Appeal and Revision in Criminal Proceedings
A first-instance judgment is rarely the final word. GLADICA Lawyers conducts appellate proceedings before regional courts, higher regional courts and the Federal Court of Justice with the precision and experience these instances demand.
Book an Appointment
Appellate Practice You Can Trust
Immediate Filing and Strategic Decision-Making
We take over the conduct of legal remedies immediately from the pronouncement of judgment, secure deadlines and make the strategically correct decision between appeal and revision. Every hour counts as the filing deadline is only one week.
Appeal as a Full Second Factual Instance
The appellate court takes evidence afresh, assesses it independently and is not bound by the factual findings of the local court. New applications for the taking of evidence under § 244 StPO, the commissioning of credibility assessments or the examination of witnesses not previously heard can decisively alter the evidential position. Sentencing is also reviewed in full.
Revision as a Focused Review for Legal Errors
The revision is not a second factual trial but a review of the judgment restricted to errors of law. The quality of the grounds for revision is therefore decisive. Procedural grounds of challenge must be set out with the precision required by § 344 (2) StPO so that the revision court can examine the alleged procedural errors solely on the basis of the revision submissions.
Precise Analysis, Strategic Selection, Determined Representation
We examine every first-instance judgment comprehensively for procedural and legal errors, select the strategically correct legal remedy and assert your interests in the higher instance with determination.
Appeal and Revision in Detail
Our Services at a Glance
We accompany you from the pronouncement of judgment to the final legally binding decision:
Immediate filing of the legal remedy, including on the day of judgment
Strategic choice between appeal (§ 312 StPO) and revision (§ 333 StPO)
Deadline-preserving filing of the legal remedy within one week (§§ 314, 341 StPO)
Drafting of the grounds for appeal and revision (§§ 317, 345 StPO)
Systematic analysis of the judgment for errors of law (§ 337 StPO)
Formulation of substantiated procedural and substantive grounds of challenge (§ 344 (2) StPO)
Development of new lines of defence in appeal proceedings, for example through new applications for the taking of evidence (§ 244 StPO)
Review and conduct of a direct revision (§ 335 StPO) in cases of serious legal errors by the local court
Representation before higher regional courts and the Federal Court of Justice
Reinstatement to prior status (§ 44 StPO) in cases of missed deadlines through no fault of the party
Review and preparation of a constitutional complaint under Art. 93 (1) no. 4a GG in appropriate cases
Review and preparation of an individual application to the European Court of Human Rights in appropriate cases
Appeal Proceedings as a Second Factual Instance
The appeal opens a new main hearing before the regional court. The appellate court takes evidence afresh, assesses it independently and is not bound by the factual findings of the local court.
This starting position opens up considerable defence scope, which we exploit systematically. New applications for the taking of evidence under § 244 StPO, the commissioning of credibility assessments or the examination of witnesses not previously heard can decisively alter the evidential position.
Sentencing is also reviewed in full, meaning that sentence reductions are achievable even where the verdict of guilty ultimately stands. The appeal must be filed within one week of the pronouncement of judgment (§ 314 StPO).
Revision and Direct Revision as Legal Error Correction
The revision is not a second factual trial but a review of the judgment restricted to errors of law. The only question examined is whether the trial court committed errors of law. The quality of the grounds for revision is therefore decisive. Procedural grounds of challenge must be set out with the precision required by § 344 (2) StPO so that the revision court can examine the alleged procedural errors solely on the basis of the revision submissions and the judgment. Insufficiently substantiated or manifestly unfounded grounds of challenge regularly lead to dismissal by order (§ 349 (2) StPO). We prepare well-founded grounds for revision supported by case law and academic authority within the one-month deadline under § 345 StPO.
For judgments of the local court, the accused has the choice between appeal and direct revision (§ 335 StPO). The direct revision is particularly indicated where the judgment rests on a fundamental legal error. It leads directly to revision court review and bypasses the second factual instance. The decision for or against the direct revision requires careful analysis immediately after the pronouncement of judgment.
Infringements of Art. 103 (1) GG, for example through the disregarding of applications for evidence or legally material defence submissions.
Incomplete, contradictory or logically deficient assessment of evidence or assessment that violates established rules of experience (§ 261 StPO).
Violations of statutory procedural guarantees, in particular § 136a StPO (prohibited methods of interrogation) or incorrect treatment of rights to refuse to give information (§ 55 StPO) resulting in a prohibition on the use of evidence.
Fundamental procedural defects within the meaning of § 338 StPO, such as incorrect composition of the court or unlawful exclusion of the public, which lead to quashing without any examination of causation.
