Term and Definition: GDR Judgments
GDR Judgments refer to court decisions issued by courts of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) between 1949 and 1990. These judgments can concern civil, criminal, administrative, as well as labor law matters, and are marked by their underlying socialist context, the particularities of GDR law, and a partially politically influenced judicial apparatus. After the GDR acceded to the scope of the Basic Law on October 3, 1990 (German reunification), the legal treatment and review of GDR judgments became particularly significant.
Background: Judicial System and Legal Order of the GDR
The GDR’s legal system was based on adapting Soviet legal concepts to German law and was therefore fundamentally different from that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in many respects. Courts in the GDR were subject to the political state apparatus and the directives of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) at all levels. Judicial independence was, unlike stipulated in the Basic Law, severely restricted. Special significance was held by criminal courts and the Supreme Court of the GDR.
Types and Characteristics of GDR Judgments
Criminal Judgments
Numerous offenses were prosecuted in criminal law, with sanctions that significantly differed from those in force at the time in the FRG. Key areas of focus included:
- Escape from the Republic (§ 213 StGB-DDR): The unlawful crossing of the inner-German border, i.e., attempted escapes and emigration, was treated as a serious crime and often punished with severe prison sentences.
- Defamation of the state, anti-state agitation, political crimes: Judgments targeting politically motivated offenses often served to suppress dissenting opinions and stabilize the system.
- Assembly and Opinion Offenses: Participants in peaceful demonstrations or opponents of political measures were sentenced under relevant GDR laws.
Civil Judgments
In civil law, judgments often addressed matters based on the socialist property order, such as issues concerning public property, inheritance and family law, or claims between citizens and socialist enterprises.
Administrative and Labor Law Judgments
Administrative decisions particularly addressed the relationship between citizens and the state, e.g., with regard to housing allocations, employment assignments, or decrees by public authorities. In labor law, the so-called “socialist labor law” applied, which mainly aimed at protecting socialist property, ensuring the demand for labor, and fulfilling planning targets.
Legal Assessment and Review after Reunification
Basic Validity of GDR Judgments
With the accession of the GDR to the FRG, the Unification Treaty and subsequent legislation regulated the extent to which GDR judgments would continue to have effect. In principle, these judgments remained legally effective, with the exception of blatant legal violations or constitutional infringements. This served to ensure legal certainty and to avoid excessive overburdening of the judiciary.
Rehabilitation and Annulment of Injustice Judgments
Legal Basis
Particularly due to numerous politically motivated judgments, a special mechanism was established for the annulment of what is known as GDR injustice. The most important legal foundations for this are:
- Law on the Annulment of Administrative Provisions and the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Persecution (Administrative Rehabilitation Act, VwRehaG)
- Criminal Rehabilitation Act (StrRehaG)
- Occupational Rehabilitation Act (BerRehaG)
Requirements and Procedure
The annulment or rehabilitation of GDR judgments generally requires that the origin of the decision lay in political persecution, systemic pressure, or obvious human rights violations. For this purpose, affected persons or their heirs can file an application with the competent (rehabilitation) courts. If rehabilitation is successful, the judgments are annulled and subsequent measures, such as compensation and the deletion from registers, are carried out.
Typical Cases of Annulment
The most commonly annulled judgments include:
- Convictions for “escape from the Republic”,
- Convictions for opinion offenses,
- Judgments based on arbitrary application of law.
Handling of Civil and Administrative Judgments
In contrast to criminal law, civil and administrative judgments from the GDR are only reviewed case-by-case, especially when there was a blatant violation of principles of justice, impartiality, or human rights.
Legal Consequences of Rehabilitation
Compensation Regulations
Affected persons whose judgments have been annulled may, under certain conditions, assert claims for financial compensation for deprivation of liberty (prison compensation), professional disadvantages, or health consequences. The details are regulated by the Criminal Rehabilitation Act.
Civil Law Consequences
Following successful rehabilitation, civil law consequences may also arise, such as the restitution of assets, reemployment, or annulment of disadvantages in public life.
Social Rehabilitation Measures
In addition to potential financial compensation, affected persons may also have claims to social reintegration, such as the reversal of disciplinary measures or improvements in pension law.
Significance and Current Debate
GDR judgments form a significant part of German legal history. Their systematic review and legal correction serve to protect human rights and ensure the rule of law in dealing with the legacy of dictatorial systems. To this day, the review and assessment of GDR injustices occupy courts, legislation, and academia, with generations of affected persons still struggling with the long-term effects.
