The Criminal Case — How the Justice System Dropped an Asbestos Case

In autumn 2018, degewo told the tenant by phone that the apartment was "contaminated". The word asbestos was never mentioned. The degewo employees made "no concrete statements" and refused to give a clear answer. Only after weeks of insistence, personal research, and advice from the tenants' association could the tenant narrow down the type of contaminant.

The criminal complaint is directed against "unknown responsible business representatives". RA Dr. Schüttpelz wrote in the complaint itself: "The identification of personal responsibility exceeds my client's investigative capabilities, which is why he is now bringing the matter to the prosecutor's office." He explicitly demanded that the company's internal chain of command be investigated to determine a specific defendant.

Assessment: The statute of limitations calculation assumes the victim could "individually identify the perpetrator" in 2018. But the tenant didn't even know it was asbestos at that time — degewo only mentioned "contaminants". And even after that, he had no way to identify the specific person responsible within the company — his own lawyer documented exactly that in the complaint. The statute is being used against the victim, even though degewo itself withheld the decisive information.

The investigation file contains two indications of health damage: First, there is a professional statement from a treating therapist. Second, there is a long-term physical risk — according to EU Directive 1999/77/EG, there is no threshold below which chrysotile asbestos is not associated with cancer risk. During grinding work, approximately 1.2–1.5 million asbestos fibers per cubic meter of room air were released. Mesothelioma risk manifests itself only after 20–40 years.

Additionally: The Berlin Regional Court (Judgment of 17.01.2018, Case no. 18 S 140/16) ruled in a comparable case that the landlord is liable because he "did not timely warn of the health hazards posed by asbestos-containing materials". RA Dr. Schüttpelz already referred to this judgment in the criminal complaint. If even a civil court acknowledges health hazards, the criminal justice statement of "no substantial injuries" is all the more questionable.

Assessment: The prosecutor downplays the danger. The file itself contains a therapist's statement, asbestos exposure with long-term cancer risk, and relevant civil case law. By this logic, there is no substantial injury as long as you're not terminally ill.

The investigation file itself contains evidence to the contrary:

17,000 degewo apartments are suspected of asbestos contamination (Berliner Woche, 18.12.2018, in file pages 101ff). degewo is a state-owned company — it belongs to the state of Berlin.

As early as 2000, the Berlin Senate confirmed in Minor Inquiry No. 14/219: 14,400 degewo apartments with asbestos-containing flexboard panels. This document is in the file (page 49).

An ARD Contraste documentary (16.01.2020) and reporting by Berliner Woche and Berliner Zeitung documented the case publicly.

Assessment: A state-owned housing company that knowingly withholds an asbestos hazard from at least 17,000 tenants is not "a matter of public concern"? The police collected these documents. The prosecutor ignored them.

The General Prosecutor argues: Because health impairments arose only after learning about the asbestos exposure, they may not be attributable to the offense.

The causal chain is clear: (1) degewo conceals asbestos → (2) tenant grinds asbestos-containing adhesive without protection → (3) tenant learns years later of the exposure → (4) health impairments from knowledge of long-term risk. Without the negligent omission in step 1, there would be no step 4.

Assessment: The General Prosecutor's argument means: If you are poisoned but only learn about it later, your suffering doesn't count. It severs the offense (asbestos exposure through omission) from its consequence (health impairments) and declares the connection questionable. This is like saying: Trauma from a car accident is not attributable to the accident's cause, because it occurred after the impact.

Six weeks after this report, the prosecutor discontinues the case. The one-sided discontinuance decision does not address the police report at all. No engagement with the "worst-case scenario" assessment. No explanation for why there is no public interest despite maximum danger.

Assessment: The police invested three months in solid investigation. Witness interviews, register searches, commercial registry extracts, analysis of civil files. The result: clear documentation of maximum health hazard. The prosecutor dismisses it with a single paragraph.

The criminal complaint was directed against "unknown responsible business representatives at DEGEWO" — plural, not singular. The police investigated multiple persons involved: Kerstin Urbanowicz (agreement for structural modifications, 04.02.2012), Ingrid Kleinecke (Customer Service North, 2018), Kai Bauschke (maintenance).

Since 2005, Christoph Beck has been continuously listed as Managing Director of degewo AG in the commercial register. The police requested the commercial register extract (27 pages, pages 116–142). Organizational responsibility was never examined.

Assessment: The criminal complaint targets systemic failure of a state-owned company. The prosecutor reduces it to a single person — then discontinues even that person's case. The question of organizational responsibility, the internal chain of command, and management liability is never raised.

Prosecutor Falkenstein: A one-sided discontinuance decision. No independent interview. No questioning of degewo. No engagement with the police report. No examination of organizational responsibility. No assessment of 17,000 affected apartments.

Assessment: The investigation file reveals two different organizational cultures. The police treat the case as what it is: a potential environmental crime with substantial health hazard. The prosecutor treats it as a file to be closed.