Disciplinary law governs the consequences of violations of official duties by civil servants. For federal civil servants, the Federal Civil Service Act (BBG) and the Federal Disciplinary Act (BDG) apply; for civil servants of the federal states, the respective State Civil Service Act (LBG) and State Disciplinary Act (LDG) apply.
Stirnweiss | Brenner Rechtsanwälte specializes in advising civil servants in disciplinary law and defending their rights and interests before, during, and after disciplinary proceedings. We examine in detail whether the allegation of a disciplinary offense—that is, the culpable violation of a duty incumbent upon a civil servant under the BBG or
LBG—is justified and whether disciplinary proceedings are being conducted in a procedurally proper manner. At every stage of the proceedings, we work to achieve a dismissal of the case whenever possible. We further assist clients in challenging disciplinary measures such as reprimands, fines, reductions in official salary, demotion, or even removal from civil service.
Our attorneys are experienced defenders in disciplinary law with many years of practice. Our team operates at the state and federal levels from our offices in Stuttgart and Konstanz.
Call free of charge & get direct advice!
or press the button and our specialist attorneys will call you back.
At this number, specialised attorneys will advise you on all matters of criminal law.
or fill out the form and we will call you back as soon as possible.
Criminal law governs the state’s right to punish people for misconduct. Unlike administrative offences law, “punishment” here is not about warnings and fines or civil-law damages, but about monetary penalties, measures of rehabilitation and prevention such as psychiatric commitment, and up to custodial sentences (prison sentences). Criminal law is therefore the state’s sharpest instrument, the so-called ultima ratio, for maintaining order. Accordingly, high requirements of legitimacy and strict standards of application apply to criminal law. Arbitrary punishment must be prevented under all circumstances. Protective principles apply, such as the principle of culpability and the principle of legality, according to which an act may only be punished if its criminality was defined by law before the act was committed (“No punishment without law.”).
The Criminal Code (StGB) is the primary statutory source of criminal law. It contains the so-called core criminal law, i.e. the fundamental rules of criminal liability and the most important criminal offences (offences), such as murder (Section 211 StGB), bodily harm (Section 223 StGB), fraud (Section 263 StGB), robbery (Section 249 StGB) or extortion (Section 253 StGB). In addition, there are further specific criminal offences in other statutes as so-called ancillary criminal law, such as the Copyright Act (UrhG), the Fiscal Code (AO) or the Narcotics Act (BtMG).
The Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) contains the rules governing the course and conduct of criminal proceedings. Among other things, it regulates the tasks, rights and duties of the police, the public prosecutor’s office and the court, as well as the rights and duties of suspects, witnesses, private prosecutors and private accessory prosecutors. The StPO also determines how appeals (Sections 312 et seq. StPO), revisions (Sections 333 et seq. StPO) or retrials of criminal proceedings (Sections 359 et seq. StPO) are to be conducted. It also contains, for example, provisions on the requirements under which criminal proceedings may be discontinued, such as in cases of absolute triviality of the offence (Section 153 StPO) or where the payment of a monetary condition is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in prosecution (Section 153a StPO), or under what conditions settlements and agreements, so-called deals, may be made between the parties involved (Section 257c StPO).
Criminal proceedings are the state’s procedural instrument for enforcing substantive criminal law. In principle, they consist of two parts: the trial proceedings on the merits and the enforcement proceedings. The trial proceedings on the merits are divided into the preliminary proceedings and the main proceedings.
The preliminary proceedings are also called the investigation proceedings. They are in the hands of the public prosecutor’s office. It is the so-called master of the investigation proceedings, and only particularly intrusive investigative measures—such as arrest warrants, searches of premises or interception of telecommunications—require an order by an investigating judge. In all investigative measures, the police are the public prosecutor’s “extended arm”. The police therefore not only receive criminal complaints from citizens, but also secure crime scenes and evidence, carry out arrests, searches and seizures, and question witnesses. The court only becomes involved in a criminal matter if and insofar as the public prosecutor’s office, after completing the investigations, does not discontinue the proceedings but instead brings charges. Any judicial involvement with a criminal offence is therefore conditional and limited by an indictment by the public prosecutor’s office (so-called monopoly on indictments). In this respect, the public prosecutor’s office has a powerful role in criminal proceedings, and the course of criminal proceedings is not infrequently set already during the prosecutorial investigation proceedings.