Violations of § 267 StPO, in particular incomplete or contradictory findings and an assessment of evidence or legal evaluation that is not comprehensible.
Errors of law in the application of § 46 StGB, such as incorrect weighting of sentencing factors or impermissible double-counting.
Violations of Art. 6 (1) ECHR (requirement of expedition) resulting in sentence reduction or, in exceptional cases, discontinuation of proceedings.
Errors in connection with agreements under § 257c StPO, in particular deficiencies in instruction, inadequate documentation or lack of procedural transparency.
Why Clients Trust GLADICA Lawyers
Legal remedies belong in the hands of specialised lawyers. Every set of grounds for revision is personally led by experienced criminal defence lawyers with established revision practice. We combine precise legal analysis with a strategic view of the overall proceedings and coordinate closely with the first-instance defence where appropriate. Our clients benefit from clearly structured argumentation, thorough knowledge of Federal Court of Justice case law and a realistic assessment of prospects of success. No mandate is delegated to junior associates.
Highly Specialised Criminal Defence Lawyers
Specialists in criminal law with established revision practice before higher regional courts and the Federal Court of Justice.
500+ Five-Star Reviews
Your personal and case information remains strictly protected at all times.
30+ Years of Experience
Urgent legal help whenever you need it, including nights and weekends.
Multilingual Team
Legal representation available in German, English, and additional languages.
Nationwide Representation
Legal representation before all German courts, from local courts to the Federal Court of Justice.
Frequently Asked Questions about Appeal and Revision
The deadline for filing both an appeal (§ 314 StPO) and a revision (§ 341 StPO) is one week from the pronouncement of judgment. Where the judgment is pronounced in the party's absence or a statutory special case applies, the deadline runs from service. Missed deadlines can only be cured under strict conditions through reinstatement to prior status (§ 44 StPO). Legal advice should therefore be sought immediately after the pronouncement of judgment.
An appeal is indicated where the factual findings are open to challenge, new evidence is to be taken or witnesses are to be heard, or where a different assessment of evidence can be achieved. Revision is appropriate where the judgment rests on legal or procedural errors but the established facts are fundamentally sound. The decision requires careful analysis of the judgment.
An appeal against judgments of the local court is generally admissible (§ 312 StPO). Under § 313 StPO, however, it requires acceptance by the appellate court where only a fine of up to fifteen daily rates or a regulatory fine was imposed. The same applies where the accused was acquitted or proceedings were discontinued and the public prosecutor's office had applied for a fine of no more than thirty daily rates.
The direct revision (§ 335 StPO) makes it possible to challenge a local court judgment directly by way of revision, bypassing the appellate instance. It is particularly appropriate where the facts are sound but the judgment rests on a fundamental legal error. The higher regional court has jurisdiction. The decision to pursue this remedy is final and requires careful consideration.
Prospects of success depend primarily on the quality of the judgment and the precision of the grounds for revision. Substantiated procedural grounds and clearly elaborated substantive grounds can lead to quashing. Insufficiently reasoned or manifestly unfounded revisions are regularly dismissed by order (§ 349 (2) StPO). Early expert assessment is therefore decisive.
If the judgment is quashed, the revision court generally refers the matter back for fresh hearing and decision to a different chamber of the same court. In the case of a direct revision, referral is made to a different local court. In exceptional cases the revision court decides the matter itself, for example where acquittal is clearly established. After referral, the main hearing is conducted afresh.
Yes. After exhausting the ordinary courts, a constitutional complaint can be filed where a judicial decision violates fundamental rights. The prerequisite is that the fundamental rights violation affects the complainant personally, directly and currently and was already raised in the ordinary court proceedings. A constitutional complaint requires substantial grounds and is accepted for decision only in exceptional cases. The deadline is one month from service of the final instance decision.
After exhausting domestic legal remedies, an individual application can be filed with the European Court of Human Rights (Art. 34 ECHR). This relates in particular to violations of the right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR), for example in cases of excessive length of proceedings. The application deadline is four months from the last domestic decision.
Yes. The public prosecutor's office can file both an appeal and a revision, in particular where it considers the judgment too lenient or an acquittal legally flawed. Where the public prosecutor's office also files a legal remedy to the detriment of the accused, there is no protection against a worsening of the judgment.
The prohibition of reformatio in peius (§ 331 StPO, § 358 (2) StPO) protects the accused from their own legal remedy leading to a harsher sanction. This protection applies, however, only where the legal remedy was filed exclusively by or in favour of the accused.
