Pro-Palestine group accused of raiding Elbit factory faces trial in Germany
A German court will begin the trial of five Europeans accused of attacking an Elbit-linked facility in Ulm. Prosecutors seek heavy sentences, while the defense calls it civil disobedience.
Berlin, Germany — A trial of five European nationals accused of attacking a factory linked to Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems is due to start on Monday in Germany, a case that campaigners say could mark another step up in the country’s crackdown on Palestine solidarity activism.
The prosecution alleges that in the early hours of September 8, 2025, the activists entered the Ulm facility, began destroying office equipment, and filmed parts of what they were doing.. Elbit Systems—described by the prosecution as deeply tied to Israel’s war effort—operates the site through a wholly owned subsidiary.. The case has drawn attention because similar attacks on Elbit installations have been reported across Europe, including in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom, where the Palestine Action protest group was formed.
Ulm Five case puts Germany’s protest line under pressure
At the heart of the “Ulm Five” proceedings is the charge set out by the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of Stuttgart.. Prosecutors are pursuing allegations including property damage and, importantly, framing the accused as members of a criminal organisation under Germany’s Section 129.. That legal approach can carry far-reaching consequences for defendants—both in how the case is tried and in the pre-trial conditions they face.
The prosecution is also seeking to persuade the court that the motivations behind the raid were not only political, but include anti-Semitic intentions.. Lawyers for the defendants reject that characterization, saying the actions were meant as an “act of civil disobedience” against conduct they argue violates international law.. The defense also stresses that no one was injured, and that none of the accused used violence against any person.
Isolation conditions raise questions as trial looms
Beyond the alleged damage, the personal toll described by defense lawyers and family members has become a major part of the public debate around the case.. The five activists—holders of Irish, British, Spanish, and German citizenship—have reportedly been held in high-security detention for more than seven months.. According to defense accounts, they have spent up to 23 hours a day in isolation, with strict limits on visitors and monitoring of phone calls.
The defense says one of the accused, 32-year-old Irish national Daniel Tatlow-Devally, faced restrictions on reading material while in custody, including bans on books by authors such as Nelson Mandela.. A court later overturned that restriction.. Tatlow-Devally, who reportedly completed a master’s degree in Berlin while awaiting trial, has expressed worries about his health in a letter read out at a public event in late March.
For his mother, the effect of isolation is the main concern.. She has described the conditions as “torture,” speaking about months without physical contact with another human being.. Meanwhile, defense counsel Benjamin Dusberg argues that the decision to keep the defendants in pretrial detention from the start was unlawful, saying there was no flight risk and that the accused waited for police to arrive.
Why the legal framing matters for civil society
The case also places a spotlight on a broader tension in Germany’s approach to protest.. Section 129—often associated with serious organised crime and historically linked to Prussian-era statutes—has been used in recent years against certain political and climate activism, according to legal observers.. In this matter, prosecutors say the group should be treated as “Palestine Action Germany,” a classification they argue supports harsher detention and prosecutorial choices.
Amnesty International has raised concerns about human rights and rule-of-law risks, warning that equating protest activity with organised crime can chill legitimate civic participation.. Analysts watching the case say the underlying question is not only whether property was damaged, but whether the state is drawing a line that risks criminalising political expression in a way that discourages public engagement.
Germany has faced global scrutiny for its continued arms exports to Israel, with critics arguing that the flow of equipment contributes to the dynamics of the war in Gaza.. That dispute is not limited to politics or courts: campaigners say it is part of a wider social argument about what forms of protest are acceptable when people feel international law is being breached.
Costs, charges, and what may come next
According to the prosecution’s charging papers, the alleged damage included items such as destroyed computers and sanitation facilities, along with graffiti described as red paint at the scene.. Early estimates for the damage were reportedly set at around 200,000 euros, but the prosecution’s current figures are said to exceed one million euros.
Elbit Systems has declined to comment on the case. Meanwhile, the indictment also includes interpretations of slogans and symbols used by activists, including references prosecutors view as anti-Semitic. The defence contests both the intent and the meaning attributed to the statements.
The trial is set to end in July, and it will be held at the Stuttgart-Stammheim location—an address with its own symbolic weight in Germany’s modern history. In the 1970s, it was the site of one of the country’s best-known trials involving the far-left Red Army Faction.
A “reason of state” dispute now in court
Taken together, the legal questions and the custody accounts point to a wider conflict over what Germany will treat as political protest versus criminal conduct—especially in periods when anti-war demonstrations have faced bans, prosecutions, and public controversy.. In the months leading up to the hearing, videos of police violence have circulated widely online, and protests have disrupted events tied to high-profile international figures.
The trial’s start is likely to intensify attention on how the German justice system balances national security concerns, anti-hate enforcement, and the constitutional right to protest.. For the defendants and their supporters, it will determine whether the state’s interpretation of motivation and organisation withstands scrutiny in court.. For observers, it may also shape how future protest cases are prosecuted—both in Germany and across Europe where similar debates over activism and arms supply networks continue to simmer.