The slap in the face that Fat Comedy gave Oliver Pocher in 2022 was short and no doubt painful: at an event in Dortmund’s Westfalenhalle, the rapper hit the comedian in the face out of nowhere. The punishment for the rapper, whose real name is Giuseppe Sumrain, took a little longer, but was presumably also painful: Frankfurt Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) sentenced him to twelve days of administrative detention in its ruling of July 22, 2025 (case ID: 16 W 29/25 and 16 W 31/25).
Fat Comedy was initially sentenced under civil law to pay 5,000 euros in damages and 45,000 euros in compensation for violation of personal rights, as he had distributed video recordings of the incident despite being ordered to cease and desist. He was later fined 15 euros a day for 120 days for assault.
Sumrain had previously been prohibited from publishing recordings of the slap and other related posts in a civil law injunction. This ban was underpinned by the threat of coercive measures. This was later followed by a judgment by confession, which reconfirmed the injunction obligations.
In May 2024, Oliver Pocher applied for the rapper to be held in administrative detention because he had posted further recordings of the attack on social media despite bans ordered by the court. Frankfurt Regional Court (Landgericht) initially rejected the motion, but the immediate appeal to Frankfurt Higher Regional Court was successful. Through two rulings on coercive measures, it was decided that Sumrain would have to serve a total sentence of twelve days – split into two days for the first decision and ten days for the second.
Administrative detention instead of an administrative fine
In civil law, administrative detention is a measure for “enforcing omissions and tolerances” alongside an administrative fine. Both measures serve a dual purpose, as Frankfurt Higher Regional Court also emphasizes with reference to the highest judicial authority. On the one hand, they serve as civil law deterrents to prevent future infringements, and on the other hand they have a repressive, punitive character that sanctions past offences.
According to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), various factors must be taken into account when determining the coercive measures to be applied: the nature, extent, and duration of the infringement, the degree of fault, the economic benefit to the judgment debtor from the infringement, and the potential danger of further infringements. Another key aspect is that it should not be economically worthwhile for the judgment debtor to violate the order.
The respective court decides which of the two coercive measures is applied. It is irrelevant whether an administrative fine is first imposed before administrative detention can be ordered. However, administrative detention may only be used as a primary measure if an administrative fine is not sufficient to deter the judgment debtor from committing further infringements. As the 16th Civil Senate of Frankfurt Higher Regional Court emphasized, the imposition of administrative detention can be justified in particular if the judgment debtor’s behavior shows that even the imposition and enforcement of an administrative fine does not have a deterrent effect. This was the case here: the Court considered it imperative to impose a coercive measure. Although the sentence of twelve days’ administrative detention is at the lower end of what is legally possible – the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) allows between one day and six months per offence – the circumstances justified this measure in the Court’s opinion.
Milder measures ineffective
According to the Court, the rapper used the recordings “to increase his own media popularity and to continuously perpetuate the humiliation of the judgment creditor”. The judges made it clear that the dual purpose of the coercive measure – prevention and sanction – could not be achieved by a mere administrative fine and that Sumrain had shown that he could not be deterred from violating the injunctions without significant measures. The Senate emphasized that the sanctioning idea behind the coercive measures under the German Code of Civil Procedure could in this case, “by way of exception, only be fulfilled by administrative detention”.
Sumrain’s public behavior was also a key factor in the decision. He had presented himself as destitute and even openly boasted of evading enforcement attempts. Oliver Pocher was able to prove that earlier measures – for example to collect financial compensation – had been unsuccessful. In an interview, the rapper also stated that he had debts totaling over 150,000 euros and was not living at his registered address in order to avoid enforcement attempts.
Frankfurt Regional Court had originally argued that in the event of non-payment of an administrative fine, administrative detention would apply. The Higher Regional Court took a different view: given the fact that Sumrain had already publicly announced his intention to evade further enforcement measures, such an approach would only lead to a delay. The Court therefore decided to impose administrative detention directly and skip the administrative fine beforehand, as the situation would have resulted in this measure anyway.
Sanction and prevention
The ruling by Frankfurt Higher Regional Court in the lawsuit against the rapper Fat Comedy clearly shows the consequences of repeated disregard of injunctions and the deliberate circumvention of enforcement measures. The decision to order direct administrative detention underscores the dual purpose of such measures: to have a preventive effect and to sanction past offences. The case is an example of how the judiciary is prepared to take tougher action if milder measures such as administrative fines are ineffective. Ultimately, this serves not only to protect the rights of the victim, but also