The court sharply criticizes the district office of Starnberg: the food process has been discontinued

Created: 06/14/2022, 05:00 p.m

By: Stephan Müller-Wendlandt

The work of food inspectors was recently a topic at the Starnberg district court (symbolic photo).

© dpa / Uwe Anspach

The district court discontinued a procedure in which it was about intolerable conditions in a gastronomic business - and at the same time sharply criticized the practice of the district office.

Starnberg – Stephanie Henninger spoke of a “giant mess”.

The judge at the Starnberg District Court did not just mean the sometimes disgusting abuses in a gastronomic establishment in Starnberg.

Henninger was not at all amused about the administrative fine procedure.

In an almost 90-minute legal argument with the defendant's defense attorney, she was persuaded to discontinue the proceedings for administrative offenses against the Food and Commodities Act.

In June 2019, the food monitoring department at the district office found around 150 violations during an inspection of the restaurant.

It was about outdated food - a rotten ham was shown in the photo and there was talk of spoiled tuna that could have ended up on a pizza.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

And it was about serious structural defects in the kitchen and storage area.

It was only a year and a half later, in December 2020, that the district office sent out three fine notices at intervals of ten days.

The addressee was the person in whose name the restaurant operating license was issued.

He lodged an objection to the decisions, which is why he should now answer before the district court.

In order to avoid a potentially time-consuming process, the defense attorney for the 57-year-old restaurateur, attorney Percy Rönnberg, tried to convince the judge of the legal problem.

The regulatory authority disregarded the principle of uniformity of offenses by dividing the abuses into three fines.

This is tantamount to multiple punishment, which is not constitutionally permissible.

In addition, his mandate was wrongly taken into account.

At that time he was responsible for the event area in the operating company.

The manager and the chef were responsible for the restaurant.

Defender teaches judge

The judge initially contradicted the defense attorney's arguments and had to be told that her legal assessment was "relatively lonely."

Rönnberg referred to various relevant legal comments that he had consulted in preparation for the hearing.

Henninger interrupted the session to read a comment made by the defense attorney.

After that, it wasn't long before the judge called the case dismissed for the most reasonable alternative.

She cited three aspects for this decision: the act took place three years ago and there have been no more complaints during controls since then.

The defendant is not in the first link in the chain of responsibility.

The decisive factor for her, however, is the legal problem – the inadmissible double punishment.

Henninger made the injustice clear with a comparison: A driver is flashed for speeding and receives a fine notice.

The competent authority also recognizes that he has not kept the safety distance and imposes a second fine on him.

On third inspection, the investigators see the unfastened seat belt.

The third fine is due.

"Of course that's not possible," commented Henninger and earned the defender's thanks.