Allegedly xenophobic judge from Gera not charged with incitement to hatred

The rule of law stands or falls with the trust that its citizens place in it. This trust is not solely derived from laws, judgments, or administrative procedures. It arises primarily from the people who represent this state. Judges are expected to act impartially, communicate responsibly, and respect the dignity of every individual . This is precisely why the case of an allegedly xenophobic judge in Thuringia ( VISAGUARD.Berlin reported on the case) has far-reaching implications beyond a single instance of misconduct. Nevertheless, the Thuringian public prosecutor's office has now declined to open main proceedings for incitement to hatred.

Visa judge gone astray

The starting point was a Facebook post by Dr. Bengt Fuchs, Vice President of the Gera Administrative Court . He referred to members of the Sinti and Roma community as "rotating Europeans with a weakness in property rights." This is a derogatory, hurtful, and ridiculing term. That a judge would publicly use such language is by no means a trivial matter. It sends a signal to those who depend on fairness and objectivity—especially in proceedings where people are already in particularly vulnerable situations. What makes this especially explosive is that Dr. Fuchs was responsible for asylum cases for many years and now works in the Thuringian Ministry of Justice.

No formal criminal proceedings against judges from Gera

This statement will not have any legal consequences. The public prosecutor's office had filed charges for incitement to hatred , but both the Gera Regional Court and – after an appeal – the Thuringian Higher Regional Court in Jena rejected the opening of a main trial. While the Higher Regional Court described the statement as a "grossly tasteless and defamatory outburst," it found it to be neither an attack on human dignity nor an expression of hatred. Therefore, the elements of the offense of incitement to hatred were not met . The statement would only be punishable as an insult, for which a formal complaint from the affected party would be required, which has not yet been filed.

Regardless, disciplinary proceedings against the judge have been underway since summer 2025. From a legal perspective, the matter is therefore far from settled. In the political debate, reactions go considerably further: The Thuringian Left Party parliamentary group spoke of a fatal signal , since racism is clearly named but remains without consequence. Their representative, Katharina König-Preuss, who herself filed a complaint, emphasized that a judge who publicly defames minorities has no place on a bench.

Societal expectation vs. criminal liability

All these developments highlight a fundamental problem. Even though criminal assessments are bound by clear legal boundaries, societal damage remains . Because words create reality. When someone in a judicial office defames people indiscriminately, it affects far more than just a single population group. It raises the question of whether we can rely on the impartiality of those who administer justice in our name. It affects our understanding of how seriously the state takes its responsibility for protecting minorities. And it affects our perception of whether our democratic institutions truly treat all people with the same dignity.

For VISAGUARD, it remains crucial that cases like this are not swept under the rug. They must be investigated transparently, because trust can only grow where misconduct is clearly identified and consequences are drawn. The Fuchs case demonstrates how important it is not only to focus on criminal law, but also on the attitude and responsibility of those who have access to the most delicate and sensitive decisions in our state. When judges act in a discriminatory manner towards foreigners, we cannot look away – especially not when the judges themselves are responsible for visa and immigration law.