The most important facts at a glance
- After the rejection of the appeal, various legal remedies remain successively: The constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court is the next legal remedy, after which legal protection can be sought from European higher courts.
- Strictly observe the deadline: For a constitutional complaint, there is generally a one-month deadline from the service of the appellate decision; if this deadline is missed, legal recourse is usually blocked.
- Realistically assessing the chances of success: constitutional complaints have low success rates, as they only have a chance of success if fundamental rights are violated or there are significant procedural errors – therefore, a specialized legal assessment is indispensable.
If the appeal is rejected
A rejected appeal often represents a severe blow to those affected. After a process lasting months or even years, which may have already gone through several instances, the legal path seems to end with the rejection of the appeal. The judgment becomes legally binding, and the sentence enforceable.
However, even after a denied appeal, the end of legal recourse is not necessarily reached. The German legal system offers further possibilities to challenge judgments perceived as unfair. However, these options are subject to strict conditions and require precise action, both in terms of timing and content.
The Federal Court of Justice's rejection of an appeal means that it has not found any significant legal errors in the lower court's ruling. The appellate court exclusively reviews legal questions, not factual ones – meaning it does not re-evaluate whether a defendant actually committed an offense, but rather whether the ruling is legally flawed and, if so, whether it is based on a legally correct foundation. If the appeal is rejected or dismissed, the Federal Court of Justice considers the ruling to be legally sound.
Legal Basis: The Audit and Its Limits
To understand what options exist after an unsuccessful revision, it is important to first know the legal basis of the revision itself. The revision is regulated in §§ 333 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) and represents an extraordinary appeal against judgments in criminal matters.
The appeal as a legal remedy
An appeal on points of law is generally filed with the Federal Court of Justice (BGH); if the proceedings began in a local court, it is filed with the Higher Regional Courts as the appellate court. Unlike an appeal, which allows for a full review of both the facts and the law, an appeal on points of law is limited exclusively to questions of law. The court of cassation reviews whether the contested judgment is based on a violation of the law.
Typical reasons for revision include:
- Incorrect Application of Substantive Law
- Violations of Procedural Rules
- Error in the assessment of evidence, insofar as it constitutes legal errors
- Violation of the right to be heard
Rejection and dismissal of the appeal
The appellate court may handle an appeal in various ways:
Pursuant to § 349 StPO, the court may dismiss an appeal as inadmissible if, for example, it was not filed in accordance with form or deadline requirements. Dismissal of the appeal is possible unanimously if the appeal is admissible but does not identify any legal errors. In both cases, the challenged judgment becomes legally binding.
The judgment can also be overturned unanimously, or the court can decide by judgment after the oral revision proceedings have been conducted.
Legal Force and its Consequences
Once the judgment becomes final following the rejection of the appeal, it acquires res judicata effect. This means that the same case cannot be retried. The sentence imposed in the judgment becomes enforceable. For convicted persons, this often marks the beginning of the enforcement of the sentence, such as through a summons to begin serving a prison sentence.
The finality of a judgment is a key element of legal certainty. It ensures that proceedings are eventually concluded and that legal peace is restored. At the same time, it can be a heavy burden for those affected who feel they have been wrongfully convicted.
The Constitutional Complaint: The Path to the Federal Constitutional Court
After an appeal has been denied, a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court is the most significant and most frequently pursued further legal remedy.
Prerequisites for a constitutional complaint
A constitutional complaint may be filed only if a fundamental right or a right equivalent to a fundamental right has been violated by public authorities—that is, by courts, administrative agencies, or the legislature. In criminal proceedings, the following fundamental rights are particularly relevant:
- Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law (General Right to Privacy) in conjunction with Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Basic Law (Principle of the Rule of Law) as embodied in the right to a fair trial
- Art. 2, para. 2 of the Basic Law (Right to Physical Integrity and Liberty) in conjunction with Art. 104, para. 1, sentence 1 of the Basic Law (Fundamental Right to Liberty)
- Article 3 of the German Basic Law (Principle of Equality), particularly in its interpretation as a prohibition against arbitrariness
- Article 101 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the Basic Law (Right to the lawful judge)
- Art. 103(1) Basic Law (Right to be heard)
Important to understand: The Federal Constitutional Court is not a „super appellate court.“ It does not review the general correctness of lower court decisions, but exclusively whether constitutional law has been violated by them.
The Principle of Subsidiarity and Exhaustion of Remedies
Before filing a constitutional complaint, all reasonable procedural avenues for remedying the alleged violation of a fundamental right must generally have been exhausted. This is usually the case when an appeal has already been filed and denied.
