AfD leader Chrupalla tried by all means to have an alleged stab in the arm at an event prosecuted. Following a decision by the Munich Higher Regional Court, the case is now finally off the table.
AfD chairman Tino Chrupalla has now finally failed in his attempt to have an alleged attack at an election campaign event in Ingolstadt in October 2023 legally investigated. The Munich Higher Regional Court (OLG) rejected the politician’s application to compel him to take legal action, it has now announced.
With the application, Chrupalla wanted to protest against the discontinuation of the investigation by the Ingolstadt public prosecutor’s office. This had previously been rejected by the Attorney General in Munich, to whom Chrupalla had appealed against the decision of the Ingolstadt investigators. No further legal recourse is possible against the current decision of the Higher Regional Court.
Chrupalla in hospital after “incident”
Last October, Chrupalla had abandoned a campaign event for the Bavarian state elections in Ingolstadt, citing nausea, dizziness and headaches, and was taken to a hospital. He said he had been stabbed in his right arm.
He was able to leave the clinic after a day. Doctors found a puncture wound in Chrupalla’s right upper arm. The AfD announced at the time that the party leader had been injected with an unknown substance. Chrupalla himself spoke of an attack that had been carried out on him. A blood sample, however, was unremarkable.
OLG: Application contains “vague hints”
The authorities launched an investigation on suspicion of bodily harm against an unknown person. The puncture was “most likely” caused by a pin, it was said. The investigators found no concrete evidence of an injection or poisoning. There was also nothing to suggest an “attack”. In December, the Ingolstadt public prosecutor’s office therefore closed the investigation. However, the Munich public prosecutor’s office did not follow up on a complaint from Chrupalla, which is why the AfD politician filed a so-called motion to compel legal action.
The court has now rejected this as inadmissible, among other things for formal reasons. A request for a court decision must state the facts on which the action is based and the evidence, it said in a statement. However, Chrupalla’s lawyer’s request was limited to “a fragmentary description of the incident and vague hints. A comprehensible discussion of the prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence was also missing.”
In any case, proceedings to compel prosecution can only be conducted with the aim of forcing charges to be brought against a specific person.