Love Parade Trial 2019

The following are a collection of posts for German news outlets on the the Love Parade Trial. We are using Google Translate to convert to English, but including the original media link.

We will endeavour to update this as often as possible.


8th February

Loveparade trial: Twelve co-plaintiffs resigned

rtl.de

In the Loveparade trial, several co-plaintiffs left the process after seven defendants were dismissed. “Twelve plaintiffs, the complaint was only authorized in relation to the city employees and they are no longer involved in the proceedings after the partial cessation of proceedings,” said the spokesman for the District Court of Duisburg, Matthias Breidenstein, on Friday the “BILD” newspaper. The court had informed the co-plaintiffs and their lawyers on Thursday. The court registered 58 co-plaintiffs at the beginning of February. Among them are numerous relatives.

The Duisburg district court had closed the proceedings against seven of the ten defendants on Wednesday without conditions. Among the seven were all six former employees of the city of Duisburg. Three defendants had declined an attitude. Against them will be further negotiated. At the Techno-Festival in July 2010 in Duisburg in a crush 21 young people were crushed to death and more than 650 injured.

Subcontracting and undermining responsibility

heise.de

What has neoliberalism to do with the end of the Duisburg Loveparade process? A comment

21 people are killed and more than 600 injured. The guilty party can not make out the culprit, as we now know. The Lopavent boss Rainer Schaller and the Lord Mayor Adolf Sauerland never sat in the dock, which will remain incomprehensible for parents whose children were killed.

Lopavent, with his boss Rainer Schaller and the police, dismissed the security concept, which catastrophically failed because the escape area (tunnel, fence) offered no space, so that people could have freed themselves from the deadly scrum without any problems. Why no guilty party could be found there remains difficult to understand for the layman.

Our legal system seems to be unable to pinpoint causal factors in complex events. In addition, the “rational” security concept was not sufficient to “calculate” or estimate the behavior of people and crowds in non-normative situations. This was similar to the mathematical models that the “quants” (mathematical stock market specialists) came up with and that miserably failed in 2008, when the international financial market crisis caused billions of dollars worth of trending worldwide.

Behind all this tragedy lies a development driven by neoliberalism to save costs: the subcontractor. Already as with the collapse of the archive of the city of Cologne, where the search for guilt had been difficult, it was difficult to find a cause (if the right one was found, that should be accepted). As companies increasingly hire subcontractors, subcontractors, and so on, responsibilities are so dispersed that nobody is responsible for anything. Everyone can talk themselves out, because in this chain of command everyone can claim that he is only responsible for his area and that nothing has happened.

The benefit of a work-sharing network of sub-responsibilities

At the Loveparade in Duisburg, neither Herr Schaller nor, in particular, the mayor, Adolf Sauerland, felt responsible for their position as natural responsible persons. If only one responsible person had been appointed, then there would never have been this Love Parade, because everyone suspected that there were risks in the mass event and the terrain that were not really manageable. Had it not been so, then Adolf Sauerland as mayor and first citizen of the city of Duisburg would have been able to take over the duty for a risk-free event.

That he did not, and others did not, is revealing and the result of a capitalist system that is so diversified that everyone shares responsibility with their subcontractors, not just to save costs, but also to “save” responsibility. In this way you build the Berlin airport or the Stuttgart station and no one is responsible for the disaster or the progressive cost increases.

To date, no real responsible for the international financial market crisis has been found. Most likely it is the system. Whatever or who that is. It does, however, relieve the polluter because risks can be distributed to so many shoulders that, with a light heart, the next major project can be tackled. The work-sharing network of subordinate responsibilities makes it possible, with which probably our legal system has its problems.

And finally the event in Duisburg. The wasteland of the former freight yard was fenced for irritating way. This was especially irritating because, according to the organizers, around 1.4 million people were expected. As always, shiny numbers, of course. But the fence also played a decisive, deadly role in the 400,000 people actually arrived. While walking in the grounds a few days before the parade, press representatives and “lovetruck” operators were in doubt about the fencing and the tunnel entry and exit, but they also confused – falsely – with the disdainful security concept of the police and Lopavent. (Klaus Weinert)

6th February

Victim Father railing against decision of the court

focus.de

Eight and a half years after the Love Parade disaster with 21 dead, the Duisburg district court has closed the criminal case against seven of ten defendants. For them, the process is completed without penalties and restrictions. This was announced by the court on Wednesday in Düsseldorf.

Lowering high blood pressure naturally: four methods that really help youThree defendants, who should have paid a sum of around 10,000 euros, had declined to take a job. The process continues against them now.

Planning mistakes and collective failure led to catastrophe

At the Loveparade in July 2010 in Duisburg, 21 young people were crushed to death and more than 650 were injured in a crush. The process started in December 2017. All defendants had been accused of, among other things, negligent homicide and serious planning mistakes.

The court had proposed hiring in mid-January. The individual guilt of the accused was low or at best regarded as moderate. In addition to planning errors, the court sees a collective failure of many people on the day as co-responsible for the disaster.

The son of Klaus-Peter Mogendorf died in the crush
Several adjutant lawyers had criticized the attitude in advance. There continues to be a public interest in education, they argued.

The father of a Love Parade victim railed on Wednesday violently against the decision. The report on the accident was arbitrarily cited selectively by the court, numerous defects and offenses were not mentioned, important witnesses have not yet been heard, Klaus-Peter Mogendorf said on the 101st day of the trial.

He had lost his son Eike in the disaster.


The court heard 59 witnesses and eight experts in 14 months
Among the seven defendants for whom the trial is now ending are six employees of the city of Duisburg as well as an employee of the Loveparade organizer Lopavent. The three defendants for whom the lawsuit continues were also employed by Lopavent.

As a reason for their consent to hiring the prosecutor’s office had called the fact that on 28 July 2020, the limitation period occurs. The proof program required by law for a judgment can not be completed until then, even in the case of the greatest effort.

Thus, most of the 575 witnesses mentioned in the central expert report would still have to be heard. In the past 14 months, the court heard 59 witnesses and eight experts.

Loveparade process: FDP wants better legal procedural options

fuldainfo.de

After the criticism of relatives of victims of the 2010 Duisburg Love Parade in the termination of the trial of seven of ten defendants, the FDP demands better ways to deal with such procedures. “Especially in exposed, complex issues, the rule of law must demonstrate its ability to act,” said the vice-chairman of the FDP parliamentary group, Stephan Thomae, the newspapers of the “editorial network Germany”. If he is not in a position to “clarify the criminal responsibility in mammoth procedures, the citizens lose their confidence in the rule of law,” said Thomae.

One must therefore make criminal proceedings more effective, faster and more practical. Abroad you are on there. As an example, Thomae called the legal management of the terrorist attack of 11 March 2004 with nearly 200 dead and several hundred injured in Madrid. The trial of 28 defendants was closed in 2007 after eight and a half months. The FDP politician proposes to allow the formation of co-plaintiff groups in large-scale processes if they had equal interests. “Then the victims and their interests in the criminal process would still be adequately represented, but the number of those involved in large-scale proceedings would be significantly reduced,” said Thomae.

He warned against giving in to the sobering outcome of the Duisburg Loveparade trial of the temptation to restrict the rights of defendants and their defenses. “Anyone who faces the concentrated state power as an individual needs effective defense,” said the vice-chairman of the FDP parliamentary group.

“Unsatisfactory, that one does not hold responsible persons to account”

deutschlandfunk.de

Barenberg: And your assessment would be that for your clients actually the aspect of the truth is in the foreground and that they can reasonably cope with this question that the education and that the responsibilities may not be named so concrete in the end?

Reiter: You know, those who are in the dock did not think they were the wrong ones, but at least not enough. Because the big ones had already been let go. Mr. Schaller, the McFit operator, the managing director of the organizer. Then the Raven, who played an even more important role than we intended, which was also revealed in the course of the proceedings. The appraiser, Dr. Schreckenberg, who weighed them down, the people, that this is all right with this event, and also the role of the police.

So these are things that have crystallized out. In this respect, the lies are punished who said from the outset, the process has brought nothing. It has brought a lot. But, of course, the result is unsatisfactory that you do not hold responsible responsible accountable.

Barenberg: You have just said that the big ones have already been run. Now, the law in Germany requires yes to each guilty to prove an individual fault and then to provide evidence that describe exactly their behavior that this has led to the death or suffering of other people. Do you just have to acknowledge in this case that this has been such a complex event that it simply is not possible in this case?

Reiter: Those are just the conditions of the rule of law. It is not that these defendants did not know what they were doing. Those in the building office have tried in part to prevent the implementation of the event. They knew it was a dangerous event. You just can not talk about it.

And in that sense, they just have not upset the moral courage that we expect from officials, and that’s what they really oppose. It has been highlighted a bit positively now also by the prosecutor, yes, they were there partly as troublemakers, were so regarded. But, you know, I expect more from responsible construction department employees than what they showed there.

“This is now a fight for the statute of limitations”
Barenberg: And what do you think if the court, or at any rate the presiding judge, has apparently already come to the conclusion that the individual guilt of the accused is low, or at best moderate, and that it is altogether a collective failure of many people quite a lot of culprits, and not one or two or three.

Reiter: Yes, that puts the court in a dilemma situation. What else should it do? And the court sees it will not be finished within the remaining time, because next year in July is the maximum limitation period that expires – this is now also a fight for the statute of limitations of the three defendants who do not want to accept a conditional condition. I can understand the court. There are mistakes made in advance. The years of investigation have taken too long. Then this unspeakable attitude by the first court, which was active, which prevented the process, the opening, so that we also lost another year. So you just have to say, we are not properly positioned for such mammoth processes in Germany.

The judiciary needs special departments where you can efficiently carry out such investigations. And we also have to think about the limitation period, because it is not the only procedure where you have this fight for the statute of limitations. Think of the great misfortune of Eschede, or think just recently of the case of the Cologne city archives. If the defenders then play their possibilities, which they are entitled to – we think they are all right – to play their defense options, then you can stretch out such a procedure alone through a conflict defense, through mere formalities, that it is difficult falls to speak before the statute of limitations here a verdict. And in this situation the court is here yes, it would be here too. In this respect, it is always very friendly to the defenders, while the victims’ advocates are more viewed as troublemakers.

“The big ones have already let you go”

Victim lawyer Julius Reiter has regretted the expected termination of the Loveparade trial. Nevertheless, the process has brought a lot. One had come much closer to the goal of experiencing the truth. “We can not do without the truth, rather with the punishment,” he said in the Dlf.

Julius Reiter in conversation with Jasper Barenberg

Jasper Barenberg: So for seven defendants, the process may soon be over, against three he will probably continue. With this prospect, the 65 injured and relatives of death victims, who hope for truth and certainly also on the responsibility of those responsible to cope. Law professor Julius Reiter represents ten co-plaintiffs in Düsseldorf, one survivor and the families of four dead. He is on the phone now. Good morning, Mr. Reiter!

Julius Reiter: Good morning!

Barenberg: The cessation of proceedings against seven defendants and the continuation against three accused. Do you expect the court to decide that today as well?

Reiter: The court will decide that at least against the seven defendants, so the construction and the one of the Lopavent is set because it is simply not enough and is foreseeable that they would not come to a conviction there.

Barenberg: How will you explain this to your client?

Reiter: We already talked about it, that was also foreseeable. This is very difficult for them to accept. You have to explain to them how a constitutional state works. And finally we came closer to our goal. We said that the process is important to us first of all to find out what happened that day. We came a lot closer to the truth. We have always said that we can not renounce the truth, rather than punishment.
And the other important goal is just that we can set claims for pain and suffering. And we can do that on the basis of the facts that came out in this year of negotiations. It has turned out that the police are also to blame. In that sense, the country is now also responsible.

“Our criminal law is not a law of compensation criminal law”

deutschlandfunk.de/

The termination of the case against seven defendants must be unsatisfactory for the victims, said the lawyer Thomas Fischer in the Df. However, one has to differentiate between general responsibility and criminal liability in the assessment – and that was too low for the defendants.

Thomas Fischer in conversation with Dirk Müller

Müller: Mr. Fischer, the decision in Dusseldorf – is excitement civic duty?

Fischer: No. Small correction: Decision in Duisburg you mean safe. No, excitement is of course not civic duty, although it is understandable in this case, so the public, so the citizens you address, of course, spontaneously take a position mostly for the victims of such disasters and crimes. That is also the case in this case and the victims can truly sue you and the bereaved. For such a result is almost inevitably unsatisfactory, because even if one says, I am not for revenge, but only for

As a rule, the need is usually very great, at least to say that somebody has to be responsible. It can not be that for such a disastrous process and for this result of 21 killed young people no one ultimately has to answer. Of course, that’s obvious, an obvious thought.