Statute of limitations for constitutional complaint
The constitutional complaint must be filed within one month after service of the decision that exhausted the legal remedies. In the case of a rejected appeal, this period therefore begins with the service of the appellate decision.
Content and Form of the Constitutional Complaint
A constitutional complaint must be filed in writing and meet certain formal requirements. It must:
- Specify exactly which fundamental right is alleged to have been violated
- Present the facts including the procedural history.
- Identify the decision being challenged
- Justify in what way a fundamental rights violation has occurred
The reasoning requires a constitutional law argument that goes beyond a mere repetition of the arguments for review. It is not sufficient to show that the ruling is incorrect; rather, it must be demonstrated that the way the lower court ruled exceeded constitutional limits.
Admission Process and Chances of Success
The Federal Constitutional Court will only accept a constitutional complaint for decision if it meets the requirements of Section 93a of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. The complaint must either be of fundamental constitutional significance or its acceptance must be indicated for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Typical scenarios in which constitutional complaints have a chance of success include:
- Arbitrary or manifestly flawed factual determination or application of law
- Serious violation of the right to a fair hearing
- Conviction Based on Insufficient Evidence
- Exceeding the punitive framework in an unconstitutional manner
Crucially, the violation of the relevant fundamental rights was already raised before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
Further legal protection options after rejection of the appeal
In addition to the constitutional complaint, there are other, albeit significantly rarer, avenues to seek legal recourse after a rejected appeal.
Resumption of proceedings
The resumption of proceedings concluded by a legally binding judgment is possible under §§ 359 et seq. StPO, but is subject to very strict requirements. Grounds for resumption in favor of the convicted person are exhaustively listed in § 359 StPO. Resumption in favor of the convicted person is permissible:
- if a document presented as genuine in the main hearing was forged or falsified
- if the witness or expert has committed an offense by violating their oath or by making a false unsworn statement
- if a judge or juror participated in the verdict who was found guilty of violating their official duties
- if a civil court judgment, upon which the criminal judgment is based, is overturned by another final judgment
- if new facts or evidence are presented that are suitable to justify the acquittal of the accused, a lesser sentence, or a substantially different decision regarding a measure for improvement and security
- when the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the judgment is based on this violation
Reopening requires that the new facts or evidence already existed at the time of the main hearing but were unknown. Purely legal re-evaluations or changed case law do not justify a reopening.
Pardon proceedings
As a last resort, a petition for clemency remains after a judgment becomes legally binding. A petition for clemency is addressed to the executive branch (usually the Minister of Justice of the respective federal state or the Federal President for federal matters) and requests the remission, mitigation, or suspension of the sentence.
The clemency process is not a judicial review, but an extralegal option for correction. There is no legal entitlement to clemency. Clemency requests are usually granted only in cases of exceptional personal circumstances, humanitarian reasons, or when the factual situation has fundamentally changed.
Practical tips for those affected
Adhere to deadlines without fail
The most important rule after a failed revision: act quickly. The one-week deadline for a complaint of error and the one-month deadline for a constitutional complaint are absolute and cannot be extended. Even a few days' delay can result in important legal remedies being closed to you.
Get a realistic assessment of success
Not every rejected appeal justifies further legal action. Have the prospects of success realistically assessed by an experienced criminal defense attorney. A futile constitutional complaint will only incur additional costs and, if applicable, delay enforcement without any chance of success.
Compile complete documentation
For all further legal remedies, you will need complete copies of all previous decisions, minutes, and briefs. Request these immediately from your current attorney or the court if you do not already have them.
Engage specialized defense
Remedies such as constitutional complaints or retrials require highly specialized knowledge. Not every criminal defense attorney is experienced in these particular proceedings. At SITTIG LAW, we have many years of experience in appellate proceedings and subsequent remedies. We carefully analyze your case and honestly advise you on the realistic prospects of success.
Check enforcement deferral
Even if your judgment is legally binding, you may be able to obtain a stay of execution under certain circumstances if you file a further appeal. This is of particular importance in cases of prison sentences. Your defense attorney should file a corresponding application immediately.
Consider financial aspects
Further legal remedies incur costs for attorney fees and, if applicable, court fees. For a constitutional complaint, fees are only incurred in case of success; however, attorney fees must be paid in any case. Clarify in advance what costs you can expect and whether they are proportionate to the prospects of success.
