Incitement, Freedom of Speech (incitation, liberté d'expression) - The convicted person published an article on his website that incited hatred against the Jewish community and insulted them

Art. 23 al. 1, Art. 24 al. 7, Art. 29 al. 2, Art. 33 al. 3 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881; Art. 93-3 de la loi n° 82-652 du 29 juillet 1982; Art. 475-1 du code de procédure pénale

The case concerns the criminal conviction of a 22-year-old German-Iranian student for approving crimes under § 140 StGB,. The defendant shouted the slogan "From the River to the Sea – Palestine will be free" during an unauthorized assembly in Berlin just four days after the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel. The court concluded that her actions were intended to legitimize the killings and kidnappings as a perceived "political liberation struggle".

StGB § 140 Abs. 1 Nr. 2

The case involves the conviction of a 20-year-old female student for approving crimes by distributing flyers shortly after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, and for physical assault and resistance against police officers during a later demonstration. The court had to weigh the limits of freedom of expression regarding specific statements in the flyers versus the criminal offense of endorsing mass murder and terrorism. The defendant distributed flyers in front of a Berlin high school. The front showed a fighter and the text "Palestine bursts its chains". The back described October 7, 2023, as a "historic moment for all liberation struggles of the world" and claimed Palestinian forces had "liberated large areas from the river to the sea". This case clarifies that while general political slogans may be protected, the explicit glorification of specific massacres is a punishable offense.

§ 140 No. 2 StGB (Approving Crimes), §§ 113, 114 StGB (Resistance and Assault on Law Enforcement), Art. 5 GG (Freedom of Expression), §§ 1, 105 JGG (Juvenile Justice Act).

Dismissal of claims to asylum - appellant claims to be persecuted in Romania due to her activism against antisemitism and due to her Jewish identity - the appeal is dismissed

Alan David Sokal appealed against the refusal to disclose an unredacted university report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The report concerned, among other matters, the initial withdrawal of an invitation to a Holocaust Memorial Week event on the state of antisemitism. The Tribunal upheld the refusal, finding that parts of the report were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Use of prohibited symbols and incitement (Verwendung von verfassungswidrigen Kennzeichen und Volksverhetzung - Teenager from a rightwing skinhead scene is convicted for national socialist, antisemitic daubings - sentenced to two weeks of youth detention (Jugenddauerarrest)

§§ 86a Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 92 b Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 130 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 53 StGB

Incitement (Volksverhetzung) - defendant describes Auschwitz as a work camp - concerns the definition of denying the holocaust

§ 130 Abs. 3 StGB

General right of personality (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht) - claimant seeks reimbursement for legal fees - defendant had reported on a speech by the claimant in which he allegedly connected Jews to belonging to a people of perpetrators

Conviction for Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB): a shopkeeper displayed a shop-window sign reading "JUDEN haben hier Hausverbot!!!" ("Jews are banned from entering"); sentenced to six months' imprisonment (suspended). Such an anti-Semitic statement does not fall within the scope of protection afforded by freedom of expression (Article 5(1) of the Basic Law): It undermines the human dignity (Article 1(1) of the Basic Law) of Jews living in Germany by, on the basis of the history of Nazi persecution, denying them any right to social recognition and respect across the board and defaming them as ‘non-persons’.

§ 130 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und Nr. 2 StGB.

Dissemination within the meaning of 130 Abs. 2 (Volksverhetzung) - exists if the substance of a writing is made accessible to a larger group of people. Specifically, the case concerned the content of a WhatsApp status in which a video could be seen that fulfilled the characteristics of incitement to hatred in relation to members of the Jewish faith (Kennzeichen verfassungwidriger Organisationen).

§ 11 Abs 3 a.F., § 17 S 1, § 74 Abs 1, § 86 Abs 1 Nr 4, Abs 3 a.F, § 86a Abs 1 Nr 1, Abs 2 aF, §130 Abs 1 Nr 1, Abs 2 Nr 1a aF StGB

Use of prohibited symbols, damage to property, disturbance of the peace of the dead (Verwendung verfassungsfeindlicher Kennzeichen, gemeinschädliche Sachbeschädigung und Störung der Totenruhe) - two young men are convicted for daubings and the destruction of the Jewish cemetery of Weyhers - sentenced to communal service

§§ 86a I Nr. 1, 168 II, 304, 52, 25 II StGB, 1, 3, 105 JGG

Insult (Beleidigung) - Defendant is accused of insulting a Jewish neighbour, expressing regret that not all Jews were killed in the Shoah - concerns question of whether the remarks amoung to violations of the public peace since they were uttered in a stairway in Russian

§§ 185, 194 StGB

The defendant, a retiree who had been in a long-standing legal dispute (over 36 years) regarding the recognition of her German citizenship, sent an email to several press offices, the Federal Constitutional Court, and the Federal Ministry of Justice. In this email, she equated her personal legal struggle and her treatment by German officials with the systematic persecution of German Jews under the Nazi regime. The court held that by equating her personal fate with the fate of Jews destined for extermination, the defendant qualitatively and quantitatively devalued the Holocaust.

