persecution: the fact that the placement was intended to provide a political and ideological education in the interests of the state does not suffice to assume political persecution.
• “Kinship liability”: Cases in which the political persecution was primarily directed against the parents are problematic. If politically motivated pressure is exerted on the parents by the admission of the child, there is political persecution. The same applies if it was not possible to reunite the child in the home with the parents who had emigrated to Germany. There are different views in the case law under rehabilitation law in cases in which a child was admitted to a home after the parents had been imprisoned for political reasons (e.g. because of an unwanted expression of opinion or an attempted escape from the republic ). The Supreme Court is in such cases generally assume that the institutionalization not done for political purposes, but served the care of the child. Rehabilitation can only be considered if it can be proven in individual cases that the admission to the home served political persecution. Political persecution is indicated if, in these cases, a home admission took place, although relatives who were ready to take in were available in the GDR. In the opinion of the Berlin Regional Court, however, a home admission served unrelated purposes and should therefore be canceled if the youth welfare authorities did not consider placing the child in need of care with relatives living in the Federal Republic or West Berlin because of the division of Germany. Other higher regional courts contradict the opinion of the chamber court. In the opinion of the higher regional courts in Naumburg and Jena, in those cases in which the home education resulted as a consequence of the politically motivated imprisonment of the parents, this always served the political persecution of the child. In these cases, the Dresden Higher Regional Court assumes that the child's home placement served unrelated purposes. According to one opinion represented in the literature, in these cases the political persecution of the child is to be assumed, unless it can be proven to the contrary.
• Briefing in the closed youth work center Torgau: The briefing in the closed youth work center Torgau, where systematic serious human rights violations have occurred, cannot be reconciled with essential principles of a liberal constitutional order and therefore always , i. H. to rehabilitate without checking the individual case (details below ).
• Accommodation conditions in the homes that violate human rights: In the opinion of the rehabilitation courts, rehabilitation is out of the question if the rehabilitation application is based solely on the fact that, from today's perspective, conditions in the homes that are contrary to human rights prevail. Rehabilitation should be ruled out, particularly if the type of upbringing practiced in the home, according to the prevailing pedagogical view in the GDR at the time, served to ensure proper home operation, individual upbringing and school success of the child. The courts base their negative stance on the fact that such conditions also occurred in homes in the old Federal Republic and are therefore not a "GDR system injustice". Also, only the home admission itself is amenable to rehabilitation, but not its consequences. According to the opposite view, represented in the literature, accommodation conditions that violate human rights can also justify the constitutional violation of the admission order. This view argues in particular
  • with the comparable case law of the Federal Court of Justice on the Federal Compensation Act , according to which the rule of law can also result from the manner of deprivation of liberty,
  • with the reasons for the law on Section 2 (2) StrRehaG, which relates to measures equivalent to deprivation of liberty and in which the overall circumstances of the respective measure are to be included in the examination of the rule of law violation,
  • so that according to § 1 para. 1 no. V. m. § 2 StrRehaG considerations of proportionality are included in the examination of the rule of law violation and that the examination of the proportionality of a measure should also include its consequences, here the conditions in the homes that are often known to the GDR authorities.
• Gross disproportion between the occasion and the briefing: A reason for rehabilitation also exists if there is a gross disproportion between the occasion of the placement and the associated legal consequences. Such a disproportion exists if the severity of the home upbringing lacks any comprehensible correspondence to the weight of the incorrect development of the admitted child. When determining such an imbalance, the rehabilitation courts must take into account the cause, purpose and the legal and factual structure of the placement and the question of which alternative courses of action were available to the authority. A disproportion between the occasion and the legal consequence does not already exist if the measure no longer meets today's standards, but only if the degradation of the individual to the object of state enforcement of interests is clearly manifested in the relationship between the occasion and the reaction. It is also irrelevant for the rehabilitation whether the arrangement was the only conceivable reaction to the child's development failure or whether other possibilities could have been considered. Rehabilitation due to gross disproportionality must take place if the child was only admitted because the parents were employed and - due to the corresponding state allocation - the living conditions were inadequate.
• Arbitrariness: If there is no reason at all for the home placement, rehabilitation is also necessary.
• Non-material purposes: The Rostock Regional Court assumes the existence of non-material purposes if the youth welfare authorities did not focus on the individual child's welfare when selecting the home and the child, despite the imposing counterproductive consequences, is not in a more suitable "normal home" but in a "special home" “Housed. An irrelevant purpose is also present if a child in need of care was placed in a home instead of with suitable and willing relatives or the reason for the admission was sexual abuse of the person concerned. With regard to a briefing in the Rüdersdorf labor and education camp, the Court of Appeal - initially only for an individual case - also found that it was illegal. It had served irrelevant purposes because it was aimed solely at disciplining unpopular adolescents by means of "shock therapy" and not having any educational effect, because the adolescents were humiliated by undisciplined behavior and because even according to the GDR authorities there was no legal basis for the briefing.
• Rule of law violation for other reasons: According to the case law of the Higher Regional Court in Naumburg, a conviction for “probation in the workplace” (Section 33 (3) No. 2 of the GDR StGB) violates the prohibition of forced labor. If parents have been sentenced to imprisonment for non-compliance with the obligation and as a result the child is in need of care and has been placed in a home, this placement is contrary to the rule of law. See also above under “ Selected problem cases / convictions for probation in the workplace ”.

Case-by-case examination as a principle

In principle, the rehabilitation courts check in each individual case whether the placement order is contrary to the rule of law. In the case of accommodation in the closed youth work center Torgau , a case-by-case examination is not necessary, rather rehabilitation is always carried out . Decisive for this were u. a. The following reasons: Neither the young people themselves nor their legal guardians were heard before they were admitted to Torgau, and no legal review was planned. The conditions of placement were the same as those in detention centers. The complex was secured like a prison. The sanitary and hygienic conditions were designed in such a way that the young people had no private or intimate sphere; the urgency had to be done in buckets. Life was marked by constant monotony and strict control. Movements had to be done at a run. Unconditional submission and unconditional obedience were required. The discipline was isolation arrest for up to twelve days and compulsory sports until they were completely physically exhausted.

With the exception of the closed youth work center Torgau, the courts only rule out rehabilitation in very few cases. It is assumed that this is also due to the fact that the rehabilitation courts mainly use youth welfare files to establish facts, without taking into account that these files often conceal the true character of persecution. Inadequate trust in the correctness of GDR decisions is widespread in home education, but it is not justified.

With the amendment to the law of November 22, 2019, a presumption rule was introduced in Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the StrRehaG (a new paragraph was added): It is assumed that the placement in a home for children or young people served political persecution or other unrelated purposes if they were admitted to a special home or a comparable facility where forced re-education took place.

proof

Many home children have great difficulty in proving their fate. The fact that those affected typically have difficulties in proving the unlawful measures must be adequately taken into account by the courts in the rehabilitation procedure. According to Section 10 (1) sentence 1 of the StrRehaG, the courts are also obliged to use all available options to determine the facts themselves, for which they may also use the public prosecutor's office (Section 10 (4) of the StrRehaG). In principle, evidence can be provided by any of the evidence specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure. These are in particular:

• Testimonies (e.g. from relatives or fellow inmates),
• Certificates and documents (such as the instruction order or other files of the youth welfare committee; the youth welfare offices are obliged to hand over existing documents to the courts in accordance with Section 69, Paragraph 1, No. 2 in conjunction with No. 1 and Paragraph 2, No. 1 SGB X),
• Experts (such as experienced victim counselors from the state commissioner for the Stasi files),
• affidavit of the person concerned.

If these investigations do not reveal anything and the facts on which the application is based have not been proven otherwise from the point of view of the court, this is at the expense of the person concerned, who is then denied rehabilitation. In some cases, however, the rehabilitation courts rely solely on the factual presentation of the person concerned, provided this appears credible, is free of contradictions and is consistent with the findings of the courts from other proceedings.

Rehabilitation of other non-criminal measures involving deprivation of liberty (§ 2 StrRehaG)

Section 2 of the Criminal Rehabilitation Act also enables the rehabilitation of other deprivations of liberty that were not committed in connection with a criminal offense. Even before the Penal Rehabilitation Act came into force, admissions to psychiatric institutions were eligible for rehabilitation. This regulation was adopted in the StrRehaG in 1992 and extended to other non-criminal deprivation of liberty in 1994. A rehabilitation according to § 2 StrRehaG requires:

Imprisonment between May 8, 1945 and October 2, 1990

The following measures, which must have been taken during the Soviet Zone / GDR period, can be considered:

• Admission to a psychiatric facility. This can be, for example, medical admissions, admissions by the district courts or by public prosecutors and other investigative bodies.
• Other judicially or officially ordered deprivation of liberty. A deprivation of liberty exists when the person concerned has been completely and sustainably separated from the environment and his freedom of movement has been restricted to a narrowly delimited area. Service in the disciplinary unit of the National People's Army of the GDR in Schwedt is recognized as a detention .
• Life or forced labor under similar conditions. Conditions similar to detention exist if the person concerned was subject to significant restrictions of his freedom of movement that were constantly monitored by the authorities and, according to the other conditions, had to lead a life that largely came close to that of a detainee.
• Forced labor under similar conditions.

German body

The measure must have been initiated by a German court or a German authority.

Non-criminal nature of the measure

Section 2 StrRehaG only covers measures of a civil or administrative nature, such as briefings according to the police, the briefing or youth welfare law. Section 1 StrRehaG applies to all criminal measures.

Incompatibility of the measure with essential principles of a free constitutional order

Possible reasons for cancellation are:

• The measure took place in connection with one of the criminal offenses listed in § 1 StrRehaG and the presumption of political persecution is not refuted in individual cases ( see above ).
• The measure served political persecution for other reasons.
• The legal consequences ordered are grossly disproportionate to the behavior that prompted the measure: Any behavior comes into consideration, not just behavior in connection with a criminal offense.
• The measure served unrelated purposes. This is the case if the admission to a psychiatric facility took place because of social behavior deviating from the norm and perceived as annoying - such as work reluctance, anti-social lifestyle, alcohol abuse, violation of maintenance obligations, troublemaking - and to educate the person concerned in socially desirable behavior, without the person concerned being mentally or psychologically ill in the medically understandable sense.
• The measure is seriously flawed for other reasons, for example because of significant procedural errors.

Measures that can be rehabilitated according to § 2 StrRehaG are - in addition to admission to psychiatric facilities - services in the disciplinary unit of the National People's Army of the GDR in Schwedt. In principle, it must be checked in each individual case whether the measure is incompatible with essential principles of a free constitutional order. This was answered in the affirmative in the following cases:

• Admission to a psychiatric institution that was not medically indicated, did not serve to avert danger or which for other reasons had serious doubts about its material accuracy.
• Briefing that was carried out without a court or official decision despite the lack of consent of the person concerned.
• Deprivation of liberty to cover up the physical abuse of the victim in the National People's Army of the GDR.

Rehabilitation procedure

At the Berlin Regional Court, criminal chamber 51 is exclusively responsible for rehabilitation proceedings.