“The sum of all mistakes has led to disaster”

Müller: Is that convincing when the court argues that so far no one is responsible or not responsible enough to ultimately convict him?
Fischer: Of course, one has to distinguish between a general responsibility and a criminal guilt. We are dealing here with acts of negligence, that is with acts that were not deliberately, not intentionally, not deliberately committed together, but each of these ten defendants – I know the cases now in detail and what the individual people is accused – did some more or less trifle or very little trifle wrong.

And in the interaction of all these mistakes that have been committed there, each probably negligent, so ignoring the care ultimately required, the sum of all these errors has led to this disaster has set.

Of course, this is always a big problem, especially in the case of negligence, and one of them – of course the scores contradict each other, because this catastrophic result with terrible consequences on the one hand is often precluded by an inaction, ie a measure of negligence, which is very low. So it could be – probably in this case as well – that some individuals who have been causally involved in this erroneous planning process, and so on, and the event itself, that some of these people have made only very small mistakes that for It may not have been the cause, but because others accidentally made mistakes as well, it all came together. This can lead to individual people being causally causal for the mistake, but one can not say that these are serious criminals who now have to serve years in prison, for example.

The judges must determine the degree of guilt

Müller: A felonious criminal, I believe that was also not the case with the relatives and the victims, the injured victims in the form, at least not officially and what we have heard. But I have to ask you again: So if I understood you correctly, Mr Fischer, it may well be that hundreds of cogs do not work in succession and with each other, and because there are hundreds of cogs that lead to disaster, there are Do not blame anyone.

Fischer: Yes, that can be done on a case by case basis – no, there is not someone who is not at fault. It is also in these ten cases and the attitude is not that the defendants are acquitted.

Müller: But it’s not serious enough to blame.
Fischer: The rules that are applied presuppose in the seven attitudes, without fine payment, assume that the debt is very low, and the unaffiliated presuppose that the debt is not so heavy that they are punished by a fine – I think 10,000 euros was proposed to a charitable organization – could not be eliminated.

Müller: And you can definitely say that? The judge can tell the judge, depending on who is involved, whether the debt is so minor that not even a fine is necessary?

Fischer: He can not only do that, the judges can not only find out, but –

Müller: You have to.

Fischer: – That’s the job of the judges to determine guilt. If they do not cease proceedings and convict the defendants of negligent homicide, they must also determine the extent of the guilt and say whether they will now be fined or imprisoned with or without parole. That’s the same evaluation process. I just want to make a quick remark.

“Major factor in negligence”

Müller: Please.

Fischer: The problem, what always shows up, that’s the big, how shall I say, random factor in negligence. Quite often, very bad consequences are the result of negligence, which is barely different from what others do. So 10,000 motorists drive through a street a bit too fast, and a single one drives too fast and a child jumps on the street and the child is killed. Of course this is terribly bad for the child’s parents, but this single driver will say that I did not commit a serious crime, after all I acted just as negligently as anyone else.

Müller: But why is the gravity of the consequences, ie the severity of the episode, no argument for a verdict?

Fischer: That’s an argument that plays a role, but after all, we do not have pure success criminal law. Then we could do without negligence or intent, ie a personal connection of the respective causer with the result altogether. Then we could say it just depends, somebody did something, some episode is there, so he gets heavily punished. We have been away from it for many hundreds of years. For us it is precisely on the level of personal guilt.

Müller: But then it always has to be unsatisfactory for the victims?

Fischer: That is almost inevitably often unsatisfactory. Not always, but it is often unsatisfactory. Of course, a piece of advice: Anyone who thinks about it – and it’s a difficult problem, that’s also – not in this process occurs for the first time, but in very many procedures, it is only here once again particularly obvious and clear – Everyone should just think, on the one hand what would I think if my child were the victim and secondly what would I think if my child were one of the defendants and would be busy at the city of Duisburg or at this event and have a small one Planning error committed. If I were to say it now too, that is unbearable that the procedure is stopped.

“Negligence is hard to bear for the victims”

Müller: But why did so many people – who, yes, I think, ask this question, especially when you mention the example, that is to imagine, your own child is affected, injured or even killed – why have so many people, however qualified and not qualified, does not matter at all – quite often exactly the impression that here in this case 21 dead are not taken over any responsibility, thus no criminal responsibility, which is somehow measurable, which is noticeable that that can not be in a constitutional state that deals with it for years?

Fischer: Of course, the length of the argument is not important.

Müller: Which is even more unsatisfactory, if that takes so long.

Fischer: Of course, you’re always rightly addressing the same problem, namely the size, scope, shock of the result, and possibly the other, possibly, I do not know the 100-day trial and the evidence, but the court has It is so valued, the small action, so yes it is action and not success guilt, the success is huge, the offense is perhaps very small, which is often difficult for victims of criminal proceedings and especially of negligence to endure and difficult wear, let’s say so. But that alone is of course no argument against the rule of law or against the criminal justice system as a whole, because a court is not there to act vicariously for the victims now the revenge or even acting on behalf of public opinion so to speak, symbolically of any perpetrators now seek revenge, so the legal community calms down again.

“Our criminal law is not a law of compensation criminal law”

Müller: You say, Mr. Fischer, revenge. If we do not use that, the expression, but it’s a bit of satisfaction, a little bit of feeling that if something like that happens, someone will be held accountable, and it’s going to be so obvious is for all involved and for those who are interested.

Fischer: Yes, you can always give the arguments new names, but it always comes back to the same thing, whether you say satisfaction or revenge. It’s not meant to be evil. I just want to say that a court does not have the task of unilaterally deciding in favor of a party in quotes, a party in such a procedure. That is precisely the task of the court, to withdraw neutral. Our criminal law is not a law of criminal convictions, which should now provide the public or the injured party with satisfaction, but the goal is …

Müller: Well, there is no common sense. Is there no common sense in legal processes?

Fischer: That’s a distant conclusion.

Müller: That’s a question.

Fischer: Yes, and I say the answer is that this conclusion is far from it. Of course, the attribution of guilt to the personal relationship, according to what the individual defendant, the accused done, left, not done, not left, should have done and so on, that’s the measure according to which we have criminal law in our constitutional state Germany now for at least 70 years now.

“It’s not about the victims being humiliated”

Müller: Does that have to be right?

Fischer: Please?

Müller: Does this have to be correct in every way or is it possible to think about saying, well, maybe the victim perspective is missing a bit?

Fischer: You can think about that. It has been thought about for about 150 years and has come to regulate this in our constitution as it is now regulated. I think that’s the way it is. Of course, the task, also of the media, is also to understand it. After all, it’s not about low punishment or a low-debt job that’s supposed to humiliate the victims, or even say that’s all right. Criminal law is not primarily intended to deal with events of historical reality or to assign political responsibility or –

Müller: But to punish.

Fischer: – Lord Mayor to tell him to resign, or to tell the organizers what they would have done differently, what they should do differently next time. Criminal law is there for the state to decide whether a single person – in this case, ten individuals – has incurred so much guilt that it must be punished. And if that can not be determined, then he is to be acquitted if he has no blame at all, and if the guilt is low, then our criminal procedural law for 45 years approximately provides that you can set a procedure because of low or at least not great debt ,

“Whether a case is closed has nothing to do with the evidence”

Müller: So that’s a bit for lack of evidence.

Fischer: No, that has almost nothing to do with it at first. Let’s just say that the three defendants or defendants who have not agreed now, of course, have the proceedings continuing, presumably say, the progress of the case, the pending, or at least named, 500 witnesses and the impending absolute statute of limitations in June 2020 in mind.

Müller: In the summer of next year.

Fischer: In that regard, one could say that if the evidence has not been provided by then, then the proceedings would be definitively closed or acquitted. That may have played a role in the consideration. But whether a case is closed has nothing to do with the evidence in principle.

Müller: Here at noon on Deutschlandfunk Professor Dr. Thomas Fischer, for many years chairman of the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe. Thank you for taking so much time for us! Have a nice day!

Fischer: Bye, bye, Mr Müller!

Müller: Goodbye!

Statements by our interlocutors reflect their own views. Deutschlandfunk does not embrace the statements of its interlocutors in interviews and discussions.

Loveparade trial set against seven defendants
By Dominik Peters

wdr.de

Love Parade Process: Seven defendants agree to attitudes
Proceedings continue against three defendants
Partial incomprehension to co-plaintiffs

The Loveparade criminal case was closed on Wednesday (06.02.2019) for seven of the ten defendants. The Duisburg district court justified its decision with the small guilt of the accused.

For the six employees of the city and one of the organizer Lopavent, the trial ends after 101 days without judgment. The prosecution had accused them of, among other things, negligent homicide and serious mistakes in the planning of the event.

Defense Attorney: Attitude means no admission of guilt
Defense lawyer Gerd-Ulrich Kapteina said his client was relieved. He emphasized that the termination of the proceedings – assuming a small debt – no confession.

The low debt is “purely hypothetical”. His client accepted the attitude because he knew “that an acquittal can not be achieved on grounds of time alone”.

Process continues for three defendants
Thus, the process continues only against three defendants. The courts and prosecutors had also proposed a termination of the proceedings – assuming an average debt – but for a payment of around 10,000 euros each.

The defendants, all employees of the organizer Lopavent, rejected this proposal. They insist on their right to be acquitted or convicted.

Parents of a victim: Many questions still open

Co-plaintiffs and some of their lawyers do not understand the premature end of the process. For example, Klaus-Peter and Stefanie Mogendorf, who lost their son in the 2010 disaster. Klaus-Peter Mogendorf referred to the many outstanding questions: “With individual activities of the defendants, the evidence has not yet taken.”
Presiding Judge: Prescription does not matter in decision
According to the presiding judge, Mario Plein, from a legal point of view, there are good reasons for stopping the proceedings. The threat of prescription in July 2020 did not play a role in the decision. “I’m not afraid that the process will be time-barred”, says Plein, “because we have nothing to blame ourselves for”.

“We are not yet at a point where we can definitely find a debt,” he continued. At the same time he was optimistic about the knowledge gained from the further proceedings. In the further course of the proceedings, according to Mario Plein, the court wants to hear “a large number of Lopavent employees” and “have a few more police officers on their faces”.

AGAINST THREE PERSONS THE PROCESS GOES ON
Love Parade: proceedings against seven defendants set

++ What the father of a victim writes to the court ++

bild.de

Duisburg / Dusseldorf – The court has set the process for the legal processing of the Love Parade disaster of 2010 (21 dead, 652 injured) against seven of the ten defendants! For them, the process is completed without penalties and restrictions.

Three other defendants (staff of the organizer Lopavent) have not accepted that for themselves. The case was to be closed against a € 10,000 bid. A lawyer says: “My client does not renounce his right to be acquitted.”

With an emotional letter, mourning parents turned to the court on Wednesday. Klaus-Peter Mogendorf and his wife have lost their son Eike. Mogendorf writes in an eight-page letter: “Like other co-plaintiffs, we owe the main proceedings important findings about the Love Parade disaster 2010 in Duisburg. On January 17, the judge read the note about the legal discussion here. We were stunned. “The fact that the case against seven of the defendants is to be discontinued is incomprehensible to the Mogendorfs.

“I have been a civil engineer for over 37 years. During these years I have realized numerous special constructions and meeting places as a responsible project engineer. I know the relevant regulations, that is a peculiarity that sometimes torments me, because I see the process with different eyes. On the one hand, the father who lost his child at the event, on the other hand, the expert, who has to experience how careless and negligent the applicable rules and laws were handled. “

For the parents of Eike blame too early. The letter states: “Obviously, the Chamber believes that one can already judge on the basis of the previous evidence of guilt and innocence of the accused. For such a conclusion it is too early. The taking of evidence did not deal with the individual activities of the defendants. It is indispensable to further investigate these facts before finding guilt or innocence. Because neither guilt nor innocence are certain, even low and middle guilt can not yet be recognized. It needs to be further clarified. “

Lawyer Rainer Dietz (55) represents the family in the process. He to BILD: “As the prosecutor’s office with their own indictment and now without a fight agree to a setting, feels the client as a blow in the gut. Here a report is appreciated, which was not even properly introduced into the process. 21 dead, countless injured – and the prosecutor wants to stop the proceedings. How do you explain that to the father of a dead boy? “

Loveparade trial is largely discontinued: Seven defendants remain unpunished

web.de

The Loveparade trial is largely closed: for seven out of ten defendants, the trial is complete without penalties and restrictions. For the other three, the process continues.

