Seizure pursuant to Section 115 StPO is a judicial coercive measure by which the court or the public prosecutor’s office deprives a person of certain objects or assets. The measure secures evidence or keeps assets available for the further criminal proceedings. It directly interferes with the right of ownership and generally requires judicial authorisation. Seizure creates a formal legal status and is therefore clearly distinct from mere securing.

Select your preferred appointment now:Free initial consultation

Requirements and purpose of seizure

Seizure pursuant to Section 115 StPO allows the public prosecutor’s office to formally deprive a person of certain objects or assets if they are relevant to the criminal proceedings. The measure primarily serves the securing of evidence or the securing of assets for later judicial decisions.

The investigating authorities must set out specifically why an object or asset is connected to a criminal offence. Mere suspicion without comprehensible facts is not sufficient. The measure must be aimed at a specific purpose and must not be ordered in a blanket manner.

The court reviews the legal requirements and authorises seizure pursuant to Section 105 StPO only if it is necessary and proportionate. The public prosecutor’s office must therefore explain why it cannot achieve the objective by a less intrusive measure. If securing items is sufficient, it may not order a more far-reaching seizure.

Read more about judicial authorisation of coercive measures here: Authorisation of coercive measures

Seizure directly interferes with the right of ownership. For this reason, the law requires careful judicial oversight and a clear justification for the measure.

In addition, the measure may relate only to specifically identified objects or assets and must be clearly delimited in substance.

Select your preferred appointment now:Free initial consultation

Seizure of evidence and seizure of assets

Seizure pursues two different objectives. It serves either the securing of evidence or the securing of assets for later judicial decisions.

In the case of seizure of evidence, the investigating authorities secure objects that are relevant to clarifying a criminal offence. This includes, for example, documents, data storage devices, cash, or other instrumentalities.

Seizure of assets serves a different purpose. It secures assets that originate from a criminal offence or that may be considered for later forfeiture or an assets-related decision. In this way, the law prevents assets from being dissipated during the proceedings.

Seizure regularly also results in a disposal ban. The person concerned may no longer freely dispose of the object or asset. This also applies if the asset is held by a third party, provided the legal requirements are met.

Legal requirements

Seizure requires more than a general suspicion. The public prosecutor’s office must present specific facts that justify the interference. The court reviews these requirements independently and must not be satisfied with vague statements.

Specific suspicion of an offence

The investigating authorities need a plausible initial suspicion based on specific facts. They must set out which criminal offence is at issue and why the object concerned is connected to that offence.

A mere connection “out of thin air” is not sufficient. The court requires a clear justification based on the case file and the investigation results.

Material connection to the proceedings

There must be a direct link between the object and the criminal offence. This may arise, for example, if

• the object serves as evidence,
• the object was used to commit the offence,
• the asset originates from the offence,
• the asset is relevant for later assets-related decisions.

If this link is missing, the legal basis for seizure is also missing.

Necessity and proportionality

The public prosecutor’s office may seize items only if it cannot achieve the investigative objective by a less intrusive measure. If securing items is sufficient, it must use that instrument.

The court also reviews proportionality. It weighs the allegation and the investigative interest against the interference with the right of ownership. The more serious the interference, the stronger the justification must be.

Distinction from securing items

Securing items allows provisional access to objects. It serves rapid safeguarding at the investigation stage.

Seizure, by contrast, creates a formal and legally binding status. From that point on, the person concerned may no longer freely dispose of the object.

The difference has a direct impact on the defence:

• Securing items is provisional.
• Seizure entrenches the interference.
• Separate legal remedies are available against seizure.

Read more about securing items here: Securing items

Select your preferred appointment now:Free initial consultation

Procedure and judicial authorisation

Seizure does not occur automatically. The public prosecutor’s office must apply for the measure and specifically justify its necessity. It sets out which object is affected, which criminal offence is at issue, and why the interference is necessary.

Role of the public prosecutor’s office

The public prosecutor’s office directs the investigation. It decides whether to apply for seizure. In doing so, it must present the suspicion, the connection to the proceedings, and proportionality in a comprehensible manner.

In practice, it often bases its application on the results of a search or on items already secured.

Read more about searches here: Searches of premises and objects

Authorisation by the court

The court reviews the application independently. It checks whether the legal requirements are met and whether the measure is proportionate. It may not adopt the reasoning without scrutiny.

Only after this review does the court authorise the seizure. Without judicial authorisation, the measure generally may not remain in place.

Read more about the authorisation of coercive measures here: Authorisation of coercive measures

The court’s decision must clearly show which facts it bases its assessment on. A formulaic justification is not sufficient.

Rights affected of the accused and third parties

Seizure directly interferes with the right of ownership. For this reason, the accused and also uninvolved third parties have certain rights.

First, those affected are entitled to information about the measure. They must be able to see which objects are affected and on what basis the authority is acting.

In addition, the following rights apply:

• Access to the case file to review the justification for the measure
• The possibility of having the lawfulness reviewed by a court
• Protection of the rights of uninvolved owners

The protection of third parties is particularly relevant. If a seized object does not belong to the accused, the court must also take the owner’s rights into account. Criminal prosecution must not expand at the expense of uninvolved persons.

At this stage, the defence often examines whether the measure exceeds the statutory framework or whether the authority has not sufficiently documented its reasoning.

Select your preferred appointment now:Free initial consultation

Legal remedies against seizure

Seizure is not beyond challenge. The law provides the accused and affected third parties with effective instruments to have the lawfulness of the measure reviewed.

Anyone wishing to challenge a seizure must act quickly. The earlier the defence intervenes, the greater the chance of limiting or lifting the interference.

Objection on grounds of a violation of rights

One of the most important remedies during the investigation is the objection for violation of rights.

With this objection, the person concerned can assert that

• the legal requirements are not met,
• the court did not sufficiently review proportionality,
• the measure has formal defects,
• the seizure goes beyond what is necessary.

The court reviews the objection and examines the lawfulness of the measure. If it finds a violation of rights, it lifts the seizure or restricts it.

Read more about the objection here: Objection for violation of rights

Select your preferred appointment now:Free initial consultation

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

A seizure pursuant to can deeply interfere with the right of ownership and can significantly influence the further course of the criminal proceedings. Early legal review provides clarity and secures strategic advantages.

A lawyer first examines whether the legal requirements are actually met. They check whether there is specific suspicion, whether the material connection has been sufficiently substantiated, and whether the court has carefully reviewed proportionality.

In addition, legal representation opens up specific options for action:

• Applying for access to the case file in order to fully analyse the justification for the measure
• Submitting targeted motions to take evidence if the public prosecutor’s office does not sufficiently support its assumptions
• Asserting the inadmissibility of evidence if the seizure was unlawful

Read more about motions to take evidence here: Motions to take evidence in criminal proceedings

An unlawful seizure does not remain without consequences. If the interference occurs without a sufficient legal basis, this may impair the admissibility of the evidence obtained and change the entire proceedings.

Select your preferred appointment now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions