Filing a Strafanzeige in Germany: How a Criminal Report Works and What Follows

Two German words sit behind the English phrase filing a report, and they are not interchangeable. A Strafanzeige is the act of telling the authorities that an offence appears to have been committed. A Strafantrag is a formal request that a particular offence be prosecuted, and for a whole category of offences the prosecution cannot proceed without one.

Confusing them is the most common and the most expensive mistake in this area, because the Strafantrag carries a deadline. § 77b Abs. 1 StGB sets it at three months, and once it expires the offence is no longer prosecutable as an Antragsdelikt, regardless of how strong the evidence is.

The second thing worth knowing before anything else is what a report does and does not set in motion. It opens a state investigation run by the Staatsanwaltschaft. It does not open a compensation claim, it does not give the person who reported control of the case, and it does not make that person a party to it.

This page sets out the difference between the two instruments, where a report may be filed under § 158 StPO, what the Staatsanwaltschaft does with it, the routes by which a case is discontinued, the review procedure against a discontinuation, and the offences that exist for reporting something that did not happen.

Information last verified on 20 July 2026. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

Strafanzeige and Strafantrag are two different things

A Strafanzeige is a factual communication. It tells a state body that circumstances exist which may amount to a criminal offence. There is no requirement that the person reporting is the victim, no requirement that they can prove anything, and no restriction on who may do it.

A Strafantrag is a legal declaration. It says that the person entitled to make it wants the offence prosecuted. It matters only for the group of offences that German law makes prosecutable on application, the Antragsdelikte, and for those the request is a condition of prosecution rather than a courtesy.

§ 158 Abs. 2 StPO reflects that difference in the paperwork. For offences prosecuted only on application, the identity of the applicant and their intention to see the matter pursued must be established. A vague statement of unhappiness is not a Strafantrag.

Which offences fall into the category is set by the individual provisions of the StGB rather than by a single list. § 194 Abs. 1 StGB makes Beleidigung an application offence. § 230 Abs. 1 StGB does the same for intentional and negligent Körperverletzung, unless the prosecuting authority considers intervention of its own motion to be called for because of a special public interest.

The three month deadline in § 77b StGB

§ 77b Abs. 1 StGB is short and unforgiving. An offence prosecutable only on application is not prosecuted if the person entitled to apply fails to do so within three months. Where the last day falls on a Sunday, a public holiday or a Saturday, the period ends at the close of the next working day.

The start date is the point most often misread. § 77b Abs. 2 StGB provides that the period begins at the end of the day on which the entitled person acquires knowledge of the offence and of the person of the offender. Knowledge of the act alone is not enough, and neither is suspicion about who did it.

§ 77 Abs. 1 StGB identifies who may apply, which is in principle the person injured by the offence. § 77 Abs. 4 StGB adds that where several people are entitled, each may apply independently, and § 77b Abs. 3 StGB confirms that the period runs separately for and against each entitled person and each participant in the offence.

A worked example of the timing

Take a resident of Hamburg whose neighbour damages her car on 3 March. She discovers the damage on 5 March but has no idea who caused it. On 20 April a neighbour tells her that he saw who did it and names him.

The three month period does not run from 3 March, and it does not run from 5 March either. Under § 77b Abs. 2 StGB it begins at the end of 20 April, the day she learned both the offence and the identity of the person, and it therefore ends on 20 July. Sachbeschädigung under § 303 StGB is prosecuted on application under § 303c StGB, unless the prosecuting authority considers intervention of its own motion to be called for because of a special public interest, so the date matters.

Change the facts slightly and the arithmetic changes with them. If she had recognised the person on 5 March, the period would have started that evening and expired on 5 June, six weeks earlier than in the first version. Nothing about the damage itself is different.

Where and how a report is filed

§ 158 Abs. 1 StPO names three venues. A Strafanzeige and a Strafantrag may be lodged with the Staatsanwaltschaft, with the authorities and officers of the police service, or with the Amtsgericht. All three are equivalent for the purpose of making the filing effective.

The same provision imposes duties on whichever office receives it. The report has to be recorded in a protocol or documented in some other way. A victim who asks is given written confirmation of receipt, which should contain a short summary of what they said about the time, the place and the offence reported.

That confirmation is not unconditional. § 158 Abs. 1 Satz 5 StPO allows it to be withheld so far as the purpose of the investigation, including an investigation in a different case, would appear to be endangered.

Language is dealt with expressly, which matters for a population that includes a great many non German speakers. § 158 Abs. 4 StPO provides that a victim who does not speak German receives the assistance needed to make the report in a language they understand, and that the written confirmation is translated on request.

Most Länder police forces also operate an online reporting portal, an Onlinewache. Policing in Germany is a matter for the Länder, so each force runs its own, and the federal police portal maintained by the Bundeskriminalamt links to them. Those portals carry a standing warning that they are not suitable for emergencies, where the number to call is 110.

There is one further route for offences committed in another EU member state. Under § 158 Abs. 3 StPO, where a victim resident in Germany reports an offence committed elsewhere in the Union, the Staatsanwaltschaft forwards the report to the competent authority of that state on the victim's application, in the circumstances set out there.

What happens after the report

§ 160 Abs. 1 StPO sets the machinery going. As soon as the Staatsanwaltschaft learns of a suspected offence, whether through a report or by any other route, it must investigate the facts in order to decide whether to bring a public charge.

The investigation is not one sided. § 160 Abs. 2 StPO requires the Staatsanwaltschaft to establish not only the circumstances that tell against the accused but also those that tell in their favour, and to secure evidence that risks being lost. § 160 Abs. 3 StPO extends the enquiry to circumstances relevant to the legal consequences of the offence.

This is the structural point that surprises people arriving from an adversarial system. The person who filed the report is a witness and, if they were the victim, a person with procedural rights. They are not the prosecutor, they do not instruct anyone, and they cannot withdraw a Strafanzeige in the sense of ending the case, because the state is now investigating on its own account.

A Strafantrag is a different matter, since it is a condition of prosecution for the offences that require it. Withdrawal is governed by § 77d Abs. 1 StGB, and it is squarely the applicant’s own decision: the application may be withdrawn at any time up to the final conclusion of the proceedings, and once withdrawn it cannot be made again. What withdrawal does not always achieve is an end to the case, because on offences such as those in § 230 and § 303c StGB the prosecution may still proceed where it finds a besonderes öffentliches Interesse in doing so.

Victims have information rights that have to be asked for. § 406d Abs. 1 StPO provides that on application the victim is told about the discontinuation of proceedings, the place and time of the main hearing and the charges brought, and the outcome of the court proceedings. § 406d Abs. 2 StPO covers information about custodial measures and about no contact directions in the circumstances listed there.

How cases end

§ 170 StPO sets out the basic fork. Where the investigation offers sufficient grounds for a public charge, § 170 Abs. 1 StPO requires the Staatsanwaltschaft to bring one by filing an Anklageschrift with the competent court. Otherwise § 170 Abs. 2 StPO requires it to discontinue the proceedings.

Discontinuation for lack of grounds is not the only route out. § 153 Abs. 1 StPO allows the Staatsanwaltschaft, with the consent of the court competent to open the main proceedings, to refrain from prosecuting a Vergehen where the offender's guilt would be regarded as minor and there is no public interest in prosecution. Court consent is not needed for a Vergehen without a raised minimum penalty where the consequences of the act are minor.

§ 153a StPO is the version with conditions attached. With the consent of the court and of the accused, the Staatsanwaltschaft may provisionally refrain from charging and impose Auflagen and Weisungen, which the provision lists as including compensation for the damage caused, a payment to a charitable body or to the state treasury, other community work, maintenance payments, a serious effort at a Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich, attendance at a social training course, and, in traffic cases, attendance at a Fahreignungsseminar under § 4a StVG.

The deadlines for compliance are in the provision itself: at most six months for the items in § 153a Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 1 bis 3, 5 und 7 StPO, and at most one year for those in Nr. 4, 6 und 8. If the accused complies, the act can no longer be prosecuted as a Vergehen.

Where the Staatsanwaltschaft discontinues, § 171 StPO requires it to notify the applicant with reasons. Where that applicant is also the victim, the notification must include instruction about the possibility of challenge and the period allowed for it.

The Klageerzwingungsverfahren

§ 172 StPO is the review mechanism, and it runs in two stages with two different deadlines.

The first stage is a Beschwerde to the superior officer of the Staatsanwaltschaft, available under § 172 Abs. 1 StPO to an applicant who is also the victim, within two weeks of notification of the § 171 StPO decision. Lodging it with the Staatsanwaltschaft preserves the deadline. If the required instruction was not given, the period does not run at all.

