February 13th 2001
As soon as he was notified his sentence, Dr Krombach had referred the matter to The European Court of Human Rights. The French legislation of trial in absentia being considered inequitable, France is condemned to pay him 100.000 F. A. Bamberski demands that France should ask for the transfer of this decision to the Great Chamber.
January 18th 2002
André Bamberski asks France to block the 100.000 F owed to Dr Grombach, since the latter has never paid him (A. Bamberski) the sums allocated to him by the Assize Court of Paris. But on January 18th 2002, the Paris Court “of Grande instance” decides to reject A. Bamberski’s request, on the grounds that the judgement of the Paris Assize Court of March 13th 1995 was sanctioned by the European court of Human Rights, and can no longer be considered an enforceable decision.
April 2nd 2002
In spite of many requests for the re-examination of the 1995 trial (the necessity of this re-examination been obvious since this trial was sanctioned by Europe), the Minister of Justice, in a restrictive interpretation of article 626 which in fact leaves this possibility open, refuses to ask for the re-examination of D. Krombach‘s trial.
André Bamberski brings an “action against persons unknown”, in which he implicates in particular three senior French judges. The complaint refers especially to a report in which Krombach ’s counsel writes that the Paris “parquet” (public prosecutor’s department) gave him the assurance that the sentence would not be enforced”. André Bamberski shows that such was the case.
Notified with all necessary details by the German police that Dieter Krombach is going to Egypt, France abstains from having him arrested.
France transfers the whole case to Germany “for the purpose of prosecution”.
The reply of the judge to André Bamberski‘s complaint is nearly a total refusal to investigate. She considers that most of the facts he denounces are “offences” (lapsed) whereas she does not take into account the corruption of judges, which is a “crime” (indefeasible). In June 2003, A. Bamberski appeals against this refusal.
June 1st 2004
The Kempten Prosecutor in charge of the case decides there is no reason for charging Krombach.
June 2nd 2004
The Court of appeal of Versailles grants A. Bamberski‘s request and orders the judge to investigate his complaint against the French authorities.
December 2nd 2004
The French “parquet” (Public Prosecutor’s department) decides to issue the newly created European warrant for arrest against D Krombach.
Germany refuses to extradite D. Krombach on the grounds that the prosecution has been closed.
The action against Krombach stagnates: the second judge appointed to deal with the complaint refuses to conduct most of the investigations and the appeals lodged by A. bamberski are rejected.
November 20th 2006
D. Krombach is emprisoned after a complaint for illegal practice of medicine has been brought before the Prosecutor’s department of Coburg. A national investigation reveals 28 cases of illegal practice in various clinics of Germany, and a complaint for sexual abuse in one of them.
July 16th and 17th 2007
The Trial of D. Krombach is held in Coburg for fraud ( 28 cases ), and illegal practice of medicine ( 19 cases ), the suspicions of sexual abuse are not taken into account. He is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment.
The third judge in charge of the complaint hears 3 senior judges who took part in the trial of 1995 : A. Benmakhlouf, L. Le Mesle, and J.L. Nadal. They do not acknowledge any fault in the fulfilment of their mission.