The criminal rehabilitation has been designed as a simplified retrial . The provisions of the Courts Constitution Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure apply accordingly, unless the Criminal Rehabilitation Act stipulates otherwise (Section 15 StrRehaG). The court usually decides on the rehabilitation application without an oral discussion (Section 12 (2) StrRehaG). It is obliged to determine ex officio the facts required to check whether a measure is unlawful - if necessary with the help of the public prosecutor's office ( duty of official investigation , Section 10 StrRehaG). According to the established case law of the Federal Constitutional Court , this also includes the obligation, if necessary, to re-determine the facts on which the challenged measure is based (e.g. the course of an act) by exhausting all available possibilities for knowledge or to explain why such an investigation did not take place. During the investigation, the courts must take into account relevant specialist publications and, if necessary, listen to experts (see also section Evidence ). The rehabilitation decision is issued as a resolution (Section 12 (1) StrRehaG). Against the decision can appeal when Oberlandesgericht during or in Berlin Court be inserted (§ 13, para. 1 StrRehaG, exceptions in paragraph 2). There are no court costs for the rehabilitation process (Section 14 (1) StrRehaG). If the rehabilitation application is successful, the lawyer's fees, provided they do not exceed the amounts provided for in the Lawyers' Remuneration Act, are charged to the state treasury (Section 14 (2) StrRehaG).

Subsequent claims

General

Rehabilitation can give rise to follow-up claims for which various authorities are responsible. In detail, u. a. the following claims are considered:

• Return of confiscated assets (Section 3 (2) StrRehaG).
• Refund of fines § 6 (StrRehaG).
• Social compensation benefits such as lump-sum compensation and special benefits (victim's pension) in the event of deprivation of liberty ( Section 17 and Section 17a StrRehaG), support services and care for the injured ( Section 18 and Section 21 StrRehaG). However, social compensation payments are not granted if the person concerned has violated the principles of humanity or the rule of law ( Section 16 (2) StrRehaG). This is the case, for example, with close cooperation with the Ministry for State Security or the political department of the criminal police, which has had serious consequences for third parties.
• Claims according to the Professional Rehabilitation Act (BerRehaG).

Affected people who were imprisoned in one of the Soviet special camps between 1945 and 1950 - these were around 170,000 people, of whom around 55,000 died in custody - are also entitled to social compensation under certain conditions (cf. § 25 para. 2 p . 1 StrRehaG). The legislature saw itself prevented from a formal rehabilitation of this group of victims in accordance with the regulations in Sections 1 and 2 StrRehaG for reasons of international law . Survivors of the roughly 9,000 people convicted by a Soviet military tribunal between 1945 and 1949 can apply to the Russian authorities for rehabilitation.

Victim pension

→ Main article : victim pension

The special allowance introduced by the legislature in 2007 in accordance with Section 17a StrRehaG, which is to be granted in the event of deprivation of liberty of at least 180 days (since November 29, 2019: 90 days), if the person concerned is particularly impaired in his economic situation ( Victim pension , also victim pension ). The victim's pension was originally 250 euros per month and was increased to a maximum of 300 euros per month on January 1, 2015. As of November 29, 2019, it was increased to a maximum of 330 euros. The service providers make the increase of the payments ex officio , an application is not required.

The prerequisites for granting the victim pension are in detail (§ 17a StrRehaG):

• The person concerned has already been rehabilitated according to Section 1 or Section 2 of the StrRehaG (for those affected who were interned in Soviet camps, see Section 25 (2) sentence 1 of the StrRehaG).
• The person affected has suffered a deprivation of liberty (remand or criminal detention; measures according to § 2 StrRehaG, in particular placement in a children's or youth home) included in the rehabilitation. If only legal interests other than freedom were impaired, for example as a result of disruptive measures by the Ministry for State Security caused health or psychological damage, a victim's pension cannot be considered.
• The detention must have lasted at least 180 (since November 29, 2019: 90 days) days. If this minimum duration is slightly undercut - up to fourteen days - for example because the discharge was brought forward from the weekend to a Friday or because of a public holiday, the victim's pension can still be granted in exceptional cases in hardship (Section 19 StrRehaG).
• The person concerned must be impaired in his economic situation. Such an impairment usually exists if the income of the person concerned does not exceed € 1,272 (living single) or € 1,696 (living in a marriage or partnership). For each child who is entitled to child benefit , the income limit increases by € 424 (all amounts are based on the basic standard rate / standard requirement, apply at the stated amount from January 1, 2019 and are adjusted annually). Pensions and child benefit are not taken into account when determining income. Company pension contributions are deducted from income. If the stated assessment limits are exceeded by less than € 330, the person concerned receives the difference. The fact that the applicant is in custody or imprisonment and is provided with everything they need by the state does not change any other economic need.
• The person concerned must not have violated the principles of humanity or the rule of law (Section 16 (2) StrRehaG), for example by having worked intensively with the Ministry for State Security and this had serious consequences for third parties.
• The victim's pension is not granted if the person concerned has been legally sentenced to imprisonment of at least three years for an intentional crime and the conviction is contained in information from the Federal Central Register (Section 17a (7) StrRehaG). The reason for this regulation introduced by the law of December 2, 2010 was the case of Frank Schmökels , convicted several times for the most serious violent crimes, who had been imprisoned in the GDR for attempting to illegally cross the border and therefore applied for a victim's pension.

The victim's pension is only paid after successful rehabilitation. If the application has already been submitted to the authority responsible for the victim's pension before the rehabilitation court has made a final decision, the victim's pension must be paid after the rehabilitation application is submitted.

In 2014, a total of around 45,000 people received a victim's pension.

Advice offers and media

Advice on legal rehabilitation issues is primarily offered by the respective state commissioners for the Stasi files, now renamed as state commissioners for dealing with the SED dictatorship. Home children can also find advice at the contact and advice centers set up according to the “Home Education in the GDR from 1945 to 1990” fund (the fund was closed on December 31, 2019, in most countries there are still contact persons). Current scientific papers, decisions and comments appear regularly in the journal Neue Justiz and in the journal for open property issues, rehabilitation and other reparation law (up to issue 4/2011: “Journal for open property questions”).

