BGH Rules on Appeal on Points of Law in Case 2 StR 554/25
The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice), by judgment of 23 September 2026 in case 2 StR 554/25, largely upheld the conviction of a former head of department at the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht in Jena (Thuringian Higher Regional Court in Jena) for accepting benefits. The subject of the decision was, in particular, whether the loans established by the Landgericht Gera (Regional Court of Gera) were to be assessed as accepting benefits or as bribery.
The first-instance judgment of the Landgericht Gera had been handed down on 9 January 2025. According to the information published in this regard, it was delivered on the 30th day of the main hearing in proceedings 1 KLs 201 Js 23860/19. In addition to the former head of department, two co-defendant entrepreneurs were charged before the Landgericht; the indictment concerned, among other things, allegations of bribery and breach of trust.
Findings of the Landgericht Gera Concerning the Former Head of Department
Area of Responsibility in the Judicial Administration
According to the findings of the Landgericht, the defendant worked as head of department at the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht in Jena until his retirement in 2019. There, he had decision-making and managerial responsibility for budgetary and procurement matters as well as personnel matters within the entire administration of the ordinary courts and the public prosecutor’s offices in the Free State of Thuringia.
At the time of the judgment of the Landgericht Gera, the principal defendant was, according to the additionally published information, 69 years old. His last position was that of leitender Regierungsdirektor. According to reports, he had encountered private financial difficulties after a real estate company he had founded in the 1990s had failed economically.
Service Contracts and Magazine Subscriptions
The Landgericht found that, between April 2014 and the end of 2018, the defendant had concluded so-called service contracts in five cases. A further case concerned magazine subscriptions that were alleged to have substantially exceeded official requirements.
According to the findings of the Landgericht, in each case the defendant substantially disregarded public procurement requirements, provisions on temporary agency work, and budgetary rules. As a result, the Free State of Thuringia allegedly suffered financial losses of more than EUR 450,000. The dpa put the loss for the Free State of Thuringia at around EUR 447,000 and classified the proceedings as one of Thuringia’s most complex breach-of-trust trials.
Conviction by the Landgericht Gera
Verdict and Legal Consequences at First Instance
The Landgericht Gera convicted the defendant, acquitting him on the remaining counts, of breach of trust in six cases and of accepting benefits in fourteen cases. In doing so, it dissolved the aggregate fine from a previous conviction and included the two individual fines imposed there.
As an aggregate sentence, the Landgericht imposed a custodial sentence of two years, the enforcement of which was suspended on probation. It also ordered the confiscation of proceeds of crime against the defendant.
Co-Defendants and Further Procedural Information
According to the published information, one of the co-defendant entrepreneurs was convicted by the Landgericht Gera, among other things, of aiding and abetting breach of trust in three cases and of granting benefits in twelve cases. The decision of the Landgericht therefore concerned not only the conduct of the former head of department, but also the role of the co-defendant entrepreneurs.
In the procedural history relating to the BGH case reference 2 StR 554/25, an earlier decision of the Amtsgericht Jena (Local Court of Jena) of 2 November 2022 under case reference 1 Ls 201 Js 19591/20 is also documented. For the proceedings before the Landgericht Gera, in addition to the judgment of 9 January 2025, a further decision of 28 May 2025 is listed; there, issues including temporary agency work on the basis of incriminated contracts and a prohibition on deductions in confiscation are mentioned as key terms.
Loans and the Distinction Between Accepting Benefits and Bribery
Loans Granted to the Defendant
According to the findings of the Landgericht, the heavily indebted defendant had loans granted to him by two co-defendants in a total of fourteen cases between May 2013 and April 2019. The loan amounts ranged from EUR 375 to EUR 10,000.
According to the findings, in some cases an untrue purpose of use was agreed. In the assessment of the Landgericht, each loan was based on a tacit understanding that the defendant would take the lenders into account in the future exercise of his official duties, in particular when awarding contracts, and would safeguard their economic interests.
No Established Link to a Specific Official Act
The Landgericht was unable to establish any link to a specific official act that the defendant had performed or was still supposed to perform. For that reason, it convicted the defendant in this respect of accepting benefits and not of bribery.
This distinction was also of central importance for the appeal on points of law before the Bundesgerichtshof. A conviction for bribery under § 332 StGB (German Criminal Code) requires a quid pro quo relationship between the benefit and an official act in breach of duty. According to the decision of the BGH, the findings of the Landgericht, which were free of legal error in this respect, did not establish such a quid pro quo relationship in thirteen cases.
Decision of the Bundesgerichtshof of 23 September 2026
Public Prosecutor’s Appeal on Points of Law Largely Unsuccessful
The 2nd Criminal Division of the Bundesgerichtshof ruled on the public prosecutor’s appeal on points of law, which had been lodged to the detriment of the defendant. The public prosecutor objected in particular to the fact that, in the loan cases, the Landgericht had assumed only accepting benefits and not bribery.
The BGH confirmed the convictions for accepting benefits rather than bribery in thirteen cases. As its reasoning, the Division relied on the fact that the findings of the Landgericht did not prove the link required for § 332 StGB in the form of a quid pro quo relationship.
Discontinuance of One Case Due to Limitation
In the first case in chronological terms, the Bundesgerichtshof discontinued the proceedings. The discontinuance was extended to a co-defendant. The background was that the limitation period for prosecution had expired in this respect.
