HANSESTRAFRECHT
24/7 emergency
A stack of paper on a table by the window in daylight.

Appeals and enforcement

Berufung or Revision in German criminal law: which time limit runs after the judgment

Author
Rechtsanwältin Virginia Elisabeth von Burgsdorff
Published
Last updated
9 minute read
9 minute read

One week runs after the judgment. Berufung, an appeal on the facts and the law, and Revision, the appeal limited to points of law, are the remedies against a judgment in criminal law, and both are to be lodged within one week of the pronouncement: the Berufung with the court of first instance (§ 314 Abs. 1 StPO), the Revision with the court whose judgment is being challenged (§ 341 Abs. 1 StPO). The period begins with the pronouncement, not with service of the written reasons for the judgment. Anyone who waits for those misses it.

01

The one week period: when it starts running and when it ends

Both remedies can be lodged in a record taken by the court office or in writing (§ 314 Abs. 1, § 341 Abs. 1 StPO). No grounds are needed for that; a declaration that the remedy is being lodged suffices.

An exception is governed by § 314 Abs. 2 und § 341 Abs. 2 StPO: where the pronouncement took place without the defendant, the period begins for them with service, unless in the cases named there a defence lawyer with authority to represent them was present.

It ends at the end of the day of the final week that corresponds to the day on which it began; where the end falls on a Sunday, a general public holiday or a Saturday, it ends at the end of the next working day (§ 43 Abs. 1 und 2 StPO). Instruction about challenging the decision, about time limits and about forms is to be given when the decision is announced (§ 35a StPO).

That the written reasons for the judgment come later is not an oversight: § 275 Abs. 1 StPO gives the court a period of its own for them, which ends no later than five weeks after the pronouncement and is extended where the Hauptverhandlung, the main hearing, has lasted longer. The remedy therefore has to be lodged before the reasons are available.

02

What applies where the time limit has been missed?

A missed time limit does not without more mean that the matter is over. Where someone was prevented through no fault of their own from observing a time limit, Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand (restoration of the position that existed before the time limit was missed) is to be granted on application (§ 44 Satz 1 StPO); the failure also counts as being without fault where instruction was not given (§ 44 Satz 2 StPO).

This route is itself tightly limited in time. The application is to be made within one week of the removal of the obstacle before the court at which the time limit would have had to be observed; the facts must be substantiated, and within that period the remedy must be made good (§ 45 Abs. 1 und 2 StPO). Whether the requirements are met is for the court to decide; nobody can give an assurance about it. It should be examined at once.

03

Berufung: the case is heard afresh

A Berufung lies against the judgments of the Strafrichter, the judge sitting alone, and of the Schöffengericht, the court made up of one judge and two lay judges (§ 312 StPO). It is decided by the Strafkammer, a criminal division, of the Landgericht, the regional court (§ 74 Abs. 3 GVG), sitting as the small criminal division with the presiding judge and two Schöffen, the lay judges (§ 76 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GVG).

An exception is governed by § 313 Abs. 1 StPO: in the case of a fine of not more than fifteen Tagessätze (daily units) or of a Geldbuße, a fine imposed for a regulatory offence, the Berufung is admissible only where it is accepted. That happens where it is not manifestly unfounded (§ 313 Abs. 2 StPO).

Grounds for the Berufung can be given within a further week after the expiry of the period for lodging it or, where the judgment had not been served by then, after service of the judgment (§ 317 StPO). It can be limited to particular points of complaint; where that is not done, the whole content of the judgment counts as being challenged (§ 318 StPO).

Two points are important. The prohibition of a change for the worse: where only the defendant, or the Staatsanwaltschaft (the public prosecution office) in their favour, or their statutory representative has lodged a Berufung, the judgment may not be altered to their disadvantage in the kind or the level of the legal consequences (§ 331 Abs. 1 StPO). And the duty to attend: where neither the defendant nor a defence lawyer with authority to represent them appears at the start of the hearing, and the absence is not sufficiently excused, the court rejects the Berufung without hearing the matter (§ 329 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO).

04

Revision in criminal law: what is examined is the judgment, not the facts

A Revision lies against the judgments of the criminal divisions and of the Schwurgerichte, the divisions sitting for particular serious offences, and against judgments of the Oberlandesgerichte at first instance (§ 333 StPO). A judgment against which a Berufung is admissible can be challenged by way of a Revision instead; the statute calls this a Sprungrevision (§ 335 Abs. 1 StPO). It is decided by the court that would be called upon to decide if the Revision had been lodged after a Berufung had been conducted (§ 335 Abs. 2 StPO).

A Revision is not conducted with new witnesses. The appellant has to declare to what extent they challenge the judgment and to give reasons for their applications; the reasons must show whether a procedural provision or another rule of law is said to have been infringed, and in the first case the facts containing the defect must be stated (§ 344 Abs. 1 und 2 StPO).

