Higher Regional Court (OLG) - Zweibrücken, Judgment as of 7/1/2010
File number 4 U 7 /10

Summary

The review court in civil proceedings ruled that the civil court of first instance was allowed to base its award of damages for pain and suffering for rape in conjunction with human trafficking solely on the criminal judgment against the perpetrators.
It also ruled that the injured party was allowed to pursue proceedings for damages for pain and suffering without having to state her address as she had been placed in a witness protection programme.
The defendant was initially convicted by a criminal court of two counts of rape and serious human trafficking and sentenced to imprisonment for nine years and ten months.
After this, the plaintiff sued for damages for pain and suffering on account of this crime and was awarded EUR 20,000 by the civil court. The civil court, in the oral hearing, reviewed the facts and the law with the parties, declared the files of the public prosecutor to be an integral part of the proceedings, and then based its decision on these. The civil court supported its decision in part on the fact that it had no doubt as to the truth of the statements made by the injured party in the criminal proceedings regarding the rape and the human trafficking.
The defendant lodged an appeal to the review court against the order to pay damages for pain and suffering. He complained that the civil court of first instance had supported its decision against him solely on the criminal files without judging the crime and the evidence itself.

The review court held that the civil court was allowed to form its opinion about the factual events largely on the basis of the criminal judgment. The court set out in detail why this was so, i.e. because the taking and weighing of the evidence by the criminal court had been done carefully. The court in the criminal proceedings had thoroughly and carefully examined the testimony of the injured party in accordance with all of the criteria developed by the courts, such as logic, details, and consistency, in order to determine whether it was what she had experienced. There was also nothing that cast any doubt on the truth of the incriminating statements. There was nothing peculiar about the testimony, so that there was no need in the opinion of the court to obtain an export opinion on the witness’s credibility.

Decision in full text: