Dangerous threat under Section 107 StGB: when a threat becomes a criminal offence

The dangerous threat under Section 107 StGB covers whoever threatens another with a dangerous threat at least with the intent of putting them in fear and unease. It is an ex-officio offence prosecuted by the authorities. What is protected is the individual’s peace of mind, that is, the trust in being spared dangerous threats.

What is decisive is not whether the threatened person actually becomes afraid, but that the perpetrator acts with the intent of putting them in fear and unease. Nor must the threatened harm be seriously intended; it suffices that the impression is created that the perpetrator is willing and able to bring about the harm.

From a legal perspective, a close look at the statement and its context is important. Whether a statement is to be regarded as a dangerous threat follows from its content and the circumstances.

The definition of a dangerous threat is set out in Section 74(1)(5) StGB. According to this, a dangerous threat is a threat of an injury to the body, to freedom, to honour, to property, or of a violation of the sphere of privacy by making accessible, disclosing or publishing image or sound recordings, which is capable of giving the threatened person well-founded concern, having regard to the circumstances and their personal disposition or the importance of the threatened harm.

The threatened injury must therefore be directed against particular legal interests. In addition, the threat must be capable of giving rise to well-founded concern. This capacity is assessed by an objective-individual standard that takes account of the concrete situation and the person of the threatened party.

From a legal perspective, the capacity to give rise to well-founded concern is often the central point of examination. Here it is decided whether a statement crosses the threshold to a dangerous threat.

A threat is only dangerous if it is capable of giving the threatened person well-founded concern. This is assessed by whether a reasonable person in the position of the threatened party could gain the impression that the perpetrator was willing and able to realise the threatened harm.

The circumstances are decisive here. A recognisably non-serious statement, a mere expression of displeasure or a milieu-related forceful turn of phrase may be assessed differently depending on the context. What is decisive is the overall impression from content, tone and situation.

From a legal perspective, a precise reconstruction of the situation is worthwhile. For both the threatened and the accused person, what matters is how the statement was to be understood in the concrete context.

The basic offence of dangerous threat under Section 107(1) StGB is punishable by a custodial sentence of up to one year or by a fine of up to 720 daily rates. The simple dangerous threat is thus among the misdemeanours with a comparatively mild basic penalty range.

For particularly serious cases, Section 107(2) StGB provides for an increased penalty range of a custodial sentence of up to three years. This applies, among other things, where the perpetrator threatens death, a considerable mutilation or a conspicuous disfigurement, an abduction, an arson, an endangerment through nuclear energy, ionising radiation or explosives, or the destruction of economic existence or social standing, or continues the threat over a longer period.

From a legal perspective, the classification under the basic offence or a qualification is of considerable significance for the possible penalty. It influences the range within which a penalty may move.

The dangerous threat is to be distinguished from coercion under Section 105 StGB. In coercion, the threat or force is used to compel another person to an act, acquiescence or omission. The dangerous threat, by contrast, requires no particular coerced conduct; the intent to put the other person in fear and unease suffices.

The dangerous threat differs from persistent pursuit under Section 107a StGB in that the latter covers a continued pursuit that unreasonably interferes with the victim’s conduct of life. Where threats are repeated over a longer period, both offences may come into consideration alongside each other.

From a legal perspective, the clean assignment is decisive because the applicable offence and the penalty range follow from it. With persistent interference, documentation of the individual incidents is particularly important.

Where an investigation is running against someone for a dangerous threat, two questions stand at the centre: whether the statement was a dangerous threat within the meaning of the law and whether it was capable of giving rise to well-founded concern. Both questions can only be answered from the concrete context.

From a legal perspective, it is important to prepare the context of the statement early and in full. Tone, situation, the relationship of those involved and the wording shape the assessment. A careful presentation can make the difference between a punishable threat and an unpunishable expression of displeasure.