Eight and a half years after the Love Parade disaster with 21 dead Duisburg district court has set the criminal proceedings against seven of ten defendants. For them, the process is completed without penalties and restrictions. This was announced by the court on Wednesday in Düsseldorf.

Three defendants, who should have paid a monetary sum of about 10,000 euros, had rejected a recruitment. The process continues against them now.

21 people died

At the Loveparade in July 2010 in Duisburg, 21 young people were crushed to death and more than 650 were injured in a crush. The process started in December 2017. All defendants had been accused of, among other things, negligent homicide and serious planning mistakes.

The court had proposed hiring in mid-January. The individual guilt of the accused was low or at best regarded as moderate. In addition to planning errors, the court sees a collective failure of many people on the day as co-responsible for the disaster.

Several adjutant lawyers had criticized the attitude in advance. There continues to be a public interest in education, they argued. The father of a dead Loveparade visitor had resisted the decision of the court on Wednesday just before the decision of the court and accused the court errors.

In 2020, prescription comes into effect

Among the seven defendants for whom the trial is now ending are six employees of the city of Duisburg as well as an employee of the Loveparade organizer Lopavent. The three defendants for whom the lawsuit continues were also employed by Lopavent.

As a reason for their consent to hiring the prosecutor’s office had called the fact that on 28 July 2020, the limitation period occurs. The proof program required by law for a judgment can not be completed until then, even in the case of the greatest effort.

Thus, most of the 575 witnesses mentioned in the central expert report would still have to be heard. In the past 14 months, the court heard 59 witnesses and 8 experts.

Relatives in the Loveparade trial
“We wanted a correct education”

sueddeutsche.de

The process of disaster at the Loveparade is set against the majority of the defendants. A father names the questions that will probably never be answered.

By Benedikt Müller, Dusseldorf
He is not seeking revenge, emphasizes Klaus-Peter Mogendorf when he appears in public this Wednesday. “First and foremost, we wanted a proper education.” Why did his son Eike die? Why was he crushed in the crowd at the Love Parade, like 20 other people? Why did the building contractors approve the planning, even though they had long doubts? “These are points that we would like to have enlightened, but what seems to be no longer possible,” says Mogendorf.

The district court of Duisburg has closed the Loveparade trial of seven of the ten defendants. The proceedings against six employees of the building authority and the creative director of the promoter Lopavent ends without judgment, because the defendants in the opinion of the court at most a small individual fault. This is what judges and prosecutors see it. Thus, “collective failure” is responsible for the mass panic, in which more than 650 people were injured.

Mogendorf, a civil engineer by profession, wears a dark blue sweater and holds his arms crossed. One owes the criminal process “important insights” over the Loveparade, he says. And yet it was a shock when the court in mid-January had even proposed to stop the proceedings against all ten defendants. “We were stunned, it’s too early for such a conclusion.”

The decisive expert report on the Loveparade contains data from more than 500 witnesses. Only 59 of them have heard the court so far – – was none of them from the building, criticized Mogendorf. “It is indispensable to further investigate these facts,” says the father. However, the court is battling against time: if it does not reach a verdict by July 2020, the allegations of negligent homicide and negligence will become time-barred, exactly ten years after the disaster.

The criminal case now continues against three employees of the event company Lopavent. You have not agreed to a hiring, instead rely on an acquittal. This is also because the judges and the prosecution have closed the proceedings against them only on payment of a fine, because the three defendants – in the preliminary opinion – could make a moderate guilt.

A process without judgment, the father had feared years ago
The advantage of the current decision regarding the limitation period that the court now on the approval of the Love Parade, were responsible for the city employees, no longer have to lay emphasis says Henning Ernst Müller, criminal and criminology professor at the University of Regensburg, the Process scientifically accompanied for years. Müller criticizes the fact that the court has not yet brought in the preliminary expert opinion in the proceedings – although judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers have decided on the basis of the termination of the proceedings. The jury and the public, the report is not yet known.

Another point that Müller addresses: There was no representative of the police to the defendants, complains Müller, although a police cordon chain contributed to the deadly crush. This cause of the catastrophe also names the report – of course as one of many.

Mogendorf had feared that the trial could come to an end without a verdict years ago. His family will complete the process. But the loss of the son and the consequences would remain. “We will suffer the rest of our lives.”

Love Parade process
Court appeals against seven defendants

spiegel.de

In the criminal case for the Love Parade disaster with 21 dead Duisburg district court has set the procedure – but not against all defendants.

Eight and a half years after the Love Parade disaster with 21 dead, the Duisburg district court has closed the criminal case against seven of ten defendants. For them, the process is completed without penalties and restrictions. This was announced by the court.

Three defendants, who should have paid a monetary sum of about 10,000 euros, had rejected a recruitment. The process continues against them now.

“I think the setting without conditions for good and right,” said the defender Ingo Bott SPIEGEL. It was the decision to the equivalent of the acquittal, which would not have been possible in this case because of the impending absolute prescription: “Therefore it is the only correct procedural solution.”

Kerstin Stirner, a defender of the then creative director of Lopavent, Kersten Sattler, described the trial as a pure “show trial at the expense of the defendants and ultimately the co-plaintiff”. An individual guilt was not demonstrable for her client.

At the Loveparade in July 2010 in Duisburg, 21 young people were crushed to death and more than 650 were injured in a crush. The process started in December 2017. All defendants had been accused of, among other things, negligent homicide and serious planning mistakes.

Video: The Love Parade of Duisburg – An officially approved disaster?

The court had proposed hiring in mid-January. The individual guilt of the accused was low or at best regarded as moderate. In addition to planning errors, the court sees a collective failure of many people on the day as co-responsible for the disaster.

Several adjutant lawyers had already criticized the attitude in advance. There continues to be a public interest in education, they argued. The father of a dead Loveparade visitor was now disappointed: “There are still many burning questions that are worth clarifying,” said the civil engineer.

Among the seven defendants for whom the trial is now ending are six employees of the city of Duisburg as well as an employee of the Loveparade organizer Lopavent. The three defendants for whom the lawsuit continues were also employed by Lopavent.

As a reason for their consent to hiring the prosecutor’s office had called the fact that in July 2020, the statute of limitations occurs. The required proof program can not be completed until then. Thus, most of the 575 witnesses mentioned in the central expert report would still have to be heard. In the past 14 months, the court heard 59 witnesses and 8 experts.

5th February

Love Parade Process: Prosecutors agree to recruitment proposal

gmx.ch

In the Loveparade criminal trial, it has become more likely that the trial will be closed against the majority of the defendants. The prosecution said on Tuesday that it approved the court’s proposal in all cases.

The district court Duisburg had proposed in mid-January, the proceedings against seven defendants without conditions and against three defendants with conditions. If the proceedings are terminated, the accused person is not considered to have a criminal record. The presumption of innocence continues.

The process started in December 2017. The defendants had been accused of, among other things, negligent homicide. At the Loveparade in July 2010 in Duisburg, 21 young people were crushed to death and more than 650 injured in a crush.

As a condition, the public prosecutor’s office called for the payment of a reasonable amount of money, “which should be in the order of about 10,000 euros”. The money should benefit a charitable institution.

Employees of the organizer should receive circulation

The three defendants who are to receive a circulation are three employees of the organizer Lopavent. However, one of them had already stated last week that he would never agree to hiring and wish to continue the process.

After the prosecutor’s opinion, the defense attorney reiterated the position in a meeting break: “Nothing has changed, it stays that way.” It is clear that the case will at least be prosecuted against him.

The remaining seven defendants are the six accused employees of the city of Duisburg and one employee of the organizer.

Whether the other nine defendants will agree to the hiring was initially open. Observers expected their defenders to comment on Tuesday. At the earliest on Wednesday, the court could then separate and discontinue the individual proceedings from the process.

The prosecution had thoroughly examined the court’s proposal. “We have not made the decision easy in light of the serious consequences – 21 dead, more than 650 injured – and the ongoing suffering of the relatives and injured, but consider a recruitment in the end, but reasonable,” said a spokeswoman for the authorities.

Prescription comes into force in 2020

As a reason for the approval, the prosecutor’s office called the fact that on 28 July 2020, the statute of limitations occurs. However, the proof program required by law for a judgment can not be completed by that time. Recently, there were 575 witnesses in this connection who could still be heard.

An attitude of the procedure against the three Lopavent coworkers could not be considered without edition. “Their hypothetical fault is to be settled at preliminary evaluation in the middle range,” it said.

LOVEPARADE PROCESS:
Procedure continues with three defendants

UPDATED ON 05.02.2019

Faz.net

In the Loveparade trial, three defendants have rejected the court’s proposal to cease the process. For seven defendants, however, the process is soon over.

The criminal case for the disaster at the Loveparade 2010 in Duisburg is expected to continue with only three defendants. Against the seven other defendants, the procedure should be discontinued without conditions, at the earliest this Wednesday, as a court spokesman said.

These are the six accused employees of the city of Duisburg and one employee of the organizer Lopavent. Three other employees of the organizers rejected the setting. If the proceedings are terminated, the accused person is deemed not to have a criminal record. The presumption of innocence continues.

The process started in December 2017. The defendants had been accused of, among other things, negligent homicide. At the Loveparade in July 2010 in Duisburg, 21 young people were crushed to death and more than 650 were injured in a crush.

On Tuesday, the 100th main day of the trial was in the mammoth process, which takes place in a Düsseldorf Congress Hall for reasons of space. Originally on Tuesday and Wednesday also a police officer should be questioned. His interrogation should now take place at a later date.

Termination of the process rejected

For one of the defendants who want a sequel, his lawyer said, “He does not renounce his right to be acquitted.” Another defendant had already stated last week that he rejects a hiring. For him, only a conviction, an acquittal or an appointment for limitation would be in question. He does not want to “resign himself to the” fast ending “to the determination of his innocence,” said the lawyer.

In mid-January, the court had asked the prosecutor and the defendant to bring proceedings against seven defendants without money, three against defendants. Reason: According to the history so far, the individual guilt of the accused should be regarded as low or at best moderate.

In addition to planning errors, the court sees a collective failure of many people on the day as co-responsible for the disaster. “There are many guilty parties,” presiding judge Mario Plein had said – it should have “been a multicausal happening”.

21 dead and more than 650 injured

On Tuesday, the prosecution initially declared that it agreed to the court’s recruitment proposal in all cases. “We did not make the decision easy in light of the serious consequences – 21 dead, more than 650 injured – and the continuing suffering of relatives and injured people, but consider a setting in the end justifiable,” said a spokeswoman for the authorities.

As a reason for the approval, the prosecutor’s office called the fact that on 28 July 2020, the statute of limitations occurs. However, the proof program required by law for a judgment can not be completed by that time. Recently, there were 575 witnesses in this connection who could still be heard.

An attitude of the procedure against the three Lopavent coworkers could not be considered without edition, it was said further. “Your hypothetical fault is to be settled in the middle of preliminary evaluation.” As a requirement, the prosecutor’s office had called for the payment of a reasonable cash deposit of about 10 000 €.

How many witnesses will actually be heard in the continuation of the trial against only three defendants, is still open. A few months ago, the court had set trial hearings until the end of April.

3rd February

What’s next?

Loveparade process at the crossroads

aachener-zeitung.de

DÜSSELDORF Already for the 100th time, the participants of the Loveparade trial will meet for the main hearing this Tuesday in Düsseldorf. 14 months ago, the trial began against ten defendants.

They should be jointly responsible for the fact that on 24 July 2010 on the edge of the Technoparade in Duisburg 21 people were beaten to death and more than 650 injured. The prosecution Duisburg accuses the six employees of the city of Duisburg and the four employees of the organizer Lopavent above all serious planning errors.

Does it matter that the 100th time will be negotiated on Tuesday?

No. It is pure coincidence that the public prosecutor’s office wants to explain exactly on the 100th day of the hearing, what she thinks of the proposal of the district court of Duisburg, to stop the proceedings. Observers expect clear indications as to whether the case against one or more defendants will cease.

In which phase is the process?

In a decisive. In mid-January, the court had suggested to the prosecution and the defendants to discontinue the proceedings against seven defendants without being charged with three defendants. Reason: According to the history so far, the individual guilt of the accused should be regarded as low or at best moderate.