The main proceedings constitute the actual criminal trial in court, i.e., the court hearing that begins after the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings/investigation and the filing of charges by the public prosecutor’s office, as well as a brief judicial charge review procedure (intermediate proceedings), and ends with a judicial verdict or acquittal. Procedural control is transferred to the competent court. In minor cases, the Local Court (AG) has jurisdiction; in more serious cases, the Regional Court (LG). In homicide cases, the LG acts as a so-called jury court, although today this is merely the special designation of a large chamber at the LG and does not mean that a jury decides on culpability as in the United States. The LG also serves as the appellate instance for appeals against Local Court verdicts. The highest ordinary court in a federal state is the Higher Regional Court (OLG). However, it rarely serves as a court of first instance, such as in cases involving state security. Rather, the OLG largely functions only as an appellate instance when the legal remedy of appeal on points of law is filed. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is never a court of first instance but, as the highest German court of ordinary jurisdiction, deals exclusively with appeals on points of law. The BGH is therefore also referred to as a “pure appellate court.”
Just as criminal law as a whole, criminal procedure in a constitutional state is subject to strict standards to prevent procedural arbitrariness. Above all, the so-called principle of legality applies, according to which the public prosecutor’s office and the police are not only entitled but also obliged to investigate any initial suspicion of a criminal offence (“sufficient factual indications”) and, after completion of the investigations, to bring charges before the court if there is sufficient suspicion. In addition, the so-called principle of objectivity applies, meaning that not only the courts but also the public prosecutor’s office and the police must be objective and neutral in their investigations and decisions and, unlike for example in US criminal proceedings, must not be partisan. Overall, not least, the presumption of innocence prevails, which is even enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that throughout the criminal trial proceedings on the merits, a suspect must be treated as innocent until their guilt and criminal liability have been established by a court judgment in a procedurally proper manner—taking into account all rights of the accused, including the principle “in case of doubt, for the accused” (“in dubio pro reo”)—and has become final and binding.
At any stage of criminal proceedings, including already in the preliminary proceedings (investigation proceedings), suspects have the right to consult a “defence counsel” (Section 137(1) StPO). This “defence counsel” is the suspect’s legal representative and, in criminal proceedings, is also called a “criminal defence lawyer”. As a rule, this is an admitted attorney who practises in the field of criminal law and is particularly experienced in this area. As an attorney, the criminal defence lawyer is, of course, also an “organ of the administration of justice”, but they advocate for the rights of the accused. They support the accused throughout the entire criminal proceedings, represent the accused and are their trusted adviser.
In principle, an accused person can freely choose whom they consult as criminal defence counsel, and up to three privately retained defence counsel at the same time are permitted (Section 137(2) StPO), for example in difficult, extensive proceedings. The privately retained criminal defence counsel are referred to as “Wahlverteidiger”, a term used in particular to distinguish them from “court-appointed defence counsel”, who in cases of so-called mandatory defence (Section 140 StPO) are not chosen by the accused but appointed by the court.
Section 140 StPO provides that there are certain proceedings in which an accused person must have legal counsel, i.e. may not be without a criminal defence lawyer, and therefore the competent court must appoint a criminal defence lawyer for the accused. This is primarily about protecting the accused. These are cases of so-called mandatory defence. These include, for example, cases where “it is to be expected that the main hearing at first instance will take place before the Higher Regional Court, the Regional Court or the lay judges’ court” (Section 140(1) No. 1 StPO), or where the accused is charged with a serious offence (“felony”) (Section 140(1) No. 2 StPO), or where the proceedings “may lead to a professional ban” (Section 140(1) No. 3 StPO), or where the accused is brought before a judge for a decision on pre-trial detention (Section 140(1) No. 4 StPO), or simply cases where “due to the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the expected legal consequence, or the difficulty of the facts or the law, the participation of defence counsel appears necessary” or “it is apparent that the accused cannot defend themselves” (Section 140(2) StPO).
Contrary to popular belief, having a court-appointed defense counsel does not mean that a defendant cannot afford private counsel or a high-quality defense attorney. Rather, the judicial appointment of a public defender is primarily about the constitutional state’s duty to provide for a defendant in cases of serious allegations and complex matters. Therefore, the court can also appoint a defense attorney of the defendant’s choice as a public defender upon request, ensuring that the defendant ultimately has the counsel and confidant of their choice by their side.
Not every defense attorney is a “Certified Specialist in Criminal Law.” This official title, which can be awarded by the locally competent Bar Association, is only granted to attorneys who have proven “special theoretical knowledge and special practical experience” in the field of criminal law in accordance with §§ 2, 3, 5, 13 of the Specialist Lawyers’ Regulations (FAO). Such knowledge and experience are only deemed to exist if they “significantly exceed the level” typically expected based on legal education and experience in the legal profession within the field of criminal law (§ 2 para. 2 FAO). The special knowledge of a certified specialist in criminal law must also cover the constitutional, European, and human rights aspects of criminal law (§ 2 para. 2 and 3 FAO). For the special practical experience, the specialist must have independently handled at least 60 criminal cases and defended on at least 40 main trial days in major proceedings before the District Court as a lay assessor court, Regional Court, Higher Regional Court, or the Federal Court of Justice (§ 5 para. 1 lit. f) FAO). Furthermore, a certified specialist in criminal law must be able to demonstrate at least three years of admission and practice as an attorney (§ 3 FAO).
