Federal Court of Justice: judgments against Höcke according to Nazi slogans

Federal Court of Justice: judgments against Höcke according to Nazi slogans

Federal Court of Justice
Judgments against Höcke according to the Nazi slogan legally binding






The Thuringian AfD boss in 2024 was guilty of the use of a Nazi slogan at the Halle district court in 2024. Both times right – now Germany’s top criminal judge say.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has confirmed two convictions of the Thuringian AfD leader Björn Höcke because of the use of a forbidden Nazi slogan. The Halle Regional Court imposed fines in May and July 2024 because Höcke had used the SA slogan “Everything for Germany” at events. Höcke made a revision. As the BGH now announced, the examination of the Supreme German Criminal Court showed no legal errors to its disadvantage. The judgments are final.



Höcke lawyers announce steps

The Höcke defenders described the decisions “formally and in terms of content for incorrect, in terms of German, European and international law”. If legal remedies were prepared and submitted, they announced in Erfurt.


Höcke initially said in a speech at a speech at an election event in the Saxony-Anhalt Merseburg: “Everything for our homeland, everything for Saxony-Anhalt, everything for Germany”. The third part of the triad is a forbidden slogan of the Sturm Department (SA), the paramilitary fighting organization of the Nazi party NSDAP.

BGH: “Permissible restriction of freedom of expression”




In December 2023, Höcke again used the slogan as a speaker on a “regulars’ table” of the AfD in a restaurant in Gera in Thuringia. The politician expressed the first two words and asked the audience through arm movements to complete them with “Germany” – what some did. Höcke and probably also to those present at the regulars’ table was already clear that criminal proceedings are already underway against him because of the same slogan.

Höcke’s position as a member of a member of the criminal law was also not conflicting the statements, since he did not do it in the exercise of his mandate, the BGH said. The district court had “stipulated that the SA had adopted the slogan in question and the accused knew this”. The punishments were a permissible restriction of freedom of expression. (Az. 3 StR 484/24 and 3 StR 519/24)

dpa

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts