In brief

The bill of indictment turns an investigation into court proceedings. In the intermediate stage the court then examines whether to admit the charge to a main hearing. A surprising amount can still be achieved at this point.

The prosecutor brings charges where the investigation provides sufficient grounds (Section 170(1) StPO). What the bill must contain is set out in Section 200 StPO: the accused, the offence with time and place, its statutory elements, the provisions to be applied, the evidence, the competent court and defence counsel. The essential result of the investigation is added. In charges before a single judge it may be omitted, and it usually is.

The first part, the charge itself, determines what will be tried. A conviction is only possible for the offence charged. If the court intends a different legal assessment, Section 265 StPO requires it to say so in advance.

The intermediate stage

Once the bill arrives, the court serves it on the accused and sets a period within which evidence may be requested or objections to opening the trial raised (Section 201 StPO). The period is short, in practice usually one to two weeks. With defence counsel it can generally be extended if access to the file is still pending.

The court opens main proceedings only if it considers the accused sufficiently suspected on the results of the investigation (Section 203 StPO). If it refuses, the case is over, although the prosecutor may lodge an immediate appeal. If it admits the charge, it issues an opening decision that the defendant cannot challenge (Section 210(1) StPO).

What we do with an indictment

An indictment does not end the room for negotiation. During the intermediate stage the court may discontinue proceedings under Section 153(2) or Section 153a(2) StPO with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused. That is often the right moment to suggest a dismissal subject to conditions, before a main hearing with witnesses is scheduled. In other cases we show the court that sufficient suspicion is lacking, for example because a key witness has contradicted himself. And sometimes the jurisdiction is simply wrong, for instance when a case has been charged before the lay assessor court rather than a single judge.

General explanation, not advice on an individual case. As of November 2026.