In short: criminal defence lawyers who are Specialist Lawyers for Criminal Law are experts and provide the assurance of high-quality, professionally sound advice and defence of clients in the field of criminal law and its specialist areas.
Suspects have the right to a fair trial. Precisely because suspects have this right from the moment they are treated as a suspect, the status of being a suspect can be advantageous. Suspects should be aware of this advantage and know and exercise their rights as suspects.
In particular, every suspect has the right not to incriminate themselves (nemo tenetur principle) and even—unlike witnesses, who generally must testify—the right to remain silent, without that silence being interpreted to the suspect’s detriment (right to remain silent). And: suspects have the right to be professionally represented by an attorney as criminal defence counsel (right to counsel).
The right to a fair trial is also enshrined and elaborated, for example, in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 6 ECHR specifies the rights of suspects as follows:
Suspects must be informed of the essential rights of suspects by the prosecuting authorities and later, for example, by the criminal courts. This instruction itself serves to protect the suspect and is therefore a fundamental right of the suspect. Not infrequently, police officers on the scene in particular violate these duties to inform and question suspects like a witness despite various allegations, so that a suspect initially has a “false sense of security”. As a witness—and all the more as a suspect—you should therefore insist early on on consulting an attorney. If the prosecuting authorities refuse to allow an attorney to be consulted, you should have this recorded immediately.
Suspects in investigative proceedings have the right to remain silent. No one is obliged to incriminate themselves through a statement, and a suspect’s silence may not be interpreted to their disadvantage. This right to remain silent as a suspect and to exercise it has clear practical procedural advantages. Consider the following:
Especially in criminal proceedings, a suspect is confronted with the state’s clear superiority and is often genuinely shocked by investigative measures taken by the prosecuting authorities. In such shock moments, careless remarks can quickly “slip out” (so-called spontaneous statements), and even seemingly considered statements can be disadvantageous from a procedural-strategic perspective. This should be avoided, because officers of the prosecuting authorities always make file notes and record every statement made by a suspect. These recorded statements then not infrequently determine the further course of the proceedings and can later be revised only with difficulty—or not at all.
In short:
Detentions, arrests, house searches, seizures or other intrusive investigative measures by the prosecuting authorities are often a shock moment for those affected. Nevertheless, it is important to keep a “cool head” and not to “fight tooth and nail”.
This is because, on the one hand, there is the criminal offence of “resisting enforcement officers” (Section 113 StGB), and officers of the prosecuting authorities may also file a complaint for insult or bodily harm. On the other hand, it is important to remember your rights as a suspect.
You should therefore behave as follows:
After completing the investigations, the public prosecutor’s office must decide whether the investigation result—i.e. the factual circumstances and evidence as well as their criminal-law assessment—allows the conclusion that a criminal court would likely convict the accused. If the public prosecutor’s office reaches this conclusion, i.e. believes that there is a so-called predominant likelihood of conviction, it speaks of a “sufficient suspicion” and is obliged to bring charges before the competent criminal court. If the public prosecutor’s office does not reach this conclusion, it has the opposite duty to discontinue the proceedings. This respective duty of the public prosecutor’s office is part of the so-called principle of legality.
In the event of an indictment, this decision by the public prosecutor’s office also means that it has decided against the various options for discontinuing the criminal proceedings, for example discontinuation subject to payment of a monetary condition, and against issuing a penal order. The public prosecutor’s office is therefore convinced that the criminal matter belongs before a criminal court, i.e. requires further criminal-law review in a court hearing and will most likely lead to a criminal judgment.
For the accused, the indictment by the public prosecutor’s office primarily means that procedural control passes to the competent criminal court. And: in court, the accused is referred to as the “defendant”.
From the moment the indictment is available, the criminal defence lawyer for the accused—now the defendant—is particularly challenged. It is “all or nothing”, and the defence strategy must be adapted to the course of the main hearing before the criminal court. More than ever, at this point it requires
Our firm will be closed for the holidays
from Tuesday, December 24, 2025, until and including Tuesday, January 6, 2026
.
In urgent emergencies (e.g., arrest or search), our
emergency number is available 24/7.
Please direct all other inquiries by email to
📧 info@stirnweiss-brenner.de
From Tuesday, January 7, 2026, we will be available again during regular office hours.