Comparative law

The following important information is missing from this article or section:

The section will gradually be supplemented based on relevant reading. Philipp Mützel ( discussion ) 3:08 p.m., Apr. 27, 2013 (CEST)

Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

Nazi injustice

National Socialist injustice judgments could initially be overturned after the end of the Second World War due to state law regulations "for reparation" or "elimination of National Socialist injustice in the administration of criminal justice". The legislature decided in favor of general clauses , some of which, as was also done in Section 1 (1) StrRehaG, were supplemented by a catalog of precisely named criminal offenses. All application deadlines were lifted in 1965. 1988 was created with the Law on the Elimination of Nazi injustice judgments a federal regulation that by 1998 Nazi injustice judgments repeal Act was replaced. The following are repealed: Convictions by the People's Court or by the court martial in 1945 and convictions that are based on provisions explicitly named in the law. The cancellation takes place by law, ie "automatically". Upon request, the public prosecutor will determine that a conviction has been overturned and issue a certificate.

foreign countries

Albania

In Albania , after the collapse of the dictatorship, compensation payments for victims were initially provided in the form of compensation payments, pensions and compensation for lost wages. In 2007 the Law on Compensation for Former Political Prisoners was passed. It concerns people who were convicted between 1944 and 1991 on the basis of criminal provisions listed in the law in the form of a catalog, and grants monetary compensation for each day wrongly spent in detention. Several sample applications are contained in the law itself.

Bulgaria

Applications for the reversal of the sentence and amnesty with regard to crimes against the communist state could be made in Bulgaria under a special law until 1993. The repeal drew - as u. a. stay in labor camps, deportation - entitlements according to the Rehabilitation Act. In the event of death, a one-off payment of around EUR 2,400 is provided as compensation. In the event of a loss of health and freedom, the law provides for a pension subsidy of 30 to 50% of the pension and a one-off payment of a maximum of around 1,100 euros (all amounts as of 2010). The existence of the claim must be made through written evidence . If this is not possible, a special government committee can still approve the payment.

Croatia

Relevant reparation regulations in Croatia are contained in the Law on the Rights of Former Political Prisoners of Communism of 1992. A former political prisoner is anyone who was imprisoned between 1945 and 1990 on the basis of political convictions or because of political resistance and who was or was resident in Croatia for ten years . is. As compensation, the law provides for the recognition of retirement periods, which are credited to a certain amount, and the return of confiscated assets; Compensation for material and immaterial damage is based on general civil law regulations. The application had to be made within four years after the law came into force. A prerequisite for benefits under the Restitution Act was the submission of documents proving the status of a political prisoner. The Ministry of Justice also had to submit existing documents ex officio. Evidence could also be provided through the opinion of a victims' organization. An administrative procedure decided on the claims .

Poland

In Poland , criminal rehabilitation is regulated by the Law on Recognition of the Nullity of Judgments against persons subjected to repression for their work in favor of the Polish state. According to this law, an application can be made to the competent district or military court to declare the nullity of decisions from the years 1944–1989 if the underlying conviction was in connection with the struggle for Polish independence, collectivization or the violation of mandatory tax norms. The court can order the publication of the declaration of invalidity. If the application for a declaration is successful, there is a claim for damages.

Romania

Restitution regulations can be found in Romania in two laws from 1990, which on the one hand concern victims of the dictatorship from 1945 to 1989 and on the other hand victims of the clashes around the turn of the year 1989/90. Victims of the dictatorship are entitled to the recognition of retirement insurance periods, pension and survivor's pension, free medical treatment and free use of local transport. They are exempt from certain taxes, are given preferential treatment for housing and receive discounted loans. The person concerned is required to provide evidence that the legal requirements are met, although certain simplifications of evidence apply. An originally intended application deadline was declared unconstitutional.

Russia

The political injustice committed in the Soviet Union is particularly severe. Already in the Khrushchev era in the 1950s, but also in the 1960s, victims were rehabilitated individually and collectively - in some cases entire ethnic groups (e.g. the Volga Germans and Crimean Tatars ) had been deported for "high treason" . It was not until 1989, in the final phase of the Soviet Union, that the injustice that had occurred was discussed comprehensively. The Russian Federation passed a law “On the Rehabilitation of Oppressed Peoples” in April 1991 and, six months later, the Law “On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression” (Victim Rehabilitation Act), which covers injustices committed since 1917.

Serbia

On December 15, 2011, a new law on rehabilitation came into force in Serbia . The law regulates the rehabilitation of people who, for political or ideological reasons, have forfeited their life or freedom by 2011 or have encroached on other legal interests. The law applies to criminal and administrative measures. In some cases, rehabilitation takes place on application by judicial decision, in other cases by law. Legal consequences of rehabilitation include: a .: Determination of the invalidity of the measure, granting of a special pension, return of confiscated property or compensation and compensation for loss of legal interests.

Slovakia and the Czech Republic

On April 23, 1990, the Federal Parliament of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic passed Law 119/1990 on rehabilitation. It is used in both successor states. On March 13, 2017 Hartmut Tautz from Magdeburg was posthumously rehabilitated by the Bratislava District Court (Slovakia). The District Court of Budweis ruled on May 11, 2018, and on January 28, 2019, the Prague Ministry of Justice (both Czech Republic) ruled in favor of an injured GDR refugee.

Slovenia

There are no special regulations in Slovenia for the rehabilitation of victims of the communist regime . A criminal judgment can only be overturned by resuming previous criminal proceedings. The law on the enforcement of criminal penalties from 1978 is relevant. There are no application deadlines. If the resumed procedure ends with an acquittal, the return of confiscated assets can be requested.

