Five Animal Rebellion activists convicted of trespassing on farm
A court in Nuremberg has convicted five climate activists who entered the farm of Günther Felßner, who was designated minister at the time, in March 2025. A further defendant was acquitted.
Five Animal Rebellion activists convicted of trespassing on farm
Before the district court Hersbruck, which held the hearing in the Nuremberg court building due to capacity constraints, five members of the Animal Rebellion movement were found guilty. In spring 2025, they had unlawfully entered the property of a well-known farmer in the Central Franconia region.
The judges imposed fines amounting to 40 to 60 daily rates. These were below the original penalties, which ranged between 60 and 90 daily income units. The defendants had not accepted these earlier decisions and appealed for a main hearing. A further defendant went unpunished after he credibly demonstrated that he had been present only as a photojournalist and had not actively participated in the protest. The decision is not yet final.
The incident occurred on 24 March 2025. Approximately a dozen people entered the site in Gunthersbühl, where the president of the Bavarian Farmers' Association runs his operation. Several of them climbed onto the roof of a barn, ignited pyrotechnic devices, and unfurled a banner directed against the appointment of Felßner as the future federal agriculture minister. The politician's candidacy had previously been publicly announced by the Bavarian Prime Minister. One day after the incident, Felßner withdrew his application for the ministry position.
In the courtroom, the farmer's wife described how she was working in the barn buildings along with an employee when unknown individuals suddenly appeared on the farm. Some carried extensive recording equipment with them, while others had covered their faces. She said she had asked the intruders to leave the area and threatened to report them to the authorities. The group ignored this. The employee confirmed that his boss had been extremely distressed.
The farm owner's wife reported to the judges of considerable distress during the incident. There had recently been a nocturnal break-in to the stalls; now smoke had entered, the livestock had been frightened, footsteps could be heard above her. She had barely been able to tell the officers on the phone what was happening. A few days later she sought medical help, and was prescribed sedatives. She still feels the effects: "I have an uneasy feeling being alone there. If someone is on the property, I immediately become nervous."
The defendants had stated in their closing remarks that they had not pursued a coordinated plan. Furthermore, they claimed that due to the lack of fencing they could not have recognised that the farm was a separate property. The witnesses' accounts contradicted these claims.
The public prosecutor, whilst referring to a "peaceful protest action", nevertheless demanded higher fines of between 70 and 100 daily rates. Two individuals were additionally accused of being masked during the demonstration – a violation of the freedom of assembly laws in the state.
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung
Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung