The Higher Regional Court (BGH) will deliver its verdict in a family court dispute from Weimar by late November.

The German Higher Regional Court (BGH) is set to deliver its verdict in a family court dispute originating from Weimar by late November.

Initially, the family court judge, driven by the child's best interests, rendered a swift judgment. However, this decision was quick to be annulled. The Higher Regional Court in Jena, Thuringia, and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) concurred, asserting that family courts lack the authority in such cases. The family court judge, Judge D., was involved in protests against COVID measures and had made his decision against school health guidelines as early as February 2021. He sought advice from critics of the measures and even consulted with experts beforehand.

Tactfully manipulating case assignments and engaging in conversations with parents or procuring expert opinions, Judge D. ensured a favorable outcome. The Regional Court ultimately concluded that D. violated judicial impartiality by intentionally exploiting and misusing his judicial position.

Both D. and the prosecutor's office petitioned the BGH for a review of the verdict. At a hearing on Wednesday, D., proclaiming his innocence, declared, "I never sought to transgress the law, and I did not transgress the law."

Defending D., his legal team emphasized the state's role in safeguarding the child's welfare. They argued that D.'s decision was fact-based and that he should be acquitted.

The federal prosecutor criticized the Regional Court for committing legal errors that favored the judge. He pointed out incorrect evaluations of statements as partial confessions and the omission of the violation of jurisdiction in the verdict. He advocated for a retrial in Erfurt.

Amidst interruptions from the audience, presiding judge Eva Menges reminded everyone of the gravity of the situation for D. A final conviction resulting in a prison sentence of at least one year would mark the end of his judicial career.

Despite facing criticism from the federal prosecutor and the potential of a prison sentence, Judge D. maintained his innocence at the BGH hearing, asserting, "I never intended to breach the law, and I did not breach the law."

Further Reading:

Additional Insights:

While the presented sources do not focus directly on Judge D.'s family court dispute and legal challenges related to judicial impartiality and jurisdiction, they nevertheless provide some pertinent info.

1. Judicial impartiality: Courts generally expect their judges to maintain impartiality in their judgments. Any perceived deviation from neutrality may lead to case revisions and potential reversals[1].
2. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction concerns in legal disputes may arise due to conflicting claims or challenges to a court's authority[1].
3. Family court disputes: These often involve sensitive and complex legal and emotional issues, with courts constantly working to ensure fair and appropriate decisions in line with children's best interests[2].

For a comprehensive understanding of the case at hand, consult detailed rulings, decisions, and legal opinions from the Higher Regional Court (BGH) or other relevant judicial bodies.