Ukraine

Relevant regulations can be found in the law "On the rehabilitation of victims of political reprisals in Ukraine " of April 17, 1991.

literature

For criminal rehabilitation

• Michael Bruns, Michael Schröder, Wilhelm Tappert: Criminal Law Rehabilitation Act - Comment. CF Müller Juristischer Verlag , Heidelberg 1993, ISBN 978-3-8114-5093-6 .
• Jürgen Herzler (Editor): Rehabilitation (StrRehaG, VwRehaG, BerRehaG) - Potsdam Commentary. 2nd Edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer , Stuttgart etc. 1997, ISBN 3-17-013903-7 .
• Philipp Mützel: Legal changes and current problems in rehabilitation law. In: Journal for open wealth issues 2011, pp. 106–109 (part 1) and pp. 154–157 (part 2).
• Bodo Wermelskirchen: The jurisprudence on the criminal rehabilitation law. In: Neue Justiz 2008, pp. 342–348.

For home education in the GDR

• Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States (publisher): Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise. Working group for child and youth welfare, Berlin 2012 , ISBN 978-3-922975-98-4 . (PDF; 4.0 MB)
• Anne-Luise Riedel-Krekeler: The rehabilitation of former home children of the GDR according to the criminal rehabilitation law. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag , Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-8305-3433-4

Rehabilitation in other Eastern European countries

• Herbert Küpper, Friedrich-Christian Schroeder (editor): The legal processing of the communist past in Eastern Europe. Peter Lang Verlag , Frankfurt a. M. 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59611-1

Web links

Legal text, official leaflet, application form

• Legal text on juris.de
• Leaflet on criminal rehabilitation, as of April 1, 2014 (PDF) - Federal Ministry of Justice
• Sample forms: Application for rehabilitation for illegal detention , application for rehabilitation for illegal non-criminal detention (psychiatry, children's home, etc.) - The state commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the records of the state security service of the former GDR

Compensation for former children in care

• Fund "Home Education in the GDR from 1949 to 1990"

Further information

• Justification of the criminal rehabilitation act, Bundestag printed matter 12/1608 (PDF; 1.4 MB)
• Overview of counseling services for victims of political persecution in the Soviet Zone / GDR. Published by the Federal Foundation for the Crisis of the SED Dictatorship. 5th edition. Berlin 2010 (PDF; 2.4 MB)
• On the social situation of the victims of the SED regime in Thuringia - research report on behalf of the Thuringian Ministry for Social Affairs, Family and Health. 2008 (PDF; 1.5 MB)
• Information from the Foreign Office on the rehabilitation of German victims of Soviet criminal prosecution