The second stage is an application to the court. Under § 172 Abs. 2 StPO the applicant may apply for a judicial decision within one month of notification of the superior officer's refusal, and § 172 Abs. 4 StPO gives jurisdiction to the Oberlandesgericht.

The formal requirements at that stage are strict. § 172 Abs. 3 StPO requires the application to set out the facts said to justify bringing a public charge and the evidence, and it must be signed by a Rechtsanwalt. Legal aid follows the rules applicable in civil disputes.

There are significant exclusions. The application is not admissible where the proceedings concern exclusively an offence the victim can pursue by Privatklage, or where the Staatsanwaltschaft refrained from prosecution under § 153 Abs. 1, § 153a Abs. 1 Satz 1 oder 7, or § 153b Abs. 1 StPO. The same applies in the cases of §§ 153c bis 154 Abs. 1 and of §§ 154b and 154c StPO.

Privatklage: the offences the victim can pursue directly

§ 374 Abs. 1 StPO lists offences a victim may prosecute by way of Privatklage without first approaching the Staatsanwaltschaft. The list includes Hausfriedensbruch under § 123 StGB, Beleidigung under §§ 185 bis 189 StGB subject to the exception there, the image offences under § 201a Abs. 1 und 2 StGB, Verletzung des Briefgeheimnisses under § 202 StGB, Körperverletzung under §§ 223 und 229 StGB, Nötigung under § 240 Abs. 1 bis 3 StGB and Bedrohung under § 241 Abs. 1 bis 3 StGB, and Sachbeschädigung under § 303 StGB, along with several commercial and intellectual property offences.

§ 376 StPO explains why so many reports about these offences come back as a referral to the Privatklage route. For the offences listed in § 374 StPO the Staatsanwaltschaft brings a public charge only where that lies in the public interest.

The practical consequence is that a report about a minor insult or a minor assault between private individuals frequently ends with the Staatsanwaltschaft declining to prosecute and pointing the victim to the Privatklage. That is a discontinuation the Klageerzwingungsverfahren cannot be used against, because § 172 Abs. 2 StPO excludes it for Privatklage offences.

Filing is not a route to compensation

This deserves stating plainly, because a great deal of disappointment in German criminal practice comes from the opposite assumption. A criminal investigation is about whether the state punishes someone. It is not a claim for money and it does not produce one by default.

There is a bridge between the two, but it is narrow and it has to be used deliberately. § 403 StPO allows the victim or their heir to pursue a pecuniary claim arising from the offence within the criminal proceedings, provided the claim falls to the ordinary courts and is not already pending elsewhere, and before the Amtsgericht regardless of the value in dispute. That is the Adhäsionsverfahren.

Outside that route, a civil claim runs on its own track, on its own limitation periods and at the claimant's own risk as to costs. The fact that a Staatsanwaltschaft discontinued a case, or that a court convicted, does not by itself resolve a civil claim.

False reporting: § 164 and § 145d StGB

The counterweight to an open reporting system is that knowingly false reporting is itself an offence, and German law splits it into two.

§ 164 Abs. 1 StGB deals with falsely accusing a person. It applies where someone, against their better knowledge, casts suspicion on another before an authority, before an official competent to receive reports, before a military superior, or publicly, of an unlawful act or of a breach of official duty, with the intention of bringing about or continuing official proceedings or measures against them. The penalty is imprisonment of up to five years or a fine.

§ 164 Abs. 2 StGB extends that to making, with the same intention and before the same bodies or publicly, some other factual assertion against better knowledge that is capable of bringing about or continuing official proceedings or measures against the person.

§ 145d StGB covers the version with no named target. It applies where a person, against better knowledge, pretends to an authority or to a body competent to receive reports that an unlawful act has been committed, or that one of the offences named in § 126 Abs. 1 StGB is imminent, and it carries imprisonment of up to three years or a fine where the act is not already punishable under § 164, § 258 or § 258a StGB.

Both provisions turn on knowledge. They are drafted around a person who knows the accusation is untrue, which is a different thing from a report that turns out to be mistaken or that the Staatsanwaltschaft cannot substantiate.

For related material on the German criminal system, see the Führungszeugnis and self-defence under § 32 StGB, and for the wider guide see German criminal law and Germany.