Literature & Further Information
- Legal texts: Unification Treaty, StrRehaG, BerRehaG, VwRehaG
- Federal Ministry of Justice: Information on the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Persecution
- Federal Foundation for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in East Germany
- Various publications on the legal and historical review of unlawful GDR judgments
Note: The legal review of GDR judgments is complex and subject to ongoing development. For more in-depth questions, the laws and publication sources mentioned above provide detailed information.
Frequently Asked Questions
How were GDR judgments legally assessed after reunification?
After the reunification of Germany in 1990, the assessment of GDR judgments faced complex legal challenges. As a rule, judgments of the GDR judiciary remained binding and retained their legal force in reunified Germany, unless they were explicitly annulled or reviewed. However, under the Unification Treaty, the Federal Republic introduced rules to re-examine criminal judgments that obviously violated minimum standards of the rule of law, such as the prohibition of double jeopardy, transparency, or the right to defense. Especially politically motivated judgments, for instance for “escape from the Republic” or alleged “anti-state agitation,” were frequently reviewed in reopening proceedings and often annulled, as they violated the Basic Law or fundamental human rights.
What legal options did affected persons of GDR judgments have after 1990?
Persons affected by unlawful GDR judgments had various legal remedies after reunification. Initially, they could apply for criminal rehabilitation pursuant to § 1 of the Criminal Rehabilitation Act (StrRehaG) if the judgment was based on laws that violated human rights or on arbitrary proceedings. If rehabilitation was granted, the judgment could be annulled, and those affected became entitled to compensation, including possible damages for suffered harm such as deprivation of liberty or economic disadvantages. Additionally, administrative and professional rehabilitation was possible if the consequences of conviction extended into working life or other areas.
What was the significance of the Criminal Rehabilitation Act (StrRehaG) in dealing with GDR judgments?
The Criminal Rehabilitation Act (StrRehaG) was established as the central framework for dealing with judgments of the GDR that violated the rule of law. It defined the standards under which judgments could be annulled and set out the requirements for rehabilitation. The central question was whether the proceedings or decision violated fundamental principles of the rule of law. The StrRehaG also allowed for both material and non-material compensation, for example for imprisonment, professional disadvantages, or health damages.
What role did politically motivated judgments play in the legal review process?
Politically motivated GDR judgments, targeting dissenters, attempted escapes, or critical opinions, were subject to especially critical review after reunification. They were typically seen as prime examples of criminal justice in violation of human rights. Many of these judgments were annulled during rehabilitation proceedings, with those affected receiving appropriate compensation. Politically motivated practices of the judiciary, such as the notorious actions of the State Security (Stasi) before and during these proceedings, were also examined for possible arbitrary or manipulative outcomes.
Could civil and administrative judgments from the GDR also be annulled?
Yes, not only criminal but also civil and administrative judgments from the GDR could be reviewed, provided they were based on discriminatory, political, or arbitrary grounds. The Administrative Rehabilitation Act (VwRehaG) specifically provided that measures or decisions taken for political reasons that led to disadvantages—such as professional bans or expropriations—could be annulled or reversed. Here too, those affected were entitled to social or financial restitution.
Were there specific deadlines for contesting or reviewing GDR judgments?
Following the entry into force of the relevant rehabilitation laws, there were initially no fixed deadlines excluding the contesting or rehabilitation of GDR judgments. However, in the interest of legal certainty, time limits for applications were gradually introduced, particularly from the 2000s onward. Nonetheless, missed deadlines were interpreted favorably for the affected in cases of hardship, for example if the wrongful judgment became known only later or if there had long been no information about legal options. This upheld the principle that unjust judgments should not persist simply due to the passage of time.
What legal challenges exist in enforcing claims for compensation by former GDR convicts?
In practice, enforcing claims for compensation often turned out to be complicated. On the one hand, the illegality of the judgment had to be proven and formal rehabilitation obtained. On the other hand, compensation was legally limited, such as regarding the amount of flat-rate imprisonment compensation or for the replacement of professional disadvantages. In addition, various consequential damages, such as psychological burden or long-term income loss, had to be precisely documented and demonstrated. In individual cases, this regularly led to legal disputes about the extent and legitimacy of particular types of damages, often requiring recourse to administrative or civil courts.