Individual evidence

1. ^ Jena Center for Empirical Social & Cultural Research: On the social situation of the victims of the SED regime in Thuringia - Research report on behalf of the Thuringian Ministry for Social Affairs, Family and Health. (PDF; 1.5 MB) Jena 2008, p. 9.
2. ↑ District Court Potsdam, decision of July 3, 1991, Az. 2 BSK 83/90; Journal of Property and Real Estate Law 1992, p. 117.
3. ↑ ^{a b c} Hubertus Knabe : The perpetrators are among us. About the glossing over of the SED dictatorship. Propylaen Verlag , Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-549-07302-5 , pp. 212-239.
4. ↑ Second Act to Improve Rehabilitation Regulations for Victims of Political Persecution in the GDR of December 17, 1999 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2662 ).
5. ↑ Ansgar Borbe: The number of victims of the SED regime ( Memento from October 10, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 708 kB) State Center for Political Education Thuringia, Erfurt 2010, ISBN 978-3-937967-60-8
6. ↑ Failures in dealing with SED victims. Märkische Oderzeitung from March 8, 2013.
7. ^ Federal government report on the state of the process of coming to terms with the SED dictatorship (PDF; 1.4 MB) of January 16, 2013 (Bundestag printed matter 17/12115), in particular pp. 19–21.
8. ^ German Bundestag: Stenographic report. 17th electoral term, 232nd meeting of March 22, 2013 (plenary minutes 17/232; PDF; 2.0 MB), p. 290006 (C and D).
9. ↑ ndr.de: Only a few applications for GDR victim pension ( memento from March 16, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (April 8, 2012).
10. ↑ Rainer Wagner: Demands of the Union of Victims' Associations of Communist Tyranny for the 2013 Bundestag election. Http://www.uokg.de/cms/attachments/Politische_Forderungen_der_UOKG_Bundestagswahl_2012.pdf (link not available)
11. ↑ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from 9./10. November 2013.
12. ^ ^{A b} Philipp Mützel: The Fifth Act to Improve Rehabilitation Law Regulations for Victims of Political Persecution in the former GDR. In: Journal for open property issues, rehabilitation and other reparation law 2014, pp. 230–234.
13. ^ Resolution of the German Bundestag from December 4, 2014. Printed in: Journal for open property issues, rehabilitation and other reparation law 2014, p. 235.
14. ↑ ^{a b c d} Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 7 December 1999, Az. 2 BvR 1533/94, BVerfGE 101, p. 275.
15. ↑ ^{a b} Federal Constitutional Court, decision of October 19, 2004, Az. 2 BvR 779/04, Landes- und Kommunalverwaltung 2005, p. 116.
16. ↑ ^{a b c} Constitutional Court of the State of Berlin, decision of September 24, 2013, Az. VerfG 172/11, Landes- und Kommunalverwaltung 2013, p. 506.
17. ↑ Landgericht Berlin, order of November 24, 1993, Az. (552 Rh) 3 Js 66/90 (1121/92), published in: Christiaan F. Rüter : DDR-Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Volume 3. KG Saur, Munich 2003, ISBN 3-598-24613-7 , No. 1087b (p. 489).
18. ^ Higher Regional Court of Rostock, order of September 14, 1994, Az. II WsRH 79/94, Journal for Property and Real Estate Law 1995, p. 122.
19. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, order of December 18, 1995, Az. 1 Ws Reh 97/95, Zeitschrift für Vermögens- und Immobilienrecht 1996, p. 237.
20. ↑ Friedrich-Christian Schroeder: On the legal rehabilitation assessment of GDR convictions for desertion. In: Juristenteitung 1993, pp. 583-584; Peter König: On the question to what extent the conviction of a former member of the National People's Army of the former GDR for desertion can be rehabilitated. In: Juristische Rundschau 1993, pp. 303-305.
21. ↑ Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of September 14, 2009, Az. 1 Ws Reha 22/09.
22. ↑ Sven Korzilius: Asociality with tradition - The origin and development of § 249 StGB of the GDR. ( Memento of the original from November 14, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Horch and Guck issue 2/2008, pp. 14-19. 
23. ↑ Kammergericht, decision of November 16, 1993, Az. 5 Ws 355/93 REHA, Zeitschrift für Vermögens- und Immobilienrecht 1994, p. 207; similar to Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, order of January 27, 1994, Az. 1 Ws Reh 170/93, Zeitschrift für Vermögens- und Immobilienrecht 1994, p. 259. ( Memento of March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
24. ^ Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg, decision of February 9, 1995, Az. 1 Ws (Reha) 112/94, Zeitschrift für Vermögens- und Immobilienrecht 1995, p. 318. ( Memento of March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
25. ↑ Erfurt Regional Court, decision of April 4, 2012, Az. 1 Reha 173/10.
26. ↑ Justification of the Federal Government on § 1 Abs. 5 StrRehaG, Bundestag printed matter 12/1608, p. 18 (under No. 18.). (PDF; 1.4 MB)
27. ↑ Michael Bruns, Michael Schröder, Wilhelm Tappert: Clearing up justice injustice in the GDR - The new criminal law rehabilitation law (Part 1). In: Neue Justiz 1992, pp. 394–399.
28. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, decision of October 10, 2014, Az. 2 Ws (Reh) 23/14.
29. ↑ ^{a b} Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, Order of April 23, 2014, Az. 2 Ws (Reh) 12/14, Journal for Unresolved Property Issues, Rehabilitation and Other Compensation Law 2014, p. 162.
30. ^ District Court Magdeburg, decision of January 3, 2007, Az. Reh 5642/06, magazine for open property issues 2009, p. 39, the subsequently Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, decision of August 9, 2007, Az. 1 Ws Reh 135/07 ( Memento from March 9, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
31. ^ Rainer Hausmann: Entitlement to the return of the property expropriated between 1945 and 1949 in the Soviet occupation zone by means of criminal rehabilitation? In: Carl-Eugen Eberle: Festschrift for Winfried Brohm on his 70th birthday. Verlag CH Beck, Munich 2002, ISBN 3-406-49148-0 , pp. 331-350; Johannes Wasmuth: Criminal prosecution of the "large landowners", "Junkers" and "feudal lords" with farms over 100 hectares as part of the "democratic land reform". In: Journal for open property issues 2010, pp. 283–289.
32. ^ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of December 15, 2008, Az. 2 BvR 2462/07, Neue Justiz 2009, p. 308 (with a note by Philipp Mützel) .
33. ↑ Leipzig Regional Court , decision of March 27, 2012, file number: BSRH 17.109 / 11 u. a., Journal for open property issues, rehabilitation and other reparation law 2012, 90.
