What the investigation into the flood disaster in the Ahr Valley is about

Almost three years after the flood disaster in the Ahr Valley, the public prosecutor’s office announces the results of its investigation. Will there be charges of negligent homicide and negligent bodily harm while in office due to omission?

the initial situation

In July 2021, 135 people died in the flood disaster in the Ahr Valley, hundreds were injured, and 9,000 houses were destroyed or damaged. Three weeks after the accident, the Koblenz public prosecutor initiated an investigation. The allegations: negligent homicide and negligent bodily harm in office. Each committed through “omission.”

The investigation is directed against the then district administrator of the Ahrweiler district, Jürgen Pföhler, and another person from the crisis team. There was evidence that the population was warned too late and inadequately about the masses of water and that people were injured and died as a result of this misconduct, the public prosecutor’s office said at the time, justifying the initiation of the investigation. A good two and a half years later, she is now announcing the results of the investigation.

What options does it have? Public prosecutor?

There are basically two options: The public prosecutor will either file charges against the accused or just one of the accused. Then the matter goes to court. Or she stops the investigation.

A forecast is necessary for the decision: From the perspective of the public prosecutor, is a conviction more likely than an acquittal in a later trial? (Lawyers speak of “sufficiently probable”.)

Then the public prosecutor must file charges. However, if the public prosecutor comes to the conclusion that a later acquittal is more likely than a conviction, it will terminate the investigation.

Why does she decide? Public prosecutor and no court?

The public prosecutor’s office is always responsible for an investigation. You are obliged to keep one if there is evidence of a crime. And it is obliged to bring charges if there is such evidence that a conviction is more likely than an acquittal.

Only if there is an indictment does the case end up in court. However, if the public prosecutor’s office believes that there is not enough evidence for a later conviction, then it will stop the proceedings and the matter will generally not end up in court.

The public prosecutor’s office is obliged to be objective, neutral and impartial. It must determine all the facts, regardless of whether they speak for or against the guilt of the accused.

What happens after an accusation?

The public prosecutor sends the indictment to the responsible court. This then checks itself whether it sees “sufficient suspicion”. Then there is a trial in a courtroom.

What exactly does “negligent homicide by omission” mean?

In order to be convicted of negligent homicide by omission, several conditions must be met:

What does that mean when applied to the flood in the Ahr Valley?

Should the district administrator at the time or the other accused have warned the population earlier? Should he have declared a disaster alarm to evacuate? This could, for example, be the action that the district administrator was obliged to take, but which he failed to do despite clear indications in the afternoon.

At 3:26 p.m. the state environmental office had forecast a water level of 5.19 meters. The mayor of the municipality of Altenahr at the time, Cornelia Weigand, called the district office at 4:20 p.m. and asked them to declare a disaster alarm. Hours before many people lost their lives in the water. It was only at 11:09 p.m. that the disaster alarm was triggered by the Ahrweiler district and a partial evacuation was called for.

In the second step, the public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused were able to foresee the danger to the many people through these tips. So that they were aware that deaths could occur if the disaster alarm was not declared. If there is no warning and evacuation.

Proof is therefore needed that they had the opportunity to grasp the extent of the impending catastrophe. And that they were also able to act at that time.

In the third step, the public prosecutor’s office must check whether these warnings and the declaration of the disaster alarm actually saved people. If they had found out about the warnings, could they still have been evacuated? Would these people have actually been evacuated?

Why is that criminal Assessment difficult?

It is clear that 135 people died in the flood disaster in the Ahr Valley. A report commissioned by the public prosecutor also shows that there were significant deficiencies in disaster protection.

In addition, it quickly became clear after the flood that the accused district administrator Jürgen Pföhler did not assume his responsibilities that day and was only in the operations center for a photo opportunity. Even afterwards he explained that he was not responsible at all.

However, the public prosecutor must be able to clearly state that the conditions for criminal liability are met and, above all, prove the connection between specific errors and the people who died.

Isn’t this all obvious?

For a later conviction for negligent homicide, it is not enough to say that people could possibly have been saved. For each specific person who died during the night, you have to check whether the person would still be alive with “almost certainty”.

So for example: Would an earlier warning have reached this person in time? Or asked the other way around: Would they have died anyway?

During the long investigation, the public prosecutor’s office had in the meantime indicated that this was a main difficulty in the process. The commissioned report was also unable to determine the extent to which people would have been saved under ideal disaster control conditions.

What about the negligent one? Mayhem in office through omission?

The requirements are initially the same. Here, too, it must be proven that certain people would not have been injured if the accused had acted differently.

Could the victims defend themselves against a discontinuation of the proceedings?

If the public prosecutor’s office should stop the proceedings, the injured parties have the opportunity to initiate so-called enforcement proceedings. The relatives of those who died are also considered “injured” in the proceedings. The prerequisite for the procedure is that the injured parties have already expressed their interest in criminal prosecution.

If so, they could file a complaint against them within two weeks of being hired. The public prosecutor’s office usually decides on this.

If the complaint is unsuccessful, the injured parties could file an application with the Higher Regional Court within a month. A court then decides – albeit without a trial in the courtroom – whether it assesses the likelihood of a conviction differently than the public prosecutor’s office.

If this were the case, the court would oblige the public prosecutor to file charges. Only then would there be a criminal trial.

Who is responsible for political evaluation?

Not all mistakes that people make – no matter how tragic and serious they are – are punishable by the law. There are clear rules and high hurdles to prove criminal behavior.

Regardless, there is the level of political responsibility. The parliamentary investigative committee in the state parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate attempted to provide this part of the investigation. The final report is expected to be available in a few months.