Color attack on the Brandenburg Gate: Why a court must acquit climate radicals

A spectacular verdict has caused a stir in Berlin: Lilli Gomez, the climate activist who sprayed the Brandenburg Gate with paint together with accomplices, was acquitted. The public prosecutor's office had been looking forward to a high fine for her, but the court decided otherwise. What is behind this acquittal? And what does it mean for future climate protests?

The action at the Brandenburg Gate: an attack on the landmark or a harmless prank?

It was November 16, 2023, when Lilli Gomez and her fellow campaigners in Berlin wanted to "beautify" the world-famous Brandenburg Gate. They daubed the historic monument's sandstone pillars with orange paint - an act that further inflamed the already tense public discourse on climate protests. However, the acquittal is not just to do with the "fact" that the Brandenburg Gate is protected as a monument. The circumstances of the crime also played a decisive role: the gate was covered in scaffolding at the time and the paint could be removed within seconds by a cleaning company.

No "permanent" damage - What does this mean for the accusation of damage to property?

The district judge emphasized that the accusation of damage to property was not applicable in this case. Although the Brandenburg Gate had been temporarily defaced by the paint attack, it could not be said to have been permanently damaged, as the paint could be removed again within a very short time. The lack of an "element of intent" - i.e. the intention to permanently damage the monument - was the decisive reason for the court's acquittal. For the climate activists, the attack on the Brandenburg Gate was less an act of destruction than an attempt to attract attention. The action was aimed at effectiveness and not damage.

The acquittal as a sign for the climate movement: What does it mean for future action?

The court's decision raises the question: What consequences should climate activists expect for such actions? The acquittal is causing widespread debate. Critics accuse the court of trivializing the actions of the climate radicals and rewarding the protest. On the other hand, the question arises as to whether the more radical protest methods can have any lasting effect at all if they are associated with little to no legal consequences.

It can be assumed that this decision could open the door to further, similar actions in which climate activists draw attention to themselves with symbolic paint attacks or short-term blockades. Even if such acts do not cause any lasting damage, they pose a major risk that public protest against climate change will increasingly be perceived as "vandalism" - and no longer as a political movement to be taken seriously.

Acquittal is problematic

The acquittal of Lilli Gomez is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it could be said that the case was rightly not classified as serious damage to property. On the other hand, it shows that radical forms of protest are increasingly being waved through as "harmless" - even if they continue to cause a lot of unrest. The question arises as to whether this acquittal is really a solution or whether it is not just an invitation for further extreme actions. The law should act clearly and unambiguously - even in such cases.