Gelsenkirchen Sparkasse robbery: first civil trials begin in Essen as victims seek damages

Kuhlmann told the court that he represents approximately 650 clients with a total damage claim of nearly 51.5 million euros. "Kuhlmann vertritt nach eigenen Angaben rund 650 Kunden mit einem Gesamtschaden von fast 51,5 Millionen Euro." The Sparkasse's standard maximum insured amount for customer safe deposit boxes is 10,300 euros, unless higher sums were expressly agreed, a figure that makes the individual claims particularly significant. Court spokesman Matthias Murawski confirmed that a further eight lawsuits have already been filed at the Regional Court of Essen, with hearings scheduled from July to September.

The plaintiffs and their claims

The first case is being brought by 83-year-old Rita M., who is demanding 391,000 euros in damages for cash and jewelry she says was kept in her box. Her attorney told the court that the plaintiff has been deprived of her retirement security and is now completely destitute. Rita M. stated that her safe deposit box contained 391,000 euros from the sale of a condominium, and described the emotional toll of the burglary: "Ich dachte, ich muss sterben." She said she had lost everything, suffered panic attacks when the burglary became known and lay in bed for days.

The second case concerns 63-year-old Joachim Alfred Wagner, who is claiming nearly 49,000 euros in damages for gold, family jewelry and heirlooms. "Im Anschluss an die erste Verhandlung startete ein zweites Verfahren, in dem es um einen angezeigten Verlust von knapp 49.000 Euro geht. Hier wurden nach Angaben des Klägers Goldmünzen und Familienschmuck aus dem Schließfach gestohlen." Kuhlmann said the two cases are intended to serve as test cases, or Musterklagen, that could determine the trajectory of hundreds of similar claims. The plaintiffs rejected a settlement proposal in the first case, and the Sparkasse also declined to settle. "Einen Vergleich lehnten beide Parteien ab."

The bank's defence

Presiding judge Stefan Ostheide told the parties that whether Rita M. receives her claim is entirely open. "Ob Sie das bekommen, ist völlig offen." He noted that the bank does not need to know what is stored in the boxes, but argued a qualified submission was missing regarding her box 1763. Judge Ostheide also stressed that the case does not turn on whether additional security measures were available, but on whether the existing measures were sufficient before the Christmas period. He added that every case is different and warned that the proceedings could drag on for a long time: "Jeder Fall ist anders."

The Sparkasse strictly rejects the allegations and points to numerous security measures already in place, arguing that there was no breach of duty on its part. The bank also disputes knowledge of the box contents and the alleged ownership of the items claimed. "Die Sparkasse weist die Vorwürfe strikt zurück und führt zahlreiche Sicherungsmaßnahmen an. Es gebe seitens der Sparkasse keine Pflichtverletzungen." Attorney Plassmann, who represents the bank, said the timing of the lawsuit had irritated him and that those affected in Gelsenkirchen may now be in an even more difficult situation. "Der Zeitpunkt der Klage habe ihn irritiert, sagt Rechtsanwalt Plassmann. Es sei möglich, dass die Betroffenen in Gelsenkirchen jetzt in einer noch schwierigeren Situation seien."

Legal questions and next steps

The central legal question before the court is whether the Sparkasse met industry-standard security requirements at the time of the break-in. The court has announced that all related procedures may be suspended until an expert appointed in the first case clarifies the security issues. The first hearing for Rita M. lasted 90 minutes, three times the scheduled 30 minutes. The court plans to appoint an expert to examine technical details, security standards and the Sparkasse building with the vault, and will announce on 9 July whether an expert will be appointed. "Zentrale Frage ist, ob die Sparkasse zum Zeitpunkt des Einbruchs branchenübliche Sicherheitsstandards eingehalten hat."

ZDF reporter Thomas Münten, reporting from Gelsenkirchen, said the stories of many customers had been deeply affecting. "Nach dem Einbruch in eine Sparkassen-Filiale in Gelsenkirchen machten die Geschichten vieler Kunden betroffen, so ZDF-Reporter Thomas Münten. Der Prozess werde zum Marathon für die Beteiligten." Wagner framed his case in similar terms: "Es geht auch um Gerechtigkeit." Kuhlmann warned of the legal road ahead, saying that in the worst case his side will file hundreds of lawsuits in waves. "Im schlimmsten Fall werden wir Hunderte Klagen in Wellen erheben und die Sparkasse in Grund und Boden klagen."

The total damage from the robbery could reach a three-digit million euro amount, making the case possibly one of the largest burglary events in German criminal history. "bei einem der größten Einbruchsereignisse der deutschen Kriminalgeschichte." The trials began roughly six months after the break-in, in which a million-euro haul was stolen. Appeals against Essen verdicts would be heard at the Higher Regional Court of Hamm. Kuhlmann, addressing reporters outside the courthouse, expressed confidence that the Essen Regional Court would reach a just verdict. "Er gehe davon aus, dass das Landgericht Essen zu einem gerechten Urteil in dem Verfahren kommen werde, sagte Kuhlmann vor dem Gerichtsgebäude."