In addition to planning errors, the court sees a collective failure of many people on the day as co-responsible for the disaster. “There are many guilty parties,” chairman Mario Plein had said. It should have “been a multicausal happening,” he explained.

What happens on Tuesday?

By 5 February, 11:59 pm, the defendants and prosecutors have time to comment on the court’s proposal. However, the prosecution has announced that it intends to deliver its opinion on Tuesday morning in the main hearing. After that, the defenders have the floor, and eventually the co-plaintiffs. Otherwise, it is a normal day of negotiations. From 1 pm another policeman is to be heard as a witness.

What does the prosecutor think of the court’s intention?

In mid-January, when the court proposed a suspension, with or without a cash transfer, the agency announced the following day that it considered it “inappropriate” for an unconditional appointment. At the same time, the prosecutors announced that they would carefully consider the board’s arguments.

And the defendants?

One of the ten defendants rejected the proposal last Wednesday. His lawyer explained that the employee of the organizer Lopavent can not imagine a termination of the proceedings – either with or without a cash payment. For him, only a conviction, an acquittal or an appointment for limitation would be in question. He does not want to “resign himself to a” quick end “to have the determination of his innocence,” said his lawyer. The so-called absolute limitation begins at the end of July 27, 2020. Many defendants of the other defendants had hinted in mid-January that they could only be hired without a money order.

What does that mean?

That in any case at least one defendant must be renegotiated, he should stick to his view.

Can the court also oppose the will of an accused?

No. An appointment must be approved by the court, the prosecution and the defendant.

If prosecutors and defendants in the other nine cases have agreed to a cessation with or without a financial guarantee – can the court adjourn the individual proceedings on Tuesday?

No, because the co-plaintiffs have time until midnight to comment.

Would an appointment be possible on Wednesday, the next trial day?

In the case of a setting without conditions: yes. In the case of a setting with editions probably only theoretically. Before a decision, the circulation, ie the payment in cash, must be fulfilled. This should be difficult due to time constraints. Once the court announces the hiring, the trial is over for the defendant in question and he can go.

What happens next?

The court has scheduled meetings a few weeks ago until the end of April and has already invited several witnesses. On Wednesday, the police officer from Tuesday will continue to be interviewed. The next sessions are scheduled for the 12th and 13th of February.

Prosecutors comment on planned process setting

Dusseldorf –

ksta.de


In the Loveparade trial, the public prosecutor’s office wants to comment this Tuesday on the proposal to terminate the proceedings. The court had proposed in mid-January to close the case against seven defendants without being charged with three defendants. After the previous course, the individual guilt of the defendants to be regarded as low or at best medium-heavy, it had justified its advance.

A defendant has already stated that he refuses. For him, only a conviction, an acquittal or an appointment for limitation would be in question. He does not want to “resign himself to a” quick end “to have the determination of his innocence,” said his lawyer. If he sticks to it, the process will in any case continue against him.

If prosecutors and defendants reach an agreement in the other nine cases, the proceedings could be closed and discontinued. On Tuesday, the 100th trial day is in the mammoth process of the deadly crush at the Love Parade 2010 in Duisburg, in which 21 people died. (Dpa / lnw)

2nd February

Loveparade process before hiring: the drama after the drama

goettinger-tageblatt.de

The Duisburg district court wants to end the Loveparade trial. Again, the German justice threatens to capitulate in a major case – as after the thalidomide scandal or the ICE accident of Eschede. Why is that? And what does that mean for the relatives? A damage report.

Duisburg
And that should have been everything now? The long wait, the many days in the court, the witnesses, reports, all in order not to be guilty in the end? The father, who lost his daughter in the disaster, 29 years old, his only child, does not want to believe it.
“It can not be that no one is responsible,” says the man, Klaus Cornehl he is called, after the court has set the procedure. “As if this was a trivial offense.” Another, Heinrich Löwen, lost his wife in the accident. “The victims are once again damaged,” he says about this day.
It is now 16 years since the two men said these sentences. It was in the spring of 2003, shortly after the district court Lüneburg had decided to end the process of the ICE disaster in Eschede after 52 days of negotiations. So these are old, as it were historical, sentences, but in Dusseldorf quite similar ones are again, and they are spoken with the same bitterness.
“More than a slap in the face, this process was not”

“The process is closed without result, as one feared from the beginning,” says Nadia Zanacchi, whose 21-year-old daughter Giulia was killed in the 2010 Love Parade disaster. “More than a slap in the face for all this process was not,” says Jörn pond, who was injured in the accident itself. How the sentences are alike.
Unless anything very surprising happens, this process, in which the two appeared as co-plaintiffs, is about to end prematurely – after almost 100 days of negotiations, without judgment. The process was to clarify who is to blame for the Love Parade disaster, in July 2010 in Duisburg crushed 21 people and 650 were injured.
For this reason, six employees of the city of Duisburg and four of the organizer Lopavent have been standing in front of Duisburg Regional Court for more than eight months – which has moved to the Düsseldorf Congress Hall, especially for the numerous co-plaintiffs and their lawyers.

“Slightly”? At 21 dead?

According to presiding judge Mario Plein, there are many good reasons for hiring. Thus, in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2010 no clear laws for major events existed. In addition, blame and responsibility for the tragedy spread so many places and shoulders that it is difficult to identify individual culprits.
In the end, for seven of the defendants it now amounts to a low, for the remaining three defendants on “middle guilt” addition. The procedure could then be set “for insignificance”, that is the wording in the law.
“Slightly”? At 21 dead? 650 injured? Can anyone seriously demand that fathers and mothers whose sons and daughters lost their lives in Duisburg on July 24, 2010, who stifled their agony in the throng, could even grasp a tiny bit of understanding for such a decision?

It would not be the first time that the justice surrenders to tragedies of this size. From 1957 to 1961 the company Grünenthal from Stolberg near Aachen drove the tranquilizer Contergan, which caused severe birth defects in the unborn child. In 1968, the regional court of Aachen opened the trial against nine responsible of Grünenthal.
312 injured were admitted as co-plaintiff, also here the court had to rent a hall, the casino of the Eschweiler mine association. On 18 December 1970, after 283 days of trial, the case was closed. Because of “insignificance of guilt”.
The fire on the arrivals level of Terminal A at Düsseldorf Airport in 1996 killed 17 people and 88 were injured. The trigger was welding work, the deeper causes of lack of fire protection during construction, lack of security precautions, on top of that came even the fire department too late. The trial against craftsmen and construction managers was discontinued in 2001 – because it was not possible to determine which of the many bad things the disaster ultimately had decisively promoted.

The last chapter of a messed-up workup

And also the case against three engineers after the ICE disaster in Eschede ended prematurely in 2003. The defendants only had to pay fines. 93 witnesses and 16 experts had heard the court until then. It was considered unlikely that a year-long continuation of the process would prove more guilty.
By the way, the relatives of the victims are not allowed to have a say in the hiring process. The end of the Loveparade trial depends only on prosecutors and defense. If they agree on a fine, the process ends.
The Loveparade process of Dusseldorf is the last chapter of a messed up from the beginning. A committee of inquiry could have clarified the political responsibility. Who exerted pressure to adorn themselves with the splendor of a major event, for example. It did not exist because a majority in the state parliament feared the findings.
Above all hovers the imminent statute of limitations

The judiciary refused a trial at the first attempt. A first opinion raised more questions than there were answers. And right from the start, the current process suffered because the police, the Lopavent boss Rainer Schaller and Duisburg’s former mayor Adolf Sauerland never had to answer for this tragedy. Although, from the perspective of many, they are among those responsible.
And should this last attempt to get hold of someone just end? This process, which was said to bring the truth to light?
The end, in spite of everything, would be understandable, even consistent. Much speaks against the continuation. More than 500 witnesses would have to be heard – a huge effort for a foreseeable narrow result: the defendants threaten at best still monetary or low probation. And above all, hovering the impending statute of limitations: In the next year, ten years after the disaster, the prosecution collapses anyway.

But on the other side there are the relatives with their desire for education and responsibility. The lawyer Marcus Brink represents in the process two co-plaintiffs, who were injured in the Love Parade. “As a lawyer, I can explain the attitude of the proceedings,” he says. “As a citizen, I can not understand them.” The court is in a “dilemma,” says former Federal Interior Minister Gerhart Baum.
The dilemma is a situation where there is no right or wrong. But only bad or less bad. Baum and his colleague Julius Reiter represent more than 80 relatives and victims in the process. Together, they both want to propose a reform model if the court actually stops the process in the coming days.
First of all, investigators and courts would need more time for such complex cases in case of doubt. “We must, with great caution, come to the statute of limitations,” demands Baum. The statute of limitations of an offense is important for the legal peace, he emphasizes. But in particularly complex cases, it must be possible to finish a process already begun in peace. “The Enlightenment must not fail to strict deadlines.”
Central prosecution for major proceedings

In addition, Baum and Reiter demand the establishment of specialized public prosecutors, who could specialize in large-scale proceedings, as in the case of white-collar crime.
These are attempts to prevent justice from failing in such large cases. That justice and justice diverge too far. And that the survivors, in addition to their pain, still have to endure the feeling that guilt has not been named, the truth has not been determined.
Last year, the Eschede disaster celebrated its 20th anniversary. That those responsible were not convicted at the time, a mother said, whose son had died on the train, still filled her with anger. Even now, after such a long time.
By Thorsten Fuchs

Love Parade Process: Prosecutors comment on the setting

svz.de

In the Love Parade process, the prosecutor’s office wants to comment on Tuesday to propose a termination of the proceedings. The court had proposed closing the lawsuit against seven defendants without charge against three defendants. The individual guilt of the accused was to be regarded as low or at best moderate, it was justified. A defendant has already stated that he refuses. If prosecutors and defendants reach an agreement in the other nine cases, the proceedings could be closed and discontinued.

30th January

Love Parade process is likely to continue

BY REINER BURGER

faz.net

The first of ten defendants has commented on the court’s proposal to close the case. He probably wants to reach an acquittal for himself. The chances are not good.

he process of the Love Parade disaster is expected to continue. As the spokesman for Duisburg District Court said on Wednesday in Dusseldorf, one of the defendants has told the court that he can imagine a job neither with nor without a cash. In a legal dispute with defense lawyers, state and Nebeklägeranwälten the 6th Grand Penal Chamber of Duisburg Regional Court had set out in mid-January that they were the criminal justice processing of the disaster, in July 2010, 21 young people on the way to the techno spectacle Love Parade were killed and more than 600 other people were injured, without judgment wants to end.

For seven of the defendants, the court proposed a sentence without any requirement because of “foreseeable lower” individual guilt. For the other three defendants, the court, after preliminary examination, assumed a “middle guilt”. For her, the board proposed a hiring against a fine. The other defendants and the prosecution have until 5 February to comment on the recruitment proposal of the court. The Chamber may only terminate the proceedings in each case with the approval of the prosecutor and the respective defendant. The accused are employees of the city of Duisburg, who were entrusted with the approval of the Love Parade on the former freight yard of the city and six employees of the private operator Lopavent. One of these four Lopavent employees is the defendant, who has now spoken out against the cessation of proceedings.

The defendant should be concerned with acquitting an acquittal. Whether this strategy works out, however, is questionable even with regard to the calendar. Also some of the defense lawyers had pointed out after the legal discussion in the middle of January that they see only small chances for acquittals, because in the complicated procedure not to be counted before the tenth anniversary of the disaster with a judgment and the process so in the statute of limitations run will.

The presiding judge Mario Plein had said in mid-January in his justification for the recruitment proposal, although the nearly 100 main negotiation days in the large-scale case since December 2017 had “contributed significantly to clarifying the events at the event”. At the same time Plein had also made it clear how difficult the criminal assignment of individual guilt might be. Because in addition to planning errors, the disaster from the perspective of the chamber was caused by collective failure of many people on the day of the event. Two weeks ago, for example, Plein pointed to the police chain set up at the wrong time on the access ramp to the festival grounds, or the uncoordinated openings of the separating facilities a few hundred meters in front of it. “There are many guilty ones,” Plein had said.

Love Parade process


rp-online.de
A defendant rejects the termination of the proceedings

Duisburg / Düsseldorf In the Loveparade trial, one of the ten defendants rejected the court’s proposal to close the case. The defendant is an employee of the organizer Lopavent. Against him then would have to be negotiated further.

If the accused, who should have been the organizer’s agent, stick to this attitude, the court will continue the case against him, explained a spokesman for the Duisburg district court. An attitude of the procedure against the nine other defendants remains however possible. For this, the 5th of February has to wait as deadline.

Until next Tuesday, the prosecution and the defendants still have time to make their statements on a possible termination of the process. For each of the ten defendants, the court then has to examine whether there are consistent declarations from the prosecution and the respective defense lawyers, as the court spokesman explained.

The court had two weeks ago after nearly 100 negotiation days proposed a termination of the proceedings. It is true that there is still a reasonable likelihood that the accused might be proved to have a share of the charges against them. But it also turned out that the assessment of the suitability of the venue and the flow of visitors had been flawed, the judge justified his initiative. This too was probably responsible for the death of 21 people on 24 July 2010 and the injuries of a few hundred people.

The current safety regulations for major events did not exist then. At that time, the defendants were largely forced to draw up their own regulations. Because many organizations and people were involved in the planning and implementation of the Loveparade at that time, the disaster was probably due to a “collective failure in the implementation phase”.

In court are four employees of the promoter Lopavent and six employees of the city of Duisburg, including the former Baudezernent. Among other things, they have to answer for negligent homicide and negligence. In a mass panic on the Techno Festival died on July 24, 2010 in Duisburg 21 people, more than 600 were injured. Due to its size, the main proceedings do not take place in the rooms of the Duisburg regional court, but in the Düsseldorf exhibition halls.

Loveparade process continues
Frank Preuss
30.01.2019 – 12:27 clock

waz.de

DUISBURG.

The process of the Love Parade drama will probably continue now. One of the defendants does not agree to a termination of the proceedings.

The court had proposed stopping the Loveparade trial two weeks ago because the individual guilt of each defendant was small or at most moderate. But the proposal will probably be nothing: The Berlin lawyer Ioannis Zaimis said yesterday in the process in Dusseldorf, his client could imagine no attitude to the proceedings, neither without conditions nor with a monetary payment. The security officer of the organizer Lopavent wants to be negotiated until the end, whether it comes to an acquittal, a conviction or a statute of limitations.

Everyone must agree

However, both prosecution and all defendants must agree to stop the process. By 5 February they must have commented.

Court spokesman Matthias Breidenstein stated on demand that the process would theoretically continue with only one defendant if all others agreed to a hiring and he remains in his position.

At the Loveparade on 24 July 2010 in Duisburg 21 people died, 652 were injured. Since December 2017, the criminal proceedings against six employees of the city of Duisburg and four employees of the organizer Lopavent.


Volte in the Loveparade process

January 30, 2019, 6:35 pm
Duisburg

sueddeutsche.de

The trial for the Love Parade tragedy is unlikely to be complete. The defender of one of the ten defendants, an employee of the organizer company, had stated that his client could not imagine a setting – either with or without a cash payment, said a spokesman for the Duisburg district court. This would mean that further negotiations would have to be held against him. The court had made the proposal because the individual guilt of each defendant was at most moderate.

24th January

Loveparade Duisburg: district court proposes process setting

By Elisabeth Zimmermann and Dietmar Gaisenkersting
January 24, 2019

wsws.org

21 young people are dead, hundreds injured and traumatized, caused by the negligence and greed of wheelers, supported by the responsible of the city of Duisburg. But if it goes by the will of the district court of Duisburg, no one will be held accountable. The more than eight years of ongoing scandalous behavior of city officials, law enforcement officials and now the court is coming to a bitter end.
Last week Wednesday, the presiding judge of Duisburg district court Mario Plein announced that in a so-called legal dispute he had proposed to the representatives of the prosecution, the defense and the representatives of the co-plaintiffs the early termination of the Loveparade proceedings. The trial deals with the question of who bears responsibility for the dead and injured in the Love Parade on 24 July 2010 in Duisburg.
As justification called Judge Plein the only “minor” or “middle” guilt of the ten defendants. Pursuant to Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendants’ “minor guilt” case may be terminated with or without a fine.
A small public interest, another reason that allows the termination of proceedings, led Judge Plein not. Because the interest is very large internationally. Of the 21 young people who died at the Love Parade disaster in Duisburg eight and a half years ago, 15 came from Germany, two from Spain and one each from Australia, the Netherlands, Italy and China.
The deadly throng on the ramp of the entrance and exit of the festival, according to Plein’s argument, had been a “multicausal event”. The Love Parade should never have been approved, but even on the day of the event, according to Judge Plein, the death of 21 people could have been prevented. A large number of planning mistakes and breakdowns on the day of the event contributed to the catastrophe. In other words, there are so many people in charge that there are no guilty parties.
The parents of the dead, who appear as co-plaintiffs in the process, reacted dismayed. Like all litigants, they have time to decide on the court’s proposal until the beginning of February.
Paco Zapater had come specially from Spain with his wife. His daughter Clara was studying in Germany before she suffocated in the crush of the Love Parade. Her father now said: “Clara had confidence in Germany, I’m just losing it.” If the trial were to be prematurely terminated on the grounds of “only minor guilt” to the defendants, it would be “like a second death of my daughter.”
Even Klaus-Peter Mogendorf, whose son Eike lost his life in Duisburg, indignant over the proposal of Prozessinstellung. His lawyer Rainer Dietz said: “You should use the time you have left to continue your education. Breaking away halfway would be tragic again. “Another attorney for the co-plaintiff, Franz Paul, stated,” Insignificance is out of the question for 21 dead. “
An even bigger slap in the face of relatives might be another argument of the court, namely the time pressure. Because the statute of limitations for negligent homicide ends on 27 July 2020. After that no one can be convicted under the law. Allegedly, there are still 575 witnesses who would have to be heard by then. This was impossible to achieve, argued the court chaired by Plein.
This time pressure is solely due to the behavior of those responsible – right from the start. The tragedy of the Love Parade was not a misfortune, but a crime, as we wrote immediately afterwards. Rainer Schaller, owner of the festival organizer Lopavent and the fitness chain McFit, as well as the political leaders in Duisburg – especially the then Lord Mayor Adolf Sauerland (CDU) – had unscrupulously ignored the concerns and warnings of experts in the planning. Both expected high profits and a better image for the city.
When it came to the planned disaster, both – Lopavent and the city – rejected any responsibility. Sauerland even went to the day after the Love Parade to make the victims themselves responsible.
For nearly four years, the Procuratorate Duisburg then “investigated” and only brought charges for the first time in early 2014, true to the principle: “The little ones are hanged, the big ones are let go.”

Among the defendants were missing the main responsible, Lord Mayor Sauerland and McFit boss Schaller. It was not even investigated against her. And also the procedure against Sauerlands Ordnungsdezernenten Wolfgang Rabe (CDU), who had brutally durchgeboxt the Loveparade in the city administration against all doubts, had been set.
Even from the ranks of the police nobody was charged. The then North Rhine-Westphalia Minister of the Interior Ralf Jäger (SPD), who was in the police operations center at the time of the catastrophe and left the Loveparade grounds via the VIP exit shortly after the disaster, declared at a special session of the NRW Interior Committee: ” I will not allow the police to serve as a scapegoat for the mistakes and omissions of others. “The Duisburg prosecutor had understood Jager’s warning.
Now judges Plein just the police action a fair complicity. Only through this “dutiful, culpable behavior of others” the disaster was made possible. For example, a chain of police that locked the stairway from the tunnel to the event site in the hour before the onset of mass panic contributed to the formation of the “heap of people” in which the 21 people died. On top of that, in the worst of crowds, a police car rolled into the death zone and increased the pressure.
Because initially only against “small fish” was determined, the process would have almost come off. Only a campaign by Gabi Müller, whose then 25-year-old son died in the Loveparade, forced the district court to write a lawsuit. 367,000 people supported Gabi Müller’s online petition, thereby making a major contribution to the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision in 2017 to order the Duisburg Regional Court to open the case. Finally, six city employees and four Lopavent employees were charged.
Against seven of them, six employees of the city and a so-called creative director of the organizer Lopavent, the criminal proceedings for “low debt” should be terminated. They would have approved and organized the deadly festival, but on the day of the disaster they had no chance to avert it.
Against three defendants of the company Lopavent the process is to be set because of “middle guilt”. According to Richter Plein, they were “active in operational positions” on the festival day and could have saved lives by better organization and communication. Their defense attorneys and prosecutors are expected to negotiate whether and how much they will make a cash payment. But this is expressly no repentance and certainly not an acknowledgment of guilt.
If the criminal proceedings are actually discontinued without a conviction, this should make it more difficult, if not impossible, for further civil proceedings.
When it came to capitalize on the failure and the ruthlessness of Sauerland and in Duisburg (with the Greens) CDU capital, was specifically changed by the then red-green state government in North Rhine-Westphalia, the municipal election law (“Lex Sauerland”) so Sauerland could be voted out and replaced by Sören Link (SPD).
Now, not a single responsible for the death of 21 young people is to be held accountable. Gabi Müller, who had been waiting for the process for a long time, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung that she was primarily concerned with education. This she owe her dead son Christian. She says that one has to change the laws in such a way that those responsible for catastrophes do not escape without punishment. But none of the responsible parties – neither in the NRW state parliament nor in the Bundestag – has an interest.

20th January 2019

End of a disaster

The expectations of the district court Duisburg were huge. But criminal law reaches its limits in a process such as the Loveparade.

An objection. JOST MÜLLER-NEUHOF

tagesspiegel.de

The Duisburg Regional Court has been dealing with the charges for the 2010 Love Parade disaster for almost a hundred days, and now it intends to stop the trial. Employees of the organizer are to pay a cash deposit, the administrative staff involved in the permit, get it without any action. That would be the balance of the rule of law after 21 dead and hundreds of partially seriously injured on the grounds of the former freight yard.

There will probably be no one who satisfied this result. For many who outrage it. The perceived justice and justice produced, they could not be further apart. The fate of the victims in the throng, multiplied by the tragedy of their relatives, has led to losses that are unpaid.

It’s a drama for everyone, including the defendants

But is that the right bill? It is striking that in response to the request of the court an important factor is missing or mentioned only marginally: The offense, for which the defendants must answer. It is the negligent homicide, paragraph 222 Penal Code. An offense without a minimum sentence, a legal offense. The maximum is five years imprisonment, which is rarely exhausted. An act with dramatic consequences for victims, but no serious offense. No one had wanted people to die in the mass panic. It’s a drama for everyone. Also for the accused.

To suspend such a procedure, without sanction, without judgment, belongs to the everyday life of the criminal justice. To set a different standard for the Loveparade process because the dimension of the accident and the attention to it was different would be unjustifiable. Clearer: It would be unfair. This also applies to the assessment of a “public interest” which, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, must not preclude an attitude, but is not to be confused with a general public interest. As hard as it sounds, this interest has largely been resolved. The events of that time are worked up in detail, the causes, the course and the contributions are known. No aspects of special or general prevention can be identified. A major event with a single tunnel access, as planned at the time, would not be approved today.

19th January 2019

The Loveparade process as an extreme case

If prosecutors and defense agree, the Loveparade trial could be terminated in early February. A suggestion that triggered outrage – but in the end is logical, comments Moritz Küpper. In this extreme case, the system reaches its limits.

By Moritz Küpper

deutschlandfunk.de

Now it goes on, as if nothing had happened: For the end of January is negotiated 98 day – in the criminal case for the Love Parade disaster. It will be another day in an unprecedented mammoth process – but its outcome has been well established since this week. If prosecution and defense agree, then we will set the procedure in early February, the court’s proposal. A proposal that caused indignation in many places, but is ultimately consistent.
The reasoning of the judges can be summarized briefly and succinctly as follows: Because so many people have made so many mistakes, the individual guilt of the accused can hardly be determined. On this basis, nobody can be convicted in a criminal trial. In short, the system reaches its limits in such an extreme case.
Many people, many mistakes
Besides there is probably another – probably more important – reason, which can be worked out by a simple calculation. The process has been going on for just over a year, and nearly 60 witnesses have been interviewed so far. Nearly 600 are still on a list and the time frame for their survey is extremely close, because in one and a half years, the allegations will be barred. Therefore, now this end – and somehow it fits.

Because: many people, many mistakes. This is a summary that applies not only to the direction and planning of the event, not only for this criminal process, but also for the entire period of reconditioning. For a long time, for this now eight and a half years lasting period, has found a formulation that was constantly repeated: the, of the disaster after the disaster.

An endless nightmare
The evidence for this statement – they are so numerous, how painful, so that one can only guess how it has to go to the relatives and the affected. Already bruised as hard as possible, the impression of a never-ending nightmare seems almost inevitable.