Checklist: Steps After Rejected Revision
Immediate measures (first 48 hours):
- Carefully read the appellate court's decision and note the date of service
- Calculate all relevant deadlines
- Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney
- Compile complete files and all previous decisions
Short-term test (first week):
- Analyze reasons for the rejection of the appeal
- Identify possible hearing violations
- Verification of whether new facts or evidence exist for a reopening
- Clarify the enforcement situation and, if necessary, request a deferral.
- Obtain a realistic assessment of the prospects of further legal remedies.
- Decide whether or not to file an objection to the hearing. Pursuant to § 356a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the deadline for filing an objection to the hearing is one week.
- If the decision is positive: File an oral objection on time
- Begin preparing a potential constitutional complaint
- Financial planning for further procedural steps
Long-term planning (up to one month):
- For constitutional complaint: Full elaboration and timely submission
- Upon resumption: Securing new evidence and preparing the motion
- Strategic Planning of Further Defense
- Considerations on Alternative Paths (Pardon, Prison Issues)
Have important documents ready:
- First instance judgment with full reasoning
- Reason for revision and all submitted briefs
- Decision or judgment of the appellate court
- Proof of delivery
- Minutes of the oral hearing (if held)
- All relevant expert opinions and evidence
Recommendation for action
The rejection of an appeal does not automatically mean the final end of all legal options. Even if the appeal is not available, there are often alternative ways to challenge a criminal judgment. From a constitutional complaint to a retrial or a pardon – the German legal system has various instruments that allow for the correction of legally binding judgments under certain conditions.
Crucial is timely and well-founded legal advice from an attorney experienced in criminal law. They can realistically assess individual chances of success, develop the appropriate strategy, and competently guide you through the often complex procedural steps. Especially in cases of serious convictions, all legally permissible options should be carefully examined.
We are here to assist you in this difficult situation with our many years of experience in criminal law. Contact us for a comprehensive analysis of your case and an assessment of your legal options after the rejection of the appeal.
Frequently asked questions
The rejection of the appeal means that the appellate court found no fundamental legal errors in the contested judgment. The judgment therefore becomes legally binding and is generally enforceable. The regular avenues of appeal are thus exhausted; however, extraordinary remedies such as a constitutional complaint or a retrial may still be available to you.
Yes, even after a revision is rejected, there are further options. A constitutional complaint can be filed with the Federal Constitutional Court if you can assert a violation of your fundamental rights. A retrial is also possible if new facts or evidence come to light. In exceptional cases, a petition for clemency may also be advisable. The chances of success and the prerequisites for these avenues differ considerably.
For a constitutional complaint, there is generally a one-month deadline after service of the appellate decision.
A constitutional complaint itself is free of charge – there are no court costs at the Federal Constitutional Court. However, attorney fees will be incurred. As a rule, an hourly fee agreement is made.
A retrial requires that new facts or evidence become known which, if properly presented, would have led to a milder sentence or acquittal. These new circumstances must not have been known or usable in the original proceedings. Typical cases include subsequently discovered witnesses, newly emerging documents, or proven false testimony. The hurdles for a retrial are deliberately set high to protect the finality of judgments.
Filing a constitutional complaint does not automatically stay enforcement. This means that you generally have to start serving your sentence, even if the constitutional complaint has not yet been decided. However, an interim order can be requested. However, urgency will generally not be present solely based on this enforcement.
The success rate of constitutional complaints in criminal law is statistically low. The Federal Constitutional Court does not review the substantive correctness of lower court rulings, but only whether fundamental rights or fundamental procedural principles have been violated. Nevertheless, in individual cases where serious violations of fundamental rights have occurred, a constitutional complaint can be promising. A well-founded prognosis requires a detailed analysis by a specialized lawyer.
A revision is an ordinary legal remedy directed at criminal courts, alleging legal errors in a judgment. It examines the application of ordinary law by the lower courts. A constitutional complaint, on the other hand, is an extraordinary legal remedy directed at the Federal Constitutional Court, asserting a violation of fundamental rights or constitutional procedural guarantees. While a revision comprehensively reviews the correctness of the judgment, a constitutional complaint is limited to constitutional questions.
Absolutely recommended. The legal options after a rejected appeal are highly complex and require in-depth expertise in constitutional law, criminal procedure, and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. A specialist lawyer for criminal law with experience in appeal proceedings and constitutional complaints can realistically assess the chances of success, avoid unnecessary costs, and develop the best possible strategy. Professional advice is indispensable, especially in cases of serious convictions.
German 
English