The verdict was amended accordingly. Since the discontinuance caused the respective individual sentences imposed to cease to apply, the Bundesgerichtshof set aside the aggregate sentences imposed on the defendant and the co-defendant.
Setting Aside with Regard to the Daily Rate Amount in Remaining Cases
In addition, the BGH objected to the Landgericht’s ruling on the amount of the daily rates for the fines imposed on the defendant in the remaining cases of accepting benefits. According to the decision, this ruling was not sufficiently reasoned.
To this extent, the matter was set aside. Insofar as the setting-aside extends, a new hearing and decision are required.
Further Procedural Status and Appeal Hearing
Separate Decision on the Defendant’s Appeal on Points of Law
According to the press release of the Bundesgerichtshof, a separate decision by order will be issued on the defendant’s appeal on points of law. The published status therefore concerns the decision on the public prosecutor’s appeal on points of law and the resulting changes.
Where parts of the proceedings have not yet been finally disposed of, the respective procedural status must be observed. Insofar as individual points still need to be reheard and decided, the decision to date does not replace a final assessment of those points.
Dates at the Bundesgerichtshof
The appeal hearing before the 2nd Criminal Division of the Bundesgerichtshof took place on 1 July 2026. Pronouncement was scheduled for 23 September 2026 at 3:00 p.m.
An earlier date in case 2 StR 554/25 had already been scheduled for 25 February 2026 at 9:30 a.m. This date was reported in the specialist press on 24 February 2026.
Classification of the Relevant Criminal Offences
Accepting Benefits under § 331 StGB
§ 331 para. 1 StGB covers public officials, European public officials or persons entrusted with special public service obligations who demand, allow themselves to be promised or accept a benefit for themselves or a third party for the exercise of their official duties. The sentencing range extends to up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine.
For judges, members of a court of the European Union or arbitrators, § 331 para. 2 StGB contains a separate provision. Under the conditions specified there, it provides for imprisonment of up to five years or a fine; attempt is punishable.
Bribery under § 332 StGB
§ 332 para. 1 StGB requires that a public official, European public official or person entrusted with special public service obligations demand, allow themselves to be promised or accept a benefit in return for having performed or for performing in the future an official act and thereby having breached or potentially breaching their official duties. The sentencing range is generally imprisonment from six months to five years; in less serious cases, imprisonment of up to three years or a fine may be considered.
The decision of the Bundesgerichtshof highlights the importance of distinguishing between the general granting of a benefit in connection with the exercise of official duties and a specific official act in breach of duty as consideration. It was precisely this distinction that was decisive in the appeal proceedings for the BGH confirming the convictions for accepting benefits rather than bribery in thirteen cases.
Relevance for Administration, Procurement and Corporate Practice
Procurement and Budgetary Requirements in Focus
On the basis of the findings of the Landgericht, the case shows the significance that public procurement requirements, budgetary requirements and rules on temporary agency work can have in procurement processes of the public sector. According to the first-instance assessment, these requirements were substantially disregarded in the cases concerned.
According to the specialist press, the first-instance judgment denounced serious deficiencies in the Thuringian judicial administration. In this context, structural deficiencies in the Thuringian judicial administration were reported; this does not entail criminal findings against further persons.
Reactions of the Institutions Concerned
In response to an enquiry, the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht stated that the concentration of responsibilities that had previously existed in its administration had been changed. The Thüringer Justizministerium (Thuringian Ministry of Justice) stated that, immediately after becoming aware of the events, it had reviewed its control mechanisms in supervising the Oberlandesgericht.
For companies and other participants in public procurement processes, the decision may be of considerable interest because of the distinction between accepting benefits, granting benefits, bribery and breach of trust. It concerns, in particular, situations in which economic relationships, loans or other benefits coincide with official decision-making powers.
- The BGH confirmed the classification as accepting benefits rather than bribery in thirteen cases.
- The first case in chronological terms was discontinued due to the limitation period for prosecution.
- The aggregate sentences against the defendant and one co-defendant were set aside.
- A new decision is required on the daily rate amount of the fines in the remaining cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
BGH 2 StR 554/25: Why did thirteen cases remain classified as accepting benefits rather than bribery?
The Bundesgerichtshof considered the findings of the Landgericht to be free of legal error in this respect because they did not establish the quid pro quo relationship between benefit and specific official act in breach of duty that is required for § 332 StGB. The BGH therefore confirmed the conviction for accepting benefits in thirteen cases.
Landgericht Gera Judgment 1 KLs 201 Js 23860/19: What sentence was imposed on the former head of department?
The Landgericht Gera imposed on the defendant an aggregate custodial sentence of two years and suspended its enforcement on probation. It also ordered the confiscation of proceeds of crime.
Accepting benefits and public contracts: What practical consequences can the BGH case have for companies?
The case illustrates that economic contacts with public officials in connection with procurement can be closely examined under criminal law. For companies, loans, other benefits and contractual relationships with decision-makers in the public sector in particular can give rise to significant risks.
White-Collar Criminal Law Advice in Complex Allegations of Corruption and Breach of Trust
The decision of the Bundesgerichtshof makes clear that even the precise classification between accepting benefits, bribery, granting benefits and breach of trust can have decisive effects on the verdict, sentencing range and further legal consequences. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies, corporate bodies, investors and high-net-worth individuals in white-collar criminal proceedings relating to public contracts, compliance structures, confiscation and appeals on points of law. For legal questions concerning comparable matters, MTR Legal offers discreet and well-founded legal advice in white-collar criminal law.