It began with the then North Rhine-Westphalia Interior Minister Ralf Jäger quickly after the disaster in front of the police. Their use and mistakes, however, which today is considered secure, are one of the causes of the tragedy. In addition, there were other points: A change of state government immediately before, which prevented a parliamentary work-up, as all the parties were involved.

A Lord Mayor of Duisburg, who refused to take responsibility and was voted out by his own people in an unprecedented process by citizenship. A prosecutor who got tangled up in the selection of appraisers and let so much valuable time pass. A criminal court at the regional court Duisburg, which rejected a Prozesseröffnung only and then afterwards by the higher regional court Duesseldorf had to be condemned to it.

All this was ultimately not cured by this criminal process. Nevertheless, this process has shown that courts can work: the many days of negotiations have provided for clarification. The judges have found answers. Answers to the questions of why people died, why people were injured, why it came to this disaster. There are many answers. And they are sometimes complex. But the required enlightenment has taken place, at least in part.
Continue with refurbishment on another level
And therefore, after all the catastrophes after the catastrophe, and irrespective of the further, probably subsequent, civil-law steps, one should seriously consider whether it would not make sense to continue this good work-up on another level. For example, by a commission of inquiry, similar to the one that worked up the Hillsborough disaster in the UK.
At a football match in Sheffield, England in April 1989 96 fans were killed, more than 700 spectators were injured. Decades later, the commission of inquiry worked out important causes that were not known until then. It was an act of social pacification and reconciliation – despite the lack of legal consequences.

The call for such a body, which was welcomed by many stakeholders, is not new. Politically, they have always been rejected, with reference to the legal work-up. This reason will now be dropped, the demand is thus more topical than ever. It would be a sign – after all the many mistakes.

18th January 2019

The small step to disaster

The criminal case because of the Love Parade disaster 2010 should be set, the bereaved and the public get no guilty. That may seem unsatisfactory to many – it is not wrong.

A column by Thomas Fischer

spiegel.de

It is reported that the competent criminal court of the district court of Duisburg has proposed to terminate the trial against the defendants in the criminal case concerning the Love Parade disaster of 24 July 2010. In this case, this is due to two provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), which have different preconditions:

Paragraph 153 (2) (in conjunction with para. 1) StPO:

“If the claim has already been brought, the court may, with the agreement of the prosecution and the accused, terminate the proceedings (if the offender’s guilt is minor and there is no public interest in the persecution)”,

or
Section 153a para. 2 (in conjunction with para. 1) StPO:

“If the claim has already been brought, the court may, with the consent of the prosecutor and the defendant, temporarily suspend the proceedings, and at the same time impose conditions and instructions on the accused (…) (if they are likely to eliminate the public interest in prosecution) , and the gravity of the guilt does not preclude.If the accused meets the conditions and instructions, the deed can no longer be prosecuted as an offense.) “
Although co-plaintiffs have the right to comment on relevant suggestions. Their approval is not important; they can not prevent a hiring and also not to challenge. As conditions, inter alia, cash benefits to charitable institutions or to the public purse as well as compensation for damages come into consideration. Of these regulations, which have introduced the so-called “opportunity principle” into law enforcement since 1975 as exceptions to the persecution obligation (principle of legality), prosecutors and courts use hundreds of thousands of times a year. When they were introduced, they were not the result of new findings on the criminal liability or the law of evidence, but an expression of the “simplification” of the procedures and efforts to cope with the millions of criminal cases.

Over the decades, much criticism has been made of this possibility of suspending criminal proceedings for “opportunity reasons”. It transfers criminal sanctions power to the public prosecutor’s offices, in other words administrative authorities (in the case of paragraph 153a), favor wealthy offenders who offer and pay high fines can undermine the rather strong right of evidence of the StPO in favor of a rough “impression” of evidence and possible procedural issue. Some also criticize the fact that the provision for enforcing large fines is misappropriated in the case of mere suspicions, for example, where the execution of extensive and lengthy criminal proceedings can have an existence-destroying effect on suspects (especially in white-collar criminal law).

On the other hand, attitudes of course offer many advantages to most of the accused: no charges and no public trial if the appointment is already made by the prosecution, no trial if it takes place before the main proceedings are opened by the court; no guilty verdict. Procedural attitudes, including those against restrictions, are not considered “criminal records” and will not be recorded in the central register. Almost everyone who is being prosecuted for the first time for an offense (statutory minimum sentence of less than one year) is happy to be offered a job.

fault

Both regulations prescribe “guilt”: in the case of the non-sanctioned attitude under clause 153, it must be “low”; in the case of hiring under clause 153a, their “gravity must not conflict”. This means, on the one hand, that “innocence” is not an opportunity attitude, but a cessation of proceedings in the absence of suspicion (at the public prosecutor’s office), a non-opening of the main proceedings (article 204 StPO, after indictment) or an acquittal (after admission of the indictment and main trial) got to. In practice, there is a considerable gray area of ​​mere suspicion sanctions. It is not out of the fact that for more complicated issues public prosecutor’s office or court just once in the fog of ignorance into an “offer” make, combined with the delicate hint, if one (further) determine, will (probably) already “something penalized come out.” Some accused, even if he considers himself innocent, preferring to take out a loan rather than plunge into the adventure of a trial following this prognosis – possibly with the judge who has already threatened him with the “something” alternative.

What is meant by the “guilt” at this point? Of course, it is not about moral, moral, social guilt, but (criminal) legal ones. Their requirements arise from the respective facts of the Criminal Code (StGB), in two ways. On the one hand, these facts capture different degrees of guilt: a serious robbery contains more objective “injustice”, but also more personal “guilt” than a shoplifting. On the other hand, the individual guilt measures within the scope of the individual facts are very different. The measure of evil intent or breach of duty, the motives, the execution of the offense, the history of the accused, and others, differ in every case, and lead to different judgments of guilt, even if the actual fact is the same. Above all, today’s offenses contain very large, sometimes even excessively wide criminal “frameworks” within which the respective “debt measure” should determine the upper limit of the sentence. Fixed penalties provided by law exist only in the exceptional case of the “absolute” punishment, ie the life imprisonment.

negligence

The accused of Duisburg are charged with acts of negligence. Here, and especially in negligence with serious consequences (negligent homicide), the definitions of legal and moral guilt often collide hard and painful. For the survivors of a dead person, but also often for a public solidarisende public stands, of course, the suffering of the victim and the loss in the center of the assessment. And this loss is not relativizable. He therefore has no rational relation to the accusation of negligence from the outset.

Negligence means: not intentional, that is, acting neither intentionally nor in the knowledge and expectation of actual success, and not having risked and “approved” this success indifferently. You can be negligent in two different ways: recognizing the possibility of harm, but still believing it will not come in (that’s called deliberate negligence), or ignoring the possibility of harm (unconscious negligence). In both cases, a guilty verdict for negligence presupposes, on the one hand, an (objective) breach of duty of care, and, on the other hand, a (personal) failure of the accused person: she must have been able, on a case-by-case basis, to have her own skills, knowledge, etc. to fulfill the (objective) duty.

That sounds very abstract and is it for the moment. It is an attempt to bring the extraordinary complexity and complexity of life processes and events into a conceptual system that allows reasonably fair processing of claims. We must (and want to) distinguish between “coincidence” and “guilt,” misfortune and failure.

Because there is another, opposite view of things: that of the accused. From his point of view, there is often a blatant discrepancy between his behavior and the factual success: Apparently tiny negligence has led to terrible results, which one did not want and whose risk one either considered manageable or did not even recognize. Very often, the damage caused by such negligence is a mere coincidence for the accused: 10,000 motorists drive past a school a little too fast; in the tens of thousands, a child runs into the street and is killed. For the parents of this child, this relation is not important; the accused motorist nevertheless often feels like a “scapegoat” for a failure that actually affects everyone else as well: he has acted no more and no less “guilty” than anyone else who now indignantly sees him as a “child killer” punished as severely as possible want.

The more the causal relationships of an event split, are in mutual dependencies, routines, relationships of trust and reciprocal relations, the more difficult it is not only the exact determination of the one decisive moment of error, but also the determination of the individual guilt of all involved. Often causes and effects are so far apart that one can no longer measure “guilt”, at any rate with our principles. Behavior is then still “somehow” the cause, but no longer “imputable”: No manager of a tobacco or schnapps manufacturer is accused of millions of deliberate manslaughter, no politician of the rich countries for millions of (cruel) murder of the hungry in the poorest countries. When right-wing or left-wing thugs violate dissenters, many citizens immediately claim that this is a direct result of “hate commentary” and exclusion – which they, however, soon re-run. Nevertheless, they would be surprised if they were accused of (at least) negligent involvement in the deeds. Nobody accused the governing mayor of Berlin and 20 members of the Senate administration of negligent homicide because they did not allow the Breitscheidplatz Christmas market to be protected on time with massive concrete bollards. And the employees of the security authorities, who let the perceptibly dangerous perpetrator run around, do not sit on indictment boards.

Public interest

Negligence often involves a contradiction between different levels of experience and appraisal: grave, often downright catastrophic and irreparable damage on the one hand, minor negligence on the other. What are the “interests” of those involved is obvious: survivors of fatalities often formulate that they want “certainty about the causes” of the event. That may be true in some cases; but probably this is not the core of the need. When a misfortune happens to us, we want to find a “reason” and a responsibility for it. “Somebody has to be to blame” for such a catastrophic event as the Love Parade 2010. And there is a strong desire to at least symbolically portray this guilt: in a guilty verdict that is “final,” validating the assignment of responsibility to the whole society indisputably. Nobody will come back to life – everybody knows that. But it would not be unbearable to those affected alone if, with this argument and a shrug, one closes the files or does not open them at all.

However, the closer they get to the details, the connections often prove to be really difficult and much more confusing than the more woodcut-like curtailments of public perception or even the selective choice of facts in an indictment suggest. It can be disproportionate, and therefore unjust, if it happens that the one perpetrator who has not given a failure that led to a damage event in a direct chain of causes, without interference from other causes, contributory negligence, influences, even victim behavior to pick out a few out of the multitude of possibly negligent causers, so to speak “vicariously” and to want to unload on them all the guilt and incomprehensibility of collective failure.

The Duisburg Regional Court had probably already seen that in March 2016 it initially rejected the opening of the main hearing. At that time, the Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia stated on record that she respects the independence of the judiciary, but wants to express “as a human being Hannelore Kraft” that the decision for her was “difficult to grasp”. That was, of course, the opposite of a “respect for independence”, as usual in such statements, and, besides that, an unpleasantly populist emphasis on the general conviction that, whatever the case, it must be a “work-up”.

However, it is not the task, and in most cases not the ability, of the criminal justice system to “work it up,” even less so the more complicated the circumstances and the network of causes. Criminal proceedings, by their very nature, are always a very limited constriction: the infinite multitude of causes, relationships, responsibilities, failures, efforts, intentions, and coincidences are focused on one single point: Was it the accused? Is he the one person who blames society for what happened and to whom it can summon responsibility? This is a fairly limited view – not at all remote, but often pitifully helpless in reality.

In the quoted statement of the “human Hannelore force”, which stands for many, expresses a certain understanding of what is meant by the “public interest” in the sense of paragraphs 153 and 153a StPO. It appears here as a mixture of general interest in information and empathic attribution need, as mere description of the requirement that it simply should not be that no one is really “guilty”.

But that is only one side of the “public interest”. Because it only describes the interest of the real, empirical public as a “population”. But there is also a public interest, which feeds on rules and legal principles: The public’s interest may be huge, private details from the lives of politicians to learn – in the “public interest” is certainly not. The position of the accused is also part of an interest that can be described as a judgmental summary of different needs and rights from a proportionality perspective. Let’s take an example: A woman leaves the kitchen for half a minute where there is a pot of boiling water on the stove. Her three-year-old baby pulls the pot off the stove and suffers severe scalding. This is a negligent homicide (clause 222 StGB). The public would certainly be very interested in learning all about this tragedy. Nevertheless, one will find it right to stop the criminal case against the perpetrator, who is severely traumatized for her whole life, because of “low guilt” or because “the severity of guilt does not conflict”.

Preliminary result

Is the procedure set?

handelsblatt.com – News Video

The trial for the Love Parade disaster in Duisburg could be stopped. The prosecution is now investigating whether the proceedings will continue. Members of the victims criticize this sharply.

Law is not always fair

taz.de

It was clear early on that the Loveparade trial would not be fair. That there is no verdict is more than unsatisfactory.