34. ↑ Dresden Regional Court, decision of August 24, 2009, Az. BSRH 22/06, Neue Justiz 2010, p. 219 (with a note by Philipp Mützel) ; hereinafter Oberlandesgericht Dresden, decision of November 26, 2010, Az. 1 Reha Ws 98/09; Higher Regional Court, decision of June 24, 2010, Az. 2 Ws 191/10 REHA, Journal for open property issues 2010, p. 308 (with negative comment from Johannes Wasmuth: Abuse of KRD No. 38 to carry out the “democratic economic reform” in East -Berlin - At the same time a discussion of the resolution of the KG dated June 24, 2010 - 2 Ws 191/10 - REHA. In: Journal for open property issues 2010, pp. 290-295).
35. ↑ Guidelines for the Saxon referendum of May 21, 1946, printed in: Schönfelder II: Civil, Economic and Justice Laws - supplementary volume for the new federal states. 41st edition (loose-leaf). Verlag CH Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-46010-4 , No. 231.
36. ^ Resolution of the democratic magistrate of Greater Berlin on the implementation of the law on the confiscation of assets of war criminals and Nazi activists of February 8, 1949, Ordinance Gazette for Greater Berlin, Part I, No. 5/1949, p. 33 on Wikimedia Commons
37. ↑ Announcement on assets confiscated under the Expropriation Act of February 8, 1949 (List 1) of February 9, 1949 on Wikimedia Commons , List 2 (return) on Wikimedia Commons , List 3 (Expropriation) on Wikimedia Commons , see Federal Administrative Court, judgment of September 11, 2013 - 8 C 4/12 - , List 3 (addendum) on Wikimedia Commons , List 4 (return) on Wikimedia Commons and Ordinance on the transfer of corporate groups and other commercial enterprises into public ownership of May 10, 1949
38. ↑ Johannes Wasmuth: Abuse of KRD No. 38 for the implementation of the “democratic economic reform” in East Berlin - At the same time a discussion of the decision of the KG from June 24, 2010 - 2 Ws 191/10 REHA. In: Journal for open wealth issues 2010, pp. 290–295.
39. ↑ Johannes Wasmuth: Necessary clarifications to the SMAD orders No. 124 and 64. , Journal for open property questions 2011, 102-105; Johannes Wasmuth, Julius Albrecht Kempe: Serious constitutional deficits in the jurisprudence of criminal rehabilitation courts in dealing with the injustice of repression as a result of the Saxon referendum. In: Journal for Open Property Issues 2009, pp. 232–251; on East Berlin: Johannes Wasmuth, Stefan von Raumer: On the criminal character of the persecution of industrialists and traders as war criminals and Nazi criminals in East Berlin. In: Journal for Open Property Issues 2006, pp. 103–111.
40. ↑ Thomas Gertner, Sylvia von Maltzahn: UN Human Rights Committee - Another Way for Victims of Soviet Zone Persecution. , Website: DerRechtsstaat.de (accessed on August 6, 2012).
41. ↑ European Court of Human Rights, decision of March 2, 2005, Az. 71916/01 u. a. - from Maltzan / Germany , accessed on September 26, 2014, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 2530.
42. ↑ ^{a b c} Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 13, 2009, Az. 2 BvR 718/08, Neue Justiz 2010, p. 175 (with a note by Philipp Mützel) .
43. ↑ ^{a b c d} Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of September 17, 2010, Az. 1 Ws Reha 50/10.
44. ^ Order on special youth welfare homes of April 22, 1975 (GDR Law Gazette, Part II, p. 368).
45. ↑ Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of May 17, 2011, Az. 1 Ws Reha 7/11.
46. ↑ ^{a b} Higher Regional Court of Jena, decision of January 17, 2012, file number: 1 Ws Reha 50/11.
47. ↑ ^{a b} Higher Regional Court Naumburg, order of April 14, 2011, Az. 2 Ws (Reh) 96/11 ( Memento of March 20, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 27 kB).
48. ↑ Berlin Regional Court, decision of July 1, 2010, Az. (551 Rh) 3 Js 1309/09 (822/09); Erfurt Regional Court, decision of December 6, 2010, Az. 1 Reha 101/09.
49. ↑ ^{a b c} Erfurt Regional Court, decision of December 6, 2010, Az. 1 Reha 101/09.
50. ↑ Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of August 10, 2010, Az. 1 Ws Reha 43/10.
51. ↑ Dresden Higher Regional Court, decision of April 2, 2012, file number: 1 Reha Ws 184/10.
52. ↑ Dresden Higher Regional Court, decision of September 16, 2010, Az. 1 Reha Ws 135/10.
53. ↑ Administrative Court Meiningen, order of April 3, 2008, Az. 8 K 222/06 Me. (PDF; 31 kB)
54. ↑ Supreme Court, decision of 9 September 2010, Ref. 2 Ws 351/09 REHABILITATION .
55. ↑ Supreme Court, decision of 16 June 2011, Ref. 2 Ws 351/09 REHABILITATION, Journal of Unresolved Property Issues 2011, 166.
56. ↑ Landgericht Berlin, decision of December 6, 2012, Az. (551 Rh) 3 Js 197–199 / 10 (1166–1168 / 09).
57. ↑ Dresden Higher Regional Court, decision of February 10, 2012, file number: 1 Reha Ws 2/12.
58. ^ ^{A b} Philipp Mützel: Legal Changes and Current Problems in Rehabilitation Law - Part 1. , Journal for open property issues 2011, pp. 106-109.
59. ↑ ^{a b} Court of Appeal, decision of December 15, 2004, Az. 5 Ws 169/04 REHA, Neue Justiz 2005, p. 469.
60. ↑ ^{a b} Higher Regional Court of Rostock, decision of October 27, 2010, Az. I WsRH 33/10.
61. ↑ Kammergericht, decision of March 6, 2007, Az. 2/5 Ws 246/06 REHA, Neue Justiz 2007, p. 424.
62. ↑ Kammergericht, decision of March 29, 2012, Az. 2 Ws 116/12 REHA.
63. ^ Friedericke Wapler: Legal issues of home education in the GDR. In: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States (editor): Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise. Working group for child and youth welfare, Berlin 2012, pp. 99-102. (PDF; 4.0 MB)
64. ↑ Justification of the Federal Government on § 2 Abs. 2 StrRehaG, Bundestag printed matter 12/4994, p. 54 (under No. 5) (PDF; 2.3 MB)
65. ↑ Philipp Mützel: Comment on the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of May 13, 2009 - 2 BvR 718/08. In: Neue Justiz 2010, pp. 175–176.
66. ↑ Berlin Regional Court, decision of July 1, 2010, Az. (551 Rh) 3 Js 1309/09 (822/09).
67. ↑ Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of June 12, 2012, Az. 1 Ws Reha 52/11.
68. ↑ Erfurt Regional Court, decision of December 6, 2010, Az. 1 Reha 101/09; Philipp Mützel: Comment on the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of May 13, 2009, Az. 2 BvR 718/08. In: Neue Justiz 2010, pp. 175–176.
69. ↑ Rostock Regional Court, ruling of April 11, 2012, Az. 16 Rh 166/09.
70. ^ Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, order of October 29, 2014, Az. 2 Ws (Reh) 22/14.
71. ↑ Kammergericht, decision of August 6, 2010, Az. 2 Ws 28/10 REHA, Zeitschrift für open property questions 2010, p. 306.
72. ↑ Kai Mudra: Hardly any chance of rehabilitation for GDR children in homes. In: Thüringer Allgemeine from September 21, 2010 ; Michael Falgowski: "I just cried." In: Mitteldeutsche Zeitung of January 26, 2010.
