Start of proceedings against the “Ulm 5” at the Stuttgart Regional Court – Motion for recusal against the presiding judge

Today marks the opening of the trial of the Ulm 5 in Stuttgart - five activists prosecuted for taking action against Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. As we set out in our statement ahead of proceedings, this case represents part of a broader crackdown across Western states on those who refuse to be bystanders to genocide. Day one has already borne out our concerns. The following press release, issued by the defence team, details how the court denied the defendants their right to confidential communication with their lawyers from the very first hearing - prompting an immediate motion for recusal against the presiding judge. We share it here in full.

During today’s opening of the trial at the Stuttgart Regional Court in the case against the “Ulm 5,” events escalated rapidly.

Prior to the hearing, the defence had attempted to contact – both by writing and by calling – the presiding judge in order to discuss various matters, in particular the seating arrangement in the courtroom. However, these requests went unanswered.

Instead, the court unilaterally scheduled a so-called “inspection appointment” without coordinating with the defence.

From the outset, the defence emphasised that the defendants should be seated next to their lawyers in order to ensure unobstructed and confidential communication in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This fundamental right was not, in the eyes of the defence, guaranteed under the planned seating arrangement in the courtroom today.

Motions to change this and other related objections were not given consideration. The defence was not given the floor, and the microphones were not switched on, even though, according to the presiding judge, anything not spoken into the microphone would not be translated and would “disappear.”

The defence sought dialogue with the court not only prior to and during the main hearing in order to reach a constructive solution, but also during the recess. The court did not respond.

The defence views this conduct as an unacceptable violation of the defendants’ right to a fair trial and has therefore filed a motion for recusal against the presiding judge.

Photo: dpa/Julian Rettig