So that’s it. Eight and a half years after the Love Parade disaster, the legal work-up comes to a bitter end. The district court Duisburg wants to stop the process, which it had never wanted, now after almost one hundred days of negotiations. Thus, a criminal case is about to graduate, which was from the beginning under no good star.
The fact that it had taken until December 2017 until the main trial against the ten defendants finally started after fierce scramble was an impertinence for the survivors of the 21 dead, for the more than 650 injured and the countless traumatized festival visitors. Now they must also painfully realize that justice and law are sometimes not identical.

It was clear from the outset that the court would not be able to find a just verdict. For more than six former employees of the city of Duisburg and four of the organizer Lopavent should have been sitting in the dock. But that there is no more judgment, is more than unsatisfactory.
After all, the judges should not be accused of not having tried to enlightenment. Meticulously they reconstructed what happened on that July 24, 2010. The evidence has confirmed that a fatal mixture of megalomania, incompetence and irresponsibility led to the disaster. Not least responsible for this were the organizer Rainer Schaller and the mayor of Duisburg, Adolf Sauerland, who made a miserable appearance as a witness in court.
The deadly mass panic on the Love Parade was not a fateful event for which no guilty party could be found. Unfortunately, that does not mean that you can prove that you have a specific guilt in the legal sense. But at least seven years ago, the Duisburg citizens forced Sauerland to forcefully take over the political responsibility he did not want to take over. At least that.

Love Parade Process: Hard to bear

02elf.net

It will be frustrating for people who have lost a loved one during the Love Parade disaster that the process may be discontinued. Without anyone assuming responsibility without convicting a culprit. However, the process has shown how difficult it is to name individuals and their guilt, but in the end it was a chain of failures that led to destruction. After all, there has been this process, it still exists, despite great resistance and as cumbersome as lengthy investigations. The will to enlightenment was there, and much of what went wrong has come to light during this process. The process is thus a reminder to exercise the greatest possible care. And maybe subsequent organizers can profit from this, maybe the insights will flow into new guidelines. This is no consolation for those affected, but the process may help prevent such a disaster from repeating itself

The district court of Duisburg seems to have made things easy. It suggested to those involved in the proceedings in a so-called legal discussion to prematurely dissolve the criminal proceedings for the Love Parade 2010 – too complex, too complex the events, too difficult to fathom the question of guilt. Given the hoped-for improvement of the catastrophe with 21 dead, this is a serious blow for the relatives. From a defense standpoint, attitude is the only viable option. She argues with the heavy burden on her clients and joins the court: prosecution should not be an end in itself. Meanwhile, there are opportune reasons for them to give up the originally intended acquittals. Burden? What does that mean for the relatives of the dead?

What should the severely traumatized people, who just made it out of the deadly crush, do with this argument? Possibly, comparisons forbid here. The defendants have been living with blame for quite some time. Whether some of them now carry a low, medium or high debt, it is difficult to say from the outside. At any rate, one can understand the survivors who are now claiming in Düsseldorf that no one is at fault on the opposite side. Some people find it difficult to bear this turn. Six employees of the city of Duisburg, four of the event company Lopavent, sit on the dock. They are accused of, among other things, negligent homicide and negligent assault. Who does not sit in the dock: Duisburg ex-mayor Adolf Sauerland and chief organizer Rainer Schaller.

For the education they have contributed as witnesses little to nothing. “No knowledge, do not know, can not remember.” For the benefit of those who stand in front of him, the court now considers a tangle of factors. Thus, there were neither legal nor organizational requirements for the construction of a major event as in Duisburg at the time of the crime. Accordingly, it was a collective failure. The presiding judge talked about the division of police chains on the access ramp to the festival grounds. The measure additionally narrowed the amount. In addition, they drove a police car blind into the “crowd”. It requires the greatest possible education, the most careful work-up. Complexity does not justify despondency.

17th January 2019

The court wants to end the Love Parade process – the bereaved are stunned

The process is expected to be discontinued. There is too little time to the statute of limitations to determine the individual debt of the ten defendants. For the bereaved, that’s a big blow.

Stephanie Lahrtz, Munich

nzz.ch

The criminal trial for the Duisburg Love Parade disaster will appear to be set in the coming weeks. The presiding judge explained this after a non-public legal hearing with the prosecution, defense lawyers and by-lawsuits on Thursday. The court does not see a chance to clearly determine the individual guilt of the ten defendants until the statute of limitations in July 2020.

Compensation process could follow

However, the trial has significantly contributed to clarifying the events at the event, the court said Thursday. In addition to planning errors, a collective failure of a large number of people was jointly responsible for the accident on the day of the event.

Thus, it will be for the disaster, in which on July 24, 2010 in a congestion and a mass panic 21 people were crushed to death or trampled and over 650 were sometimes seriously injured, no guilty found by the court. Accused are six employees of the Duisburg Building Office and four of the event company Lopavent. They are accused of negligent assault and negligent homicide for lack of planning or unlawful approval.

Prosecutors and defense also want to agree to the attitude, but not without a fight. So they are now negotiating conditions such as cash payments for some or all defendants. According to the court, all employees of the city as well as one of the event company should not receive a condition, because one recognizes a small personal debt. The other three accused company employees, however, should receive a condition, the court sees here a middle guilt given, as these persons could intervene in the organizational process.

For many survivors and victims the attitude would be a heavy blow. “Our daughter died for the second time,” a father said at the end of the trial. Many are stunned that apparently no one can prove serious mistakes. In addition, it has been scandalous for those affected since the beginning of the process that no real decision-makers and those responsible for planning or approval have been charged.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers representing surviving dependents or injured persons now at least want to see that the recruitment decision contains enough facts about the negligence of the city, the police and the organizer in order to claim for damages in the desired civil proceedings.

Disaster could have been prevented until just before

It could also provide the more than 3800-page report on the causes of the disaster submitted by a road safety expert last December. As a result, the terrain was not suitable for the expected mass of visitors. This could have been determined several times and by various persons in advance, wrote the expert. His realization that even on the day itself until 4:31 pm there was a chance to prevent the tragic events by coordinating the flow of people is particularly bitter. Instead, there was little or no communication between the police, organizers and other security personnel, as well as wrong decisions in the face of ever more compact masses of people. At 17 o’clock the first dead were reported.

“The wrong people are sitting in the dock”

The Loveparade trial could be terminated without judgment. According to the FDP politician and lawyer of victims and bereaved Gerhart Baum, the German legal system is not sufficiently prepared for such major proceedings. In addition, those responsible were not charged.

Gerhart Baum in conversation with Tobias Armbrüster

deutschlandfunk.de

Tobias Armbrüster: The Loveparade trial in Düsseldorf, he should actually clarify many unanswered questions in one of the biggest disasters in Germany in the past ten years. The big question here is: Who bears the responsibility for the fact that in the mass panic in the summer of 2010, a total of 21 people died, just at this Love Parade in Duisburg. But these questions may not be resolved, as this process is becoming increasingly apparent that he is being hired. At least yesterday, the presiding judge declared this after a discussion with several participants. One of the reasons for this decision is that time is running out for the participants. Too many witnesses are still to hear and in the coming year already ends several periods of limitation.


We want to discuss this in more detail. With us on the phone is now Gerhard Rudolf tree, the former Federal Interior Minister of the FDP. With his law office, he currently represents several victims and survivors in this process. Good morning, Mr. Tree.

Gerhart Rudolf Baum: Yes, we represent about 80 survivors and victims. Many people have been traumatized. 21 have been killed, but many have been injured. You are right: It has been a huge catastrophe. And you said: damn it, how can you do something there at all.


Armbrüster: Mr Baum, before we get to this, on the question that probably many people have asked yesterday when they heard that, let me ask you the question: can it be fair to stop this process now?


Baum: Serious mistakes have been made in the run-up to the trial. Please keep in mind: The procedure has only been going on for a year with 96 days of negotiations. The mistakes in advance are very difficult to eliminate. Also the loss of time is difficult to catch up. In a first phase, the district court refused to open the main proceedings. These mistakes of the ancestor can not be blamed on the present court.


Put large-scale procedures to the test


Armbrüster: Do you have to act as a legislator? If you run for example against prescription periods, in front of a wall, you can also think about it. Do you have to change the law?


Tree: Yes. You have to even think about how to deal with such large-scale proceedings. It’s also the procedure Eschede – that’s the big train accident – or the thalidomide procedure, which have also been discontinued. Now comes here in addition to a reviewer has said that the disaster would have been until 16:31 clock on the day of misfortune still averted. And if you now research more closely, what happened after that, would have heard several hundred witnesses.

This is no longer possible, says the judge, because the statute barred in the fall of next year. It is a dilemma in which the court is located and also our clients. Of course, they are disappointed because they want justice and satisfaction, but above all they want enlightenment. It must be said that we have been following this now in 96 days of negotiation: we have come a little bit closer to the truth. A little light into the darkness has come in and also the possibility to draw consequences now is opened up. Organizational errors have been made, not just criminal acts that are being investigated here, but organizational errors in the process.


Armbrüster: At the end of the Love Parade?


Tree: Yes.


“Ridiculous 2,000 euros” as compensation


Armbrüster: You have spoken now that mistakes have been made in the run-up to this process. The big issue, why this process has even started so late. Is it possible to hold someone accountable?


Tree: No. That was an independent court. That said, that’s not enough for us. Then there were new reports. There were endless reports. The police have meticulously determined for years. I would not do a reproach now. It is an independent judiciary. But nevertheless the thing is completely unsatisfactory on the whole.


The question now arises, what comes next step, if the court adjourns because of low debt incidentally against the defendants? In which situation do the victims actually stay behind? Is this situation a hindrance in the enforcement of civil claims, compensation claims? That has to be checked now. It has been paid compensation. The country has engaged, in other ways. Political consequences have been drawn in terms of event law. But the question remains, how does it work?


For example, we have a mother who has lost her daughter. She got a ridiculous 2,000 euros in compensation and another 500 for the mortal fear of the daughter who was killed. That’s not how it works, of course, and we expect that compensation will soon be brought to justice.


Armbrüster: How do you want to achieve that?


Tree: There are several options. If the court announces its final decision in three weeks, we will have to discuss these options and discuss them with the country. But for the moment we have to deal with this unsatisfactory situation first.


Armbruster: Forgive me, Mr. Baum, if I’m not quite so knowledgeable. But I can imagine that it will be very difficult when a procedure is stopped, if therefore one of the defendants is not found guilty, then still civil compensation from him to get compensation or compensation.


Tree: No, no! Basically, it was always rightly said that the wrong people are sitting in the dock. It sat those who have prepared in detail on the dock. But responsible is the organizer, in a sense, the police and planners in the city of Duisburg, and they are also assured. We turn to the insurance companies. The number I have just mentioned is an insurance benefit from a German insurance company.


Make mistakes even justice


Armbrüster: That is, claims are made against people who are not involved in the process right now?


Tree: Yes! – Yes, that’s the case. On the basis of the findings to date, and we are dealing here with the criminal law, whether someone has made criminally responsible. The other mistakes that still exist and which still have to be analyzed in detail, which remain, and which must also be brought to justice.


Armbrüster: But that means, if I understood you correctly, you agree that this procedure is now being phased out so slowly?


Baum: What else is left for us? To our great regret, what else is left for us? I see the court is in a dilemma and we are part of this dilemma. If the court comes to this conclusion now, our hands are tied, unless the lawyers of the defendants resist. Then there is a new situation. You have to wait.

Armbrüster: What do the survivors or the victims you represent now? Do you know that the phones have been glowing in the law firm for a few days now? I can imagine that many are not so happy with that?


Tree: Yes, yes. This is very, very difficult to explain to them. You are disappointed. There are foreigners here. We have foreign clients, parents who have lost their children, who point out that different rules apply in other European countries. We have to look at it closely and then possibly draw legal-political consequences. Our legal system is apparently not sufficiently prepared for such cases.


Statements by our interlocutors reflect their own views. Deutschlandfunk does not embrace the statements of its interlocutors in interviews and discussions.

merkur.de

Outraged relatives in the Loveparade trial

The Loveparade trial could soon be terminated without judgment. Many questions are still open: Are there any conditions against one or more defendants? The court explained his proposal. Relatives are appalled.

Dusseldorf (AP) – Nadia Zanacchi is outraged. “The process is therefore closed without result, as one had feared from the outset.” The Italian is the mother of 21-year-old Giulia, who died in 2010 at the Love Parade disaster in Duisburg.

