While their supporters are singing and drumming outside, "Ella", opponent of the expansion of Autobahn 49, is led into the hall in handcuffs.

As always, the young woman holds a folder in front of her face until all the cameras have been put down and the criminal chamber of the Giessen Regional Court has taken its place.

"Ella", as her like-minded people have dubbed her, or "UWP1" - unknown female person 1 - as she is listed by the authorities, has her hair wrapped in a black cloth, her FFP2 mask is also black, just like the rest her clothes.

She remains motionless for most of the seventh day of the hearing.

Anna Sophia Lang

Editor in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

She is accused of kicking and hitting police officers from a tree house at a height of 15 meters during protests against the expansion of Autobahn 49 in the Dannenröder forest and of having accepted a possible fall.

According to the prosecution, she kicked a police officer several times in the face and once in the head, and rammed her knee in the face of another.

The Alsfeld district court sentenced her to two years and three months in prison in June 2021, and the verdict was accompanied by violent protests.

"Ella" appealed, as did the prosecution.

The accused has been in custody since November 2020, which is related to the fact that she does not reveal her identity.

All courts upheld this – including the 3rd small criminal division on Tuesday after repeated, significant arguments between the parties involved in the process.

On the last day of the trial, the defense attorneys had applied for "Ella" to be released from custody.

According to media reports, the police officers had presented the scuffle more harmlessly than was the case before the district court.

The court then issued the legal notice that it could no longer be assumed that the accused had accepted a fall and serious injuries.

So on Tuesday the criminal court wants to close the hearing of evidence.

Then the pleadings should follow, perhaps also the verdict.

But things are different.

Because the chairman does not want to comment on when he intends to decide on the application for imprisonment, the defense attorneys file a motion for bias.

They write that the judge "aroused the suspects' suspicions through the way he handled the question of detention." Loss of impartiality is to be feared, the judge cutting off the client's right to defend herself.

He was obliged to decide "immediately".

The court and the public prosecutor's office see things differently and refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the course of the next few hours, motions to summon witnesses follow, which the defense regards as significant, but which the court rejects as insignificant, not without a debate.

When the lawyers then announce that they want to file further applications, the chairman finds it difficult to keep calm and concentrate.

He finally allows one week to submit the applications.

And decides at the very end, before ending the day of the session with unmistakable clarity: the arrest warrant will be upheld because, from the Chamber's point of view, the evidence program has been completed.

"The slight extension of pre-trial detention is not disproportionate." Another chamber must now decide on the application for bias.