Nils R. sat quietly on Tuesday in the hall of the Tiergarten District Court in Berlin. He explained why on the morning of June 29, along with other Last Generation “activists,” he glued himself to an onramp on the 100 freeway. “I don’t know what else I can do to draw attention to the issue,” he said. By “the topic” he means the “climate catastrophe”.
The trial of R. is the first public trial of road blockers in the capital. According to information from WELT, 116 penalty orders have been requested so far. 66 of these have already been issued. Against 24 there are objections.
Several supporters of the last generation also came to the trial against R. They sat in the auditorium and wore mouth and nose covers with the logo of the movement. A spokeswoman was also present to provide information to the numerous media representatives. “That’s unusual and we rarely have it,” commented an employee of the court on the sidelines of the hearing, visibly irritated.
For example, the spokeswoman for the Last Generation distributed R.’s statement, which he read off the paper word for word in a monotonous voice at the beginning of the trial. “I’m sorry that we have to disturb, but we have to disturb,” it said, among other things. Until recently, he also lived in a state of “ignorance”. He could not have imagined standing in court one day.
R. was born in Essen in March 2002, has two siblings, his parents are both lawyers. At school he took advanced courses in German and English and graduated from high school in 2020. He worked at the Tafel and in the supermarket at the checkout and traveled around Europe. R. has been studying philosophy in Leipzig since autumn 2021. In court he reported that he was aiming for a university career or that he wanted to work as a journalist.
In court, the presiding judge, Günter Räcke, and R.’s lawyer, Lukas Theune, argued for several hours about how the blockade action should be assessed. Räcke said the court could not evaluate the group’s substantive goals. However, the blockade action should be regarded as coercion. Theune, on the other hand, repeatedly called for the proceedings to be discontinued.
In addition, Theune read a long report on the consequences of climate change and received applause from activists in the audience. Judge Räcke dealt with this disturbance surprisingly mildly and refrained from pointing out to the listeners – as is usual in other proceedings – that they should refrain from the disturbances.
Originally, a penalty order of 450 euros was issued against the 20-year-old. However, because R. had lodged an objection, an oral hearing had taken place.
The Tiergarten district court ruled that the 20-year-old was guilty of coercion. The court sentenced the young man to 60 hours of free time work. The public prosecutor’s office had applied for a fine of 1,500 euros and argued that the 20-year-old should be sentenced under adult criminal law for coercion and resistance to law enforcement officials. However, the court did not see the allegation of resistance as proven.
The conviction took place – as also suggested by the youth welfare service – under juvenile criminal law. Among other things, Räcke justified this by saying that R. had only recently left his parents’ house. The public prosecutor, on the other hand, had pleaded for a conviction under adult criminal law. It is illogical that the activists would emphasize all the time that they have to be taken seriously, but then of all things should not be judged like adults when it comes to criminal law.