Previously, the chairman Judge Mario Plein had justified why the Duisburg district court after more than 90 negotiation days proposes a termination of the proceedings: There is still a sufficient probability that the ten defendants are jointly responsible for the accident. The individual guilt of each defendant was, however, considered to be low or at best moderate. This also applies in consideration of the exceptionally serious consequences of the alleged acts.

Plein cited several reasons for proposing hiring, with or without cash requirements: in 2010, there were no clear legal requirements for planning such a major event. “In this uncertain legal situation, the defendants have made intensive efforts to make the event secure from their point of view.”

The prosecution accuses the six employees of the city of Duisburg and the four employees of the organizer Lopavent above all serious planning errors. A court expert had determined that the accident could have been prevented already in the planning phase: The area was unsuitable for the visitor masses. But even on the day itself there would have been opportunities for all institutions involved to prevent the tragic events, wrote the expert.

Here the court sees another reason for his suggestion: In addition to the planning errors, a collective failure of a large number of persons was jointly responsible for the accident on the day of the event. As an example, Plein called the establishment of a police chain on the access ramp, uncoordinated openings of the separation systems and decisions on the day of the event contrary to previous arrangements. “There are many guilty parties,” the judge said elsewhere on this 97th day of the trial in Dusseldorf.

Nadia Zanacchi, on the other hand, speaks of the guilt of irresponsibility, the guilt of having chosen an absolutely unsuitable site, of the “truly incredible guilt” of not having set up adequate escape routes. Their sentences echo through the congress hall on Thursday like hammer blows.

According to the court, it should also be taken into account that the defendants were under pressure for criminal proceedings for eight and a half years, that the main hearing had already lasted so long and that the defendants had not been charged with any criminal charges.

The prosecution and the defendants are now expected to comment on the proposal by 5 February. On Wednesday, the prosecution had described it as “hardly conceivable” to agree to a setting without conditions. Defenders had demanded this.

At the Loveparade on July 24, 2010 in Duisburg, there was so much crowding at the only entrance and exit to the event grounds that 21 people were crushed and at least 652 were injured.

Many responsible persons, no guilty party

The process of deadly mass panic on the Loveparade will probably end without judgment. How can that be? Answers to the most important questions.

By Christian Wernicke, Dusseldorf

sueddeutsche.de

For almost two hours, Mario Plein reads from the sheet. It is brittle lawyer German, which the presiding judge in the Loveparade process on Thursday afternoon in the Messe Düsseldorf recites, where the process of the district court Duisburg takes place due to lack of space. However, the result is clear: most likely no one will ever be convicted for the death of the 21 people who were crushed on 24 July 2010 in the crush of the Love Parade.

What exactly does the court suggest?

Judge Plein wants to stop the proceedings. Without condemnation, without acquittal. After a non-public “legal discussion” with all prosecutors, defense lawyers and victims lawyers, the court has sorted the ten accused into two groups: In the case of seven defendants (six employees of the city of Duisburg and the so-called creative director of the organizer Lopavent), the criminal proceedings be terminated because of low debt. These seven unite that they had approved and organized the deadly mass party – but on the day of the event, the court said they had no chance to avert the catastrophe.

For the other three defendants, a “middle guilt” attitude is emerging. The three Lopavent employees, according to Judge Plein, were “operational” during the event on the day of the tragedy, so they could have saved something, such as better use of the folders. For these three Lopavent employees, the defense lawyers and prosecutors are now to negotiate whether and to what extent they make a monetary payment. This is expressly not a penance – but just a (small) sign. The court demands a compromise by 5 February.

How does the court justify its decision?

The court interprets the deadly crush on the ramp of the event site as a “multicausal event”. Simply put, there are so many co-responsible people that no one is guilty as an individual. The prosecutor’s charge of 2014 had interpreted the Love Parade as a quasi-planned disaster: Lopavent had miserably organized the event, the city should never have approved the planning. The second expert in the procedure, the Wuppertal traffic planner Jürgen Gerlach, also complained that the event area had been too small and that for the controls in front of the two tunnel entrances too few staff had been assigned and also incorrectly positioned. But his (still provisional) report identifies multiple failures: Thus, police officers and folders could communicate in phases neither by radio nor on mobile phones, and there were no speakers to direct the masses in the danger zone. Gerlach believes that the catastrophe could have been prevented by 16:31. First dead were reported around 17 clock.

In addition, so judges Plein, was “guilt-reducing” that in NRW 2010 there were no clear legal rules for major events. And one must acknowledge that the defendants have been “under the pressure of criminal proceedings” for “eight and a half years”.

Does the court see other culprits who are not in the dock?

Judge Plein criticized above all the action of the police. Only by “this duty-contrary, culpable behavior of third” the disaster became possible. Specifically, Plein called a police chain, the hour before the outbreak of mass panic locked the staircase from the tunnel to the event site. That contributed to the fact that next to it the “heap of humans” formed. On top of that, in the worst of crowds, a police car rolled into the death zone and increased the pressure.

What do the relatives and victims say?

Many survivors did not want to say anything on Thursday and first consult with their lawyers. Also Gabi Müller, whose son Christian, then 25, died in Duisburg, wants to “let everything sink first”. Whether individual accused deceive little or middle guilt, they could not judge anyway. But she knew: “No one is without guilt.” It would be necessary to change the laws in such a way that those responsible for major catastrophes would not escape without punishment. Spaniard Paco Zapater, father of Clara, 22, who was studying in Germany at the time, said Germany must reform its judicial system. Other countries, such as Spain or Italy, are in a position to judge those responsible “fairly, quickly and appropriately”.

How does it go from here?

At the end of January, the process will continue, as if nothing had happened: A police officer will be heard as a witness on two days. However, after 5 February, prosecutors and defense lawyers may seek out cash payments for “middle guilt” of three defendants

How does it go from here?

At the end of January, the process will continue, as if nothing had happened: A police officer will be heard as a witness on two days. However, after 5 February, if prosecutors and defense lawyers have pitted the cash payments for “middle guilt” of three defendants, the criminal proceedings may end abruptly. A problem: The important report, which works up the “multicausal happening” on 3859 pages, will probably never be formally introduced into the process. Bitter irony of the story: Judge Plein on Thursday permanently referred to the mega document.

16th January 2019

Only losers


stuttgarter-nachrichten.de

From the beginning it was uncertain that a guilty verdict would be given at the end of the proceedings. The court has tried, but it has recognized its limitations and drawn the consequences. That was right, even if there are only losers now, comments Christian Gottschalk.

Stuttgart – The district court in Duisburg had to be carried for hunting. It was only on orders from above that the Loveparade trial began, the court itself would have preferred to keep the matter. If now – after more than a year’s negotiation – the attitude in the room, it sounds like a return coach. A court can not be forced to bargain to negotiate. But it is not like that. From the beginning it was uncertain that a guilty verdict would be given at the end of the proceedings. The court has tried, but it has recognized its limitations and drawn the consequences. That was right, even if there are only losers now.

Victims, defendants and justice lose

Losers are the victims and their relatives, in which wounds were torn open again. Losers are the defendants whose lives have been thrown out of joint when they have to sit in the courtroom three times a week. The loser is also the judiciary, which has to admit that the criminal law is only very limited for assigning a chain of failures and misfortune casually to certain people. But there is no alternative that would have been better. Against his conviction, the court may not judge anyone. And to refrain from a refurbishment from the outset, would be equally flawed. Let’s hope that the criminal curfew is now also a final stroke, and not re-examined legally. Especially since numerous civil cases are still being negotiated.

Loveparade process – termination of the procedure under money conditions? WDR aktuell

| 16.01.2019 | 02:49 min. | Available until 16.01.2020 | WDR | By Andreas Hodapp

After nearly 100 days of negotiations, an end to the process is now being discussed. The reason for this is that a judgment before the expiration of the limitation period in July 2020 becomes less and less likely. According to a lawyer, the co-plaintiffs could come to terms with the termination of the process under certain conditions. The defendants, however, reject the money. The core of the process is the mass panic at the Duisburg Love Parade in the summer of 2010, in which 21 people died.

Loveparade trial could end without judgment

www.radiovest.de

The Loveparade trial could end without judgment. The court has proposed to close the case against the ten defendants. For seven people because of low debt – the other three would have to meet requirements. The defendants are employees of the city who planned the event – as well as employees of the organizer Lopavent. Whether the process is actually discontinued, defense and prosecution must decide for each one.

4th January 2019

Day 96: And now?

By Martin Teigeler on January 4, 2019

blog.wdr.de

The survey of the so-called float manager of the Loveparade 2010 continues. The witness is to paint on paper, as the routes of the floats – so the techno moving van – at the parades in Berlin, Essen and Dortmund looked. He is also asked about many people and their responsibilities at the Loveparade in Duisburg.

The questions are now becoming more and more detailed, the answers of the witness always monosyllabic. “I have no concrete memory about that,” he often says. Then he may go.

(How) is it going on?

On January 16, there will be an important or perhaps crucial date in the criminal proceedings: the legal discussion. The court, defense lawyers, private prosecution attorneys and public prosecutors then deliberate in camera if and how the trial continues. There are many rumors hovering around: setting the process, part-setting – many things seem possible. The fact is that more witnesses have been summoned until April 2019.

How difficult it would be to achieve an understanding of all parties involved in the legal process is already evident in the discussions on the formalities.

The presiding judge Mario Plein suggests that the spokesman of the regional court of Duisburg should be present at the legal discussion. Plein wants him with him, so that the court after the interview to the media can provide information – especially since the contents of the legal discussion should penetrate anyway. But individual defense lawyers and suffrage lawyers are against Plein’s proposal. Only the judge himself was allowed to inform the public about the legal discussion in the meeting on January 17 (beginning at 1 pm), their opinion. So the speaker has to stay outside.

Controversy money

The mood of the judge does not get better with the next topic. It’s about the money. As a legal assistant paid plaintiff attorneys anxious for their fee, since the legal discussion on January 16, yes, is not an official hearing date. The lawyers announce that they will stay away from the legal discussion if they do not receive a lawyer’s fee.

Judge Plein expresses his displeasure: “They expect me to worry about whether they will be remunerated or sowat.” A “rather ugly topic” is that. After lengthy discussion, he admits that the court is trying to find a solution.

Somewhat sarcastic Plein says in the end, now everyone is in the mood for the legal discussion: “That can only be very fruitful.”

3rd January 2019

Day 95: The Float Manager

By Martin Teigeler on 3 January 2019

blog.wdr.de


These are spooky pictures that will be remembered by the Loveparade 2010: Techno-floats, so-called floats, are still driving over the party grounds long after the catastrophe. Loud music, people celebrate – although there were just a few meters away on the ramp to the event area dead and injured. At that time, the police had requested that they not break off the party to prevent further escalation on the departure of techno fans.
In the criminal proceedings, today’s Float Manager says that he drove the cars from a radio control center in a nearby skyscraper. It was not until 6 pm, about an hour late, that he was informed about the catastrophe on the day of the disaster, reports the 59-year-old witness.
The master of event technology has been active in the industry since 1985. On behalf of the organizer Lopavent he had already worked at previous Loveparades. The presiding judge Mario Plein poses as usual many detailed questions – whereby the witness can not remember much at many things.
“Out of control”

At preliminary discussions one spoke about the “topic of the human concentration at the Rampenkopf”, says the witness. The organizer had assured him that the police and the police would ensure that the arriving people would quickly pass through tunnels and ramps to the higher-lying party grounds. He himself was “in no way” responsible for the security concept, but only for the “floats,” the witness stresses. But he had also proposed additional barriers – to no avail.
E-mails are read in the courtroom, according to which one of today’s defendants from the ranks of the organizer Lopavent should have written to the witness that it would be better not to tell the authorities about the possibility of loudspeaker announcements about all techno cars – because that could arouse desires. According to witnesses of police officers, such emergency announcements should have been rejected on the day of the disaster because that would not work.
On the afternoon of July 24, 2010, it had become so close to the entrance of the site that the techno cars changed their route and were finally stopped. The witness reports how he saw with binoculars and surveillance cameras how “a compact crowd” formed. People climbed masts. “From that point on, it was clear to me that we were no longer in normal operation, that something was out of control.”
The questioning of the witness will be continued tomorrow.

Loveparade process: The “float” responsible says from WDR currently

| 03.01.2019 | 01:27 Min. | Available until 03.01.2020 |

WDR Day 95 at the Loveparade Process. On Thursday (03.01.2018) to say the man who was responsible in 2010 for the floats, so the music trucks.