A period of its own and a form of its own apply to the grounds. They are to be submitted no later than one month after the expiry of the period for lodging the Revision (§ 345 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO). The period is extended by one month where the judgment was placed on the file later than twenty-one weeks after the pronouncement, and by a further month where that took more than thirty-five weeks (§ 345 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StPO). Where the judgment had not yet been served when the period for lodging expired, the period begins with service (§ 345 Abs. 1 Satz 3 StPO).

The form is set out in § 345 Abs. 2 StPO: on the part of the defendant the grounds can be submitted only in a document signed by a defence lawyer or another lawyer, or in a record taken by the court office. A letter written and signed by the person themselves does not meet that form. For the lodging of the Revision that does not apply (§ 341 Abs. 1 StPO).

The court hearing the Revision does not always decide after an oral hearing. It can reject the Revision as inadmissible by order (§ 349 Abs. 1 StPO), and on a reasoned application by the Staatsanwaltschaft it can do so as well where it unanimously considers the Revision to be manifestly unfounded (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO). The application is communicated to the appellant, who can submit a written reply within two weeks (§ 349 Abs. 3 StPO). Conversely, the judgment can be set aside where the court unanimously considers a Revision lodged in favour of the defendant to be well founded (§ 349 Abs. 4 StPO). Where it succeeds, the court decides the matter itself in the cases of § 354 Abs. 1 StPO, and otherwise refers the case back (§ 354 Abs. 2 StPO); the prohibition of a change for the worse applies then as well (§ 358 Abs. 2 Satz 1 StPO).

A remedy is not an option without consequences: the costs of a remedy that has been withdrawn or lodged without success fall on the person who lodged it (§ 473 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO).

05

Which court decides in Hamburg?

For judgments of the Amtsgericht Hamburg, the local court, the route runs by way of the Berufung to the Landgericht Hamburg (§ 74 Abs. 3 GVG). The Revision against those judgments of the Strafrichter that cannot be challenged by way of a Berufung, and against appeal judgments of the criminal divisions, is decided by the Oberlandesgericht (§ 121 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 Buchstaben a und b GVG), in Hamburg the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht. Against judgments of the Landgerichte at first instance the Bundesgerichtshof, the Federal Court of Justice, decides (§ 135 Abs. 1 GVG).

06

And where neither is open any longer: the Wiederaufnahme

Where the judgment has become final, the Wiederaufnahme, the reopening of the proceedings, remains within narrow limits. § 359 Nr. 5 StPO requires new facts or evidence that are capable of founding an acquittal, a lesser punishment under a more lenient criminal provision, or a substantially different decision on a measure of correction and prevention. New means: not known to the court at the time.

One clarification on reopening to the disadvantage of the convicted person: § 362 StPO continues to list a number 5 in the published text. The Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Federal Constitutional Court, declared it incompatible with Art. 103 Abs. 3 GG and void by judgment of 31 October 2023 (2 BvR 900/22). It is not law in force.

07

Frequently asked questions about Berufung and Revision

How much time do I have after the judgment? One week from the pronouncement (§ 314 Abs. 1 StPO for the Berufung, § 341 Abs. 1 StPO for the Revision). Where the pronouncement was made in your absence, it begins with service on the requirements of § 314 Abs. 2 und des § 341 Abs. 2 StPO. It is calculated under § 43 StPO.

Do I have to decide between Berufung and Revision at once? For the lodging it is enough to declare that a remedy is being lodged. Grounds for the Berufung are given under § 317 StPO within a further week, and for the Revision under § 345 Abs. 1 StPO within one month. Which remedy is open also depends on which court decided (§§ 312, 333, 335 StPO).

Can the judgment turn out worse after my remedy? Where the defendant alone, or the Staatsanwaltschaft in their favour, or their statutory representative has lodged the remedy, the judgment may not be altered to their disadvantage in the kind or the level of the legal consequences (§ 331 Abs. 1 StPO, after a referral back § 358 Abs. 2 Satz 1 StPO). Where the Staatsanwaltschaft has lodged a remedy to the defendant's disadvantage, that protection does not apply.

I have missed the one week period. Is everything over? Not necessarily. § 44 StPO provides for Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand where someone was prevented through no fault of their own. The application is to be made within one week of the removal of the obstacle, the facts must be substantiated, and within that period the remedy must be made good (§ 45 Abs. 1 und 2 StPO). Whether the requirements are met is for the court to decide.

08

How things go on

Whether a remedy comes into consideration is decided by the reasons for the judgment and by the record of the hearing. Neither is available after the pronouncement, but the period is already running. That is why the time limit is secured first and the content is decided on afterwards. How a defence works in doing that is described on our page on general criminal law.

This information is general in nature and does not replace advice on an individual case. It reflects the statutory texts as checked on 10 August 2026.

If you would like to discuss your case, you can reach the office by telephone or by email.

Contact
Provisions referred to

The provisions mentioned in this article, each with a link to the official German text.