Brief summary of the 9th hearing: 01.07.2026
Defence raises two motions
- Defence’s two motions: The defence motioned 1) to allow defence and defendants to sit together during hearings to accommodate unhindered communication, and 2) defence and defendants, during private meetings, can communicate without a glass partition wall.
- Context: Regarding 2) -- the defence raised that another trial in the court, in which the defendants are also accused of membership of a criminal organisation, defence and defendants can sit together without a partition wall in private meetings.
- Court’s response: both motions are rejected. For 1), the court argues the room’s architecture cannot accommodate defence and defendants sitting together; for 2), the court argues that the use of a partition wall is at the discretion of the presiding judge, thus the conditions of another case in the same court are irrelevant.
Other motions
- The defence’s motion to have their own stenographer during proceedings: denied.
- Motion to allow the public to have pencils and paper in the viewing chamber for taking notes: denied.
The first witness
- The lead case officer testified, the first witness to date.
- The witness specified that Elbit Systems Deutschland had not been investigated as a part of the investigation. The Public Prosecutor had advised the officer that such an investigation would be legally irrelevant.
- The defence raised that: under German law, the Public Prosecutor is obliged to investigate both incriminating and exonerating evidence (§160 (2) StPO). The witness testified that he was aware of this duty for objective impartial investigation, but affirmed again that he and his team did not investigate the applicability of Nothilfe (emergency aid for the defence of another from illegal attack), in the case that Elbit Systems Deutschland be found to be responsible for aiding war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- The witness testified that he had spoken more than five times with the Public Prosecutor, but refused to respond to questions regarding the content of said conversations.
Detailed summary of the 9th hearing: 01.07.2026
Hearing begins at 10:00
The hearing began with a motion from member of the defence Nina Onèr regarding the separation of the lawyers from their clients. The detailed motion reminded the court of the hitherto much discussed need for unobstructed communication between the defence and their clients. The defence also highlighted that the use of a glass-partitioned room during private consultations with their clients had not been justified by the court in a concrete or explicit manner.
Ms Onèr revealed that in the same court, in a different room, the proceedings were underway for a case wherein the defendants are accused of belonging to a terrorist organisation (§ 129(a) StGB), a more severe charge than the Ulm5's accusation of formation of a criminal organisation (§ 129 StGB). Said case involved machine gun fire at a police station, where two police officers were injured. Nevertheless, in said trial, Ms Onèr specified, the defence and defendants are allowed to communicate in a private room without a glass partition wall.
The Public Prosecutor objected to the motion, saying some of the defendants of the referred to trial were not under pre-trial detention. The court, meanwhile, rules that it will make a decision on these motions after the witness has testified.
The defence also requested an update on a previous motion: to record translations via the court’s microphones so as to make feasible checks for translation accuracy -- the court’s ruling on which had been postponed. The judge stated the decision had not yet been made.
Similarly, the defence reminded the court that they are awaiting decisions regarding motions on the permission of the public in the courtroom’s viewing chamber to use pencils and paper for taking notes.
The judge ruled that the motion to allow pencils and paper was denied, as was a previous motion to allow the defence to have their own private stenographer for record keeping of the trial. The decision to postpone a judgement on the motion to change seating arrangements would be upheld so as to allow time for the witness to testify during today’s hearing.
The trial’s first witness – general questioning by the judge and Public Prosecutor
The trial’s first witness took the stand: Bastian Gropp of the Baden-Württemberg policing office (Landeskriminalamt); Mr Gropp is the lead case officer for this case. From 10:45 to 11:15, Mr Gropp was posed general questions by the judge, and was thereafter briefly questioned by the Public Prosecutor.
The witness stated in response to the judge’s questions that he received reports regarding the incident, and was himself not present during the arrest of the Ulm5. He specified he has never visited the Elbit Systems Deutschland site. As part of the investigation, his team gathered personal data from the Ulm5, especially from mobile phones which were taken from the Ulm5’s homes in Berlin.
The witness later clarified that he had previously not been aware of what was produced at the site owned by Elbit Systems Deutschland. He stated that, after the case began, he learned that nightvision equipment, and radio transmission equipment are produced at the site.
Defence’s questioning of the first witness
At 11:35, after an intermission, the defence questioned Mr Gropp.
The witness testified that, as lead case officer, he compiles the case file, but is not in charge of the investigation itself. He clarified that in his role he is not responsible for decision-making; he only compiles data from other sources.
Upon questioning, Mr Gropp testified that there had been no investigation carried out as to whether the case could be counted as ‘emergency assistance’ (henceforth: Nothilfe) in relation to war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by Elbit Systems Deutschland. He specified that such a topic did not come up during the investigation, and when the Public Prosecutor was consulted, the Public Prosecutor advised that the role of Elbit Systems Deutschland was irrelevant to the legal assessment.
In response to questioning, Mr Gropp testified that he had either met or telephoned the Public Prosecutor at least five times. When asked where they had met, Mr Gropp declined to answer, stating that any topic relating to cooperation between the Public Prosecutor and the investigating authority was outside what he had been authorised to speak on. Mr Gropp specified that the investigation was handed from the general-public prosecutor to the senior-public prosecutor some days after the night of the break-in at the Elbit Systems Deutschland site.
Mr Gropp affirmed via questioning that his role is to assist the Public Prosecutor in establishing facts that both incriminate and exonerate. (§160 (2) StPO assures the Public Prosecutor must investigate both incriminating and exonerating evidence). However, exonerating facts on the grounds of Nothilfe were not investigated. The Public Prosecutor interjected during the questioning session to state that it was clear from the outset that there were no grounds for justification in this case.
Questions touched upon the accusation of antisemitism. Mr Gropp affirmed that no investigation into antisemitism was carried out. Rather, an expert opinion was commissioned. The same expert produced two reports: one on Palestine Action, the other on antisemitism. Information from the police investigation was not shared with the expert; they worked independently and in a short time frame, using online material.
Regarding the meeting with Mr Gropp and the Public Prosecutor: Mr Gropp remembered that others attended these meetings, but could not list all attendees.
Notes from the investigation are read out
From 14.15 until 15.45, with breaks, detailed notes from the investigation’s forensics team were read out, on what precisely was found (damage to equipment, discarded items, etc) on-site.
Handcuffing during breaks
During a five-minute break, the judge left the chamber but the Ulm5 remained in place. As the judge left, security handcuffed the Ulm5. The court’s staff insist that the five must be handcuffed while the judge is not present. Upon the judge’s return, the defence demands an explanation from the judge as to why the Ulm5 are handcuffed without being moved. The judge stated that she was not aware of this, and that she would look into the matter.
Decision regarding the morning’s motions
Another break ends at 16.30 and the session resumes. The judge confirms that the morning’s motions, regarding seating arrangements and the use of a partition wall during private meetings between defence and their clients during court breaks, are rejected (i.e., the seating arrangements shall not be changed). She cites structural reasons for the former. For the latter, she states that this decision is at the presiding judge’s discretion per-case, and other cases or other judges’ decisions are irrelevant.
In response, the defence motions for an investigation into the court’s facilities to find ways to accommodate defendants and defence talking directly without a partition wall. The chamber agrees to reconvene at 9.00 on Friday 3rd of July.
Hearing ends at 16:50