Criminal Misconception: German Laws and Their Forgeries – of the utmost importance for the Russian-speaking diaspora
A dangerous precedent: in Germany, entire blocks of provisions are disappearing from official translations of laws, distorting legal reality.
This concerns the Russian-language versions of German procedural laws—the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Civil Procedure Code. These texts contain discrepancies that directly impact understanding of German legal proceedings. The problem is that provisions are excluded or shifted from the text, without which the procedure ceases to be understood in its true form. For the Russian-speaking diaspora encountering German legal system, such discrepancies are of practical, not theoretical, significance. Understanding deadlines, procedures, and legal consequences, and therefore the ability to effectively protect one's interests, directly depends on the quality of the translation.
The digital side of criminal proceedings
The officially certified Russian translation of the German Code of Criminal Procedure lacks §§ 32–32f—the provisions governing the digital aspect of legal proceedings. These provisions stipulate how documents are submitted, when they are considered received, which communication channels are admissible, and how their authenticity is verified.
The removal of these provisions gives the reader the impression that the process still revolves around paper, signature, and physical delivery . However, modern judicial practice operates differently: legal significance is not only the fact of receiving a document in person, but also the moment it is recorded in the system.
§ 317 BGB: original, copy and authentic copy
No less revealing is Section 317 of the German Civil Procedure Code. Here, the problem is no longer the omission of entire sections, but rather a distortion of the norm's structural logic.
Paragraph (1) explicitly states that court decisions are delivered to the parties as an Abschrift , that is, a copy . Even here, the legislator distinguishes between the judicial act itself and the document received by the party.
Subsection (2) stipulates that authentic copies— Ausfertigungen —are issued only upon request and only in paper form. Neither Ausfertigungen , nor Auszüge , nor Abschriften (Abstracts of Judgment ) may be issued before the decision is read and signed. This means that there is an original, signed document, as well as derivative forms intended for transmission to the parties.
Of particular importance is paragraph (4): the Ausfertigung is signed not by the judge, but by an official of the court registry ( UrkundsbeamterderGeschäftsstelle ) and sealed with the court seal. Consequently, the document issued to the party in the form of an authentic copy is certified procedurally, not by reproducing the judge's signature on the document itself.
Why is this important for translation?
Thus, in the norm, three levels are clearly distinguished:
- the original court decision signed by the judge;
- copy - a copy sent to the parties;
- Ausfertigung — a specially designed and certified copy issued upon request.
It is precisely this systemic distinction that becomes blurred in translation. When a text uses general terms like "copy" or "instance" without specifying their legal function, the reader is left with the impression that they are referring to the same document, merely named differently.
In practice, the German procedural model is built on a strict distinction between types of documents and methods of their certification. A party to the proceedings interacts not with the "decision as such," but with its procedurally defined form—a copy or certified copy.
Consequences for the participant in the process
At first glance, this might seem like a minor translation error. But the consequences extend far beyond philology. Someone who doesn't speak German relies on the translation as their only available source. They see familiar legal formulas and assume they understand the procedure. In reality, they're relying on one model, while the court operates under a different one.
This is where a gap arises, which in law almost always leads to a predictable outcome. The notice is already considered received, but the person is still waiting for the paper document. The deadline has already begun, and they are unaware of it. The complaint is filed in a way that seems logical but does not comply with established procedure. The documents are sent, but the system does not accept them. None of these actions appear to be an error until it is too late.
Where error is especially dangerous
This is especially true in cases where the cost of procedural error is greatest. In criminal cases, the possibility of a defense is at stake, and any deviation from procedure can be fatal . In cases involving children, emotional tension heightens the risk: attention is focused on the substance of the conflict, while the legal outcome is determined by compliance with formal requirements. In property disputes, an error leads to direct financial losses, since evidence presented in violation of procedure may have no legal value.
Formally, a violation may not be apparent: the law is published, accessible, and fully enforced. But access to its understanding is unequal. For those working with the original text, the procedure is transparent. For those relying on a distorted translation, it becomes a set of assumptions.
Under such circumstances, translation ceases to be a neutral intermediary and begins to influence legal behavior. It doesn't abolish the norm, but it renders it invisible or replaces its content. And this alone is enough to predetermine the outcome of a case long before a decision is made.
The reasons may vary : outdated versions, poor editing, lack of proper oversight. But the result remains the same: anyone relying on such a text is operating outside the court's operating system. And it is precisely this discrepancy that determines the outcome.
Potential consequences that are still being whispered about
If this issue becomes the subject of widespread public discussion, the next stage—a legal response—will inevitably arise. It's entirely possible to imagine a situation in which people who believe their rights have been violated due to a misunderstanding of the procedure will begin seeking compensation through the courts.
The very possibility of such requirements could create significant pressure on the legal and expert community. In the event of refusals at the national level, applicants could theoretically appeal to supranational bodies, including human rights protection mechanisms, where issues of access to justice and procedural clarity are traditionally considered quite strictly.
And here another level of risk arises—not individual, but reputational. Even a limited number of such cases, if they become public, could escalate into a large-scale legal and political scandal with serious financial and image consequences. This is a scenario that is becoming possible.
If this story becomes public knowledge, Germany risks facing not just isolated but massive lawsuits —both individual and collective in nature—for damages caused by the incomplete and distorted translation of a key procedural section of the German Criminal Procedure Code. And if the German state system begins to deny compensation or delays responding, these disputes could very well end up in the European Court of Human Rights, where issues of access to justice, procedural clarity, and the genuine ability to defend one's rights are considered particularly harshly. In such a case, it would no longer be a private claim, but an international legal scandal, the consequences of which could reach into the billions and seriously damage the reputation of the German legal system.
A result that cannot be ignored
Modern German legal proceedings are essentially a digital system with rigidly established rules. These rules are not hidden or encrypted—they are explicitly written into law. If a translation fails to reflect these rules, it is not simply inaccurate. It is criminally misleading. And in the legal realm, misleading is rarely without consequences.
Because the court operates under the full version of the law. While someone relying on an incomplete translation operates under a fragment. And this difference already contains a tragic outcome, predictable for those who ordered the forgery but unknown until then to one of the parties to the case.