The flood disaster in the Ahr valley in July 2021 had devastating consequences: 135 people lost their lives and thousands lost their homes. In addition to the material damage, questions regarding criminal liability remain to this day. The legal process is still ongoing – particularly with regard to the preliminary investigation against former district administrator Jürgen Pöhler.
Criminal investigation against former district administrator dropped
The public prosecutor's office in Koblenz dropped the investigation against former district administrator Jürgen Pföhler on April 18, 2024. This decision was met with criticism. Numerous victims and survivors filed complaints against the dismissal.
In the complaint, which was substantiated by a 141-page written submission and three expert opinions, the applicants demand a reopening of the investigation. In doing so, they rely on scientific analyses that suggest that the disaster was foreseeable from a certain point in time and that warnings should have been issued.
New expert opinion: Was the disaster foreseeable?
One of the expert reports was written by Prof. Erwin Zehe, a hydrologist at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). He concludes that as early as 3:26 p.m. on the day of the disaster, a water level of up to 1.83 meters could have been foreseen in the apartment of one of the subsequent fatalities. According to this analysis, warnings could and should have been issued at an early stage.Instead, the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz assumed in its decision to dismiss the case on April 18, 2024 that, according to the flood hazard map, a maximum water level of only 1 meter was to be expected and therefore no evacuation was necessary to save human lives.
Disaster researcher Frank Roselieb from the University of Kiel also considers the decision of the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz to be unjustifiable.
In his opinion, the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz significantly underestimates the importance of preventive measures in the potential disaster phase, overlooks the basic causality of service regulations for disaster management and substantially misjudges the decision-making behavior in disaster management.
According to Roselieb, the way in which the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz commissioned a disaster report during the investigation was partly controlling, which raised questions.
Another disaster protection expert, Gerd Gräff, editor of two disaster protection commentaries in Rhineland-Palatinate, emphasizes that it was not a completely unexpected natural event. Rather, there were already binding flood hazard maps that clearly showed the risks. The experts therefore see a legal obligation on the part of the relevant authorities to react at an early stage and to warn the population.
A video recording by Ms. Johanna Orth shows that the fire department, due to a lack of a corresponding command to intervene, warned against entering basements, underground parking garages and lower-lying terrain as late as 8:17 p.m. According to the content of a KATWARN message at 7:35 p.m., people had already been warned against entering ground-floor apartments. In 2021, very few people were able to receive KATWARN messages. It has been proven that Ms. Johanna Orth did not have a KATWARN app on her cell phone either.
Prof. Dr. Ingeborg Puppe, a professor specializing in causality issues at the University of Bonn, has come to the conclusion that the decision of the Koblenz public prosecutor's office is not legally tenable.
This view is unanimously shared in the specialist commentary on criminal law (see BeckOK StGB, v. Heintschel-Heinegg/Kudlich, 64th edition as of: 01/02/2025, BeckOK StGB/Heuchemer, 64th ed. 1.2.2025, StGB § 13 Rn. 48.6).
These views are accurate because the termination notices to the detriment of the victims speculate that the victims may have ignored warnings.
Lawsuit at the Administrative Court of Mainz
On March 14, 2025, the petition of the bereaved was heard before the Administrative Court of Mainz.
The reason for this was that on April 15, 2024, the bereaved had filed an application with the Ministry of Justice to replace the public prosecutors for reasons of concern about bias, with independent public prosecutors in accordance with § 147 no. 2 GVG.
The injured party's representative had been denied essential information. In addition, the injured party's representative had requested access to the records of the investigative committee for further comment. However, the records were not inspected before the proceedings were discontinued. Instead, an expert rejected by the accessory prosecution was re-commissioned by the Koblenz public prosecutor's office behind the back of the accessory prosecution.
The Ministry of Justice had interpreted the application as a disciplinary complaint and submitted it to the Public Prosecutor General's Office in Koblenz for review. Here, the petition request, which was interpreted as a disciplinary complaint and addressed to the Ministry, was rejected.
The plaintiffs argued before the administrative court that the petition had still not been properly examined by the Ministry of Justice of Rhineland-Palatinate.
It was determined that, according to a statement by the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz, the latter had claimed that the representative of the injured party had received all the essential information when the application for substitution was filed. This is not true. The legal committee of the state parliament has been informed of this statement.
Further information on the proceedings can be found in the background report on LTO:
VG Mainz on the flood disaster in the Ahr valley
According to the local view, the Public Prosecutor General's Office in Koblenz could not decide on the application to replace the public prosecutors with independent public prosecutors because it lacked jurisdiction, since it could not exercise the so-called external right of instruction of the ministry in individual cases.
Legal options for those affected
For those affected and bereaved in the Ahr flood, the question arises as to what legal options they have if a decision by the public prosecutor's office not to take action seems incomprehensible. If you are affected or have legal questions, we are always available to help.
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.