Provisional suspension of the preliminary proceedings requested

Why the proceedings against former district administrator Pföhler must not be concluded yet

from
Christian Hecken, LL.M., LL.M.
Lawyer
Specialist in criminal law
Specialist in administrative law

Give me a call: 0228 - 972 798 203
E-Mail:

After the indications of a pronouncement of the discontinuation of the investigation in the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz on April 18, 2024, we, on behalf of the surviving dependents legally represented by Lawyer Christian Hecken, immediately after becoming aware of it on April 15, sent a letter to the Minister of Justice Herbert Mertin and the public prosecutor's office in Koblenz with the request to to provisionally suspend the preliminary proceedings.

Based on our understanding of the law, the investigation cannot currently come to a conclusion, based on 10 aspects:

Slow investigations without results
No adequate reaction to the reprimand for the violation of the rule of law due to the delay in the proceedings, which occurred last year
Obtaining an expert opinion contrary to the binding guidelines for criminal proceedings, known as RiStBV
Results-oriented expert opinion commissioned by the Koblenz public prosecutor's office with reference to the alleged exceptional nature of the flood disaster; in other words, the expert was told that no one could have seen the flood disaster coming.
No reaction to the challenge for bias against the expert Giessler, although according to Article 17 there was a right to a decision on the challenge for bias.
Refusal of access to files despite the announcement that a further day would be held on the bias of the expert after access to the files
Announcement by the Koblenz public prosecutor's office on May 15, 2024 that the results of the investigation will be announced without the bereaved having been granted a legal hearing beforehand, as expressly requested
Subsequent knowledge that the expert appointed by the Koblenz public prosecutor's office was again and additionally commissioned to carry out the assessment, although the unsuitability of the expert is obvious, this was confirmed by the expert Roselieb and the expert appointed by the Koblenz public prosecutor's office had previously been rejected due to bias.
obtaining a completely unnecessary expert opinion, although it is obvious in the case of Johanna Orth that she would have been saved because the fire brigade was ready to go several hours before the door
Procedures that are obvious to everyone are being made scientific. If it is documented on film that the fire brigade, ready for action, was standing outside the apartment door hours before the flood, then questions as to whether she would really have been saved are superfluous. No expert opinion at the taxpayer's expense is required for this.

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.