73. ↑ Johannes Wasmuth: No great hour of the constitutional state - Two decades of coming to terms with SED injustice. In: Juristentung 2010, pp. 1133–1142.
74. ^ Friedericke Wapler: Legal issues of home education in the GDR. In: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States (editor): Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise. Working group for child and youth welfare, Berlin 2012, p. 99. (PDF; 4.0 MB)
75. ↑ Philipp Mützel: Legal Changes and Current Problems in Rehabilitation Law - Part I. In: Journal for open property questions 2011, pp. 106, 109.
76. ↑ Compare for example the Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of June 12, 2012, Az. 1 Ws Reha 52/11.
77. ↑ For example, Court of Appeal, decision of September 30, 2011, Az. 2 Ws 177/11 REHA, magazine for open property issues , rehabilitation and other reparation law 2011, p. 252.
78. ↑ ^{a b} Higher Regional Court Jena, decision of September 3, 2009, Az. 1 Ws Reha 15/09.
79. ↑ Landgericht Berlin, decision of August 9, 2000, Az. (551/550 Rh) 3 Js 300/99 (294/99), Neue Justiz 2000, p. 611.
80. ↑ Landgericht Berlin, decision of June 11, 1998, Az. (551 Rh) 4 Js 22/98 (358/97), Journal for Property and Real Estate Law 1999, p. 693.
81. ^ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 13, 2009, Az. 2 BvR 718/08, Landes- und Kommunalverwaltung 2009, p. 315.
82. ↑ Jena Higher Regional Court, decision of November 25, 2011, Az. 1 Ws Reha 28/11.
83. ↑ Overview in: Bodo Wermelskirchen: The case law on the criminal law rehabilitation law , Neue Justiz 2008, pp. 342–348.
84. ^ Business distribution plan of the Berlin Regional Court.
85. ^ Karl Heinz Gössel, in: Ewald Löwe, Werner Rosenberg: The Criminal Procedure Code and the Courts Constitution Act. Volume 5. 25th edition, De Gruyter Verlag, Berlin etc. 1997, ISBN 3-89949-144-0 , before § 359 paragraph 182.
86. ↑ ^{a b} Federal Constitutional Court, decision of September 24, 2014, Az. 2 BvR 2782/10, Journal for Unresolved Property Issues , Rehabilitation and Other Right to Restitution 2014, pp. 237–241.
87. ↑ Law on Compensating Professional Disadvantages for Victims of Political Persecution in the Accession Area (Professional Rehabilitation Act - BerRehaG)
88. ↑ Kammergericht, decision of February 22, 2010, Az. 2 Ws 278/09 REHA Neue Justiz 2010, p. 483 (with a note by Philipp Mützel).
89. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, order of October 29, 2014, Az. 2 Ws (Reh) 25/14.
90. ↑ Justification of the federal government on the amendment of § 17a StrRehaG, Bundestag printed matter 17/3233, p. 9. (PDF; 146 kB)
91. ↑ Federal Court of Justice, decision of July 14, 2011, Az. 4 StR 548/10.
92. ↑ Schmökel does not receive a victim pension. , Der Tagesspiegel from April 11, 2009; Higher Regional Court of Rostock, decision of April 8, 2009, Az. I WsRH 5/09, Neue Justiz 2009, p. 395 (with a note by Philipp Mützel).
93. ↑ Federal Court of Justice, decision of August 10, 2010, Az. 4 StR 646/09, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 322. ( Memento of April 27, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 107 kB)
94. ↑ Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas in the Bundestag debate on November 14, 2014, shorthand report of the 67th session of the 18th electoral term, p. 6391 (B).
95. ↑ Link list BStU-LStU of the Federal Foundation Processing
96. ↑ z. B. in Brandenburg
97. ^ Wolfgang Fikentscher, Rainer Koch: Criminal reparation for National Socialist injustice. In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1983, pp. 12–15.
98. ↑ Kurt Rudolph: The forgotten victims of the Nazi justice. In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1999, pp. 102-104.
99. ↑ Wolfgang Stoppel: Chronicle of the legal development in Albania. In: Economy and Law in Eastern Europe 2008, p. 95.
100. ↑ Stela Ivanova: The legal processing of the communist past in Bulgaria. In: Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Herbert Küpper: The legal processing of the communist past in Eastern Europe. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. etc. 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59611-1 , pp. 13-17.
101. ↑ Tomislav Pintarić: The legal processing of the communist past in Croatia. In: Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Herbert Küpper: The legal processing of the communist past in Eastern Europe. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. etc. 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59611-1 , pp. 110-113.
102. ↑ Tina de Vries: The legal handling of the past in the Republic of Poland. In: Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Herbert Küpper: The legal processing of the communist past in Eastern Europe. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. etc. 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59611-1 , pp. 138-139.
103. ↑ Axel Bormann: The legal processing of the communist past in Romania. In: Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Herbert Küpper: The legal processing of the communist past in Eastern Europe. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. etc. 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59611-1 , pp. 166-170.
104. ↑ Antje Himmelreich: The legal processing of the communist past in the Russian Federation. In: Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Herbert Küpper: The legal processing of the communist past in Eastern Europe. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. etc. 2010, ISBN 978-3-631-59611-1 , pp. 189-202, 207-214.
105. ↑ Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (Austria) (accessed on September 3, 2015).
106. ↑ zakonyprolidi.cz (accessed December 9, 2019).
107. ↑ How to apply for rehabilitation and compensation ... (accessed December 9, 2019).
108. ↑ ... Killing of refugee was a crime, family has a right to compensation! (accessed December 9, 2019).
109. ^ First rehabilitation in the Czech Republic ... (accessed December 9, 2019).
110. ↑ The Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic for the first time compensated ... (accessed December 9, 2019).
111. ↑ Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (Austria) (accessed on September 3, 2015).
112. ↑ Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (Austria) ( Memento from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (accessed on September 3, 2015)

Please note the information on legal issues!

This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on October 15, 2011 in this version .