A trial opened on April 27 in a high-security Stuttgart court against five activists accused of attacking a German branch of Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems in September 2025. The hearing was halted within minutes after defense lawyers objected that they could not confer confidentially with their clients, who had been placed behind a glass partition.
Elbit Systems is one of Israel’s largest defence contractors and operates subsidiaries in several countries. The company makes drones and communications and command-and-control equipment used by multiple militaries, including parts sold to the German Bundeswehr. Germany is one of Israel’s main arms suppliers.
The five defendants—who hold UK, Irish, German and Spanish citizenship—face charges including trespass, destruction of property, membership of a criminal organization and use of symbols of terrorist organizations. They have been held in separate prisons since their arrest on 8 September 2025 and could face several years in prison if convicted.
Online videos appear to show the activists entering the Elbit subsidiary in Ulm, damaging computers and other technical equipment and spray-painting slogans on the walls, including the phrase “baby killers.” The defence says the activists remained at the site and awaited arrest after security staff called police.
Prosecutors are charging the group under Section 129 of the German Criminal Code, which outlaws forming or belonging to a criminal organization. That provision has been used increasingly against protest movements in recent years and has drawn criticism from rights groups. Amnesty International and others have warned that applying Section 129 to political activism risks equating lawful civic engagement with organized crime.
Stuttgart state prosecutors said they were justified in using Section 129 because the movement known as “Palestine Action Germany,” which they allege the defendants belong to, has been declared a criminal organization by several courts in decisions leading up to the trial. The defence counters that prosecutors have not demonstrated that “Palestine Action Germany” exists as a formal organization.
Defence lawyers plan to argue that the five—referred to in media coverage as the “Ulm 5”—acted to prevent what they describe as participation in atrocities in Gaza and were motivated by a claim of assistance in self-defence. Elbit spokespeople have said the Ulm site produced telecommunications parts sold to the German military. Defence attorney Mathes Breuer, representing defendant Leandra R., said his team has evidence the Ulm research supports drone manufacturing and that components have been delivered to Elbit facilities in Israel; he said this material will be presented at trial.
The hearing took place in the high-security courtroom at the Stammheim prison, the same venue used for the notorious 1970s trial of RAF members. Defence lawyers and some media observers said holding the case there risks presenting the defendants as terrorists. When the hearing began, the 11 defence lawyers refused to sit because their clients were seated behind a glass separator that blocked private conversation. Lawyers said the arrangement violated lawyer–client confidentiality.
Breuer said he had to shout to be heard and that any discussion would have been effectively monitored. After a two-hour recess the judge adjourned the session; the next two court dates were cancelled and a new hearing was scheduled for May 11.
Relatives and partners of the defendants, who have been called the Ulm 5 by supporters and media, say the state is treating them harshly. They complain about lengthy pretrial detention—already over seven months—and what they describe as strict conditions in custody. One partner of a defendant, who identified themself as Josie, said the five targeted property only, did not try to harm people, did not resist arrest and have ties to work or study in Germany that make flight unlikely.
In a statement, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court said the law permits extending pretrial detention beyond six months under certain conditions and that its decision considered a flight risk that would not be sufficiently reduced by bail. The court added that visits and telecommunications require authorization and may be monitored when legal requirements are met. A Stuttgart prosecutor said no special conditions had been requested and that the restrictions in place were standard for pretrial detention under German criminal procedure.
The case comes against a wider backdrop of international scrutiny of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The International Court of Justice has been hearing a case brought by South Africa alleging Israel’s actions amount to genocide, and several UN and rights bodies have described aspects of the conflict in terms used by the plaintiffs. Israel rejects those characterizations.
The trial’s restart and how the confidentiality dispute is resolved remain uncertain; observers and supporters of the defendants are watching for whether the court will alter the courtroom setup or take other steps to address defence concerns before the next scheduled session.