§ 130 Abs.3 StGB; § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches

Disturbance of the peace of the dead (Störung der Totenruhe) and incitement of hatred (Volksverhetzung) - Trial against two defendants who desecrated the Jewish Cemetery in Gotha in 2008 and denied the number of deaths of the Shoah

§§ 168 Abs 2 i.V.m. Abs. 1, 130 Abs. 1, Ziff. 2, Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 6 Abs. 1 V StGB, 25 Abs. 2, 52, 53, StGB

On January 27, 2024, during a demonstration titled "Freiheit für Palästina" in Hamburg, the two defendants loudly chanted the slogan "From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever". The Public Prosecutor's Office issued penal orders, alleging that the first part of this chant was confusingly similar the prohibited slogan "From the river to the sea". The court held that the phrase "From the river to the sea – Palestine will be free" does not qualify as a prohibited symbol under § 86a StGB.

Public use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organizations (§ 86a StGB in connection with § 86 StGB); Freedom of expression (Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG).

Incitement (Volksverhetzung) - expressions of antisemitic remarks online

§§ 130, 47 StGB

Frivolous false accusation (leichtfertige falsche Anschuldigung) - concerns the allegations against a fire brigade chief claiming he had participated in the november pogroms and the burning of the synagoge of Witzenhausen - the person making the allegations is convicted

§§ 164 Abs. 5, 165 StGB

Parental responsibility (Verletzung der Aufsichtspflicht) - Father of 11 year old boy is acquitted - his son had thrown stones at graves of the Jewish cemetery in Arolsen

§§ 139b, 304 StGB

The case concerns the dissemination of an antisemitic conspiracy message in a Telegram group, alleging that Jews were involved in child abuse, satanic rituals, global manipulation and plans to trigger a third world war. The court found that the message incited hatred against Jews and denied them equal standing within society by portraying them as non-human and inherently criminal. The defendant was convicted of incitement to hatred for forwarding the message to a group of 39 members. § 130 StGB

Incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung) - Posting antisemitic, right-wing extremist stickers in widespread group chats.

§ 130 Abs 2,3,5 StGB

Incitement (Volksverhetzung) - defendant's tattoo depicts the concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau - court argues that the tattoo equals an endorsement of the holocaust

§ 130 Abs. 3 StGB

Incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung) - Facebook post depicts the antisemitic Jewish star with the label "not vaccinated" ("ungeimpft") - acquittal

§130 Abs 3 StGB

Incitement (Volksverhetzung) - Trial against a doctor who had i.a. equated the Covid-19-vaccine with the Holocaust and Nazi politics with Israeli politics - Question of whether his remark were directed to the Israeli government or Jews as a group

Dangerous bodily harm motivated by antisemitism - 24-year-old defendant physically attacked a Jewish fellow student known from the university environment. The victim suffered severe injuries including a complex midface fracture and a brain hemorrhage. The court regarded the antisemitic intent as the decisive aggravating factor in sentencing, citing further evidence such as the defendant’s statements, social media material, and display of materials denying Israel’s right to exist.

§ 224 StGB

Attempted arson attack on Synagogue (versuchte Brandstiftung an Synagoge) - Two Palestinian refugees attacked the Synagogue in Wuppertal with Molotowcocktails - concerns the Israel-Arab conflict as a motive

§§ 306 a Abs. 1 Ziffer 2; 25 Abs. 2; 23 Abs. 1; 22 StGB; § 105 Abs. 1 JGG

Singing of the so-called "U-Bahn-Lied" (subway song) - defendant is accused of making racist remarks towards a black football player as well as singing a song that demands for the opposing team to be deported to Auschwitz - court finds that the defendant is guilty of insulting the player but not of holocaust trivialisation

§§ 185, § 130 StGB

Defamation – Former MP Andrew Bridgen sued Matthew Hancock for publicly criticising Bridgen's comparison of the Covid vaccination campaign to the Holocaust as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Hancock was responding to a tweet by Bridgen and described such comparisons as unacceptable. The court clarified that Hancock's statement was not a factual claim about Bridgen's character, but a permissible expression of opinion.

The 2025 case concerns a claim arising from a public statement in which remarks made by a Member of Parliament about vaccinations were described as dangerous, anti-scientific, conspiratorial, and antisemitic. At an earlier stage of the proceedings ([2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)), the court had already determined that the statement was to be understood predominantly as an expression of opinion about the character of the remarks made, rather than as an assertion that the individual concerned was himself an antisemite. Building on that determination, the court then examined whether the claim could be disposed of without a full trial, in particular on the basis that no serious reputational harm had been caused or that the statement was protected by the defence of honest opinion. The court rejected that approach, holding that both the existence of serious harm and the actual impact of the statement on public perception could only be resolved through an examination of the evidence. The proceedings were therefore allowed to continue to a full substantive hearing. Defamation Act 2013, section 1; Defamation Act 2013, section 3; Civil Procedure Rules, rule 24.3; Civil Procedure Rules, rule 3.4 .

The proceedings concerned a defamation claim arising from a tweet in which statements made by an unnamed Member of Parliament were described as dangerous, antisemitic, anti-scientific, and conspiratorial in the context of vaccinations. The antisemitism-related core issue was whether the tweet should be understood as attributing antisemitism as a matter of fact to an identifiable individual, or merely as a sharply worded political opinion about the nature of the statements made. The court held, as preliminary issues, that the tweet was predominantly an expression of opinion directed at the content of the statements rather than at the individual as an antisemite, with only the fact that something had been said being classified as a factual assertion. Defamation Act 2013, section 1; Defamation Act 2013, section 3; Human Rights Act 1998, section 12.

Antisemitic insult (Beleidigung) - Question of whether derogatory remarks by a lawyer against another lawyer of Turkish and Jewish descent amounts to an insult according to criminal law - trial took place before a lawyer's court

§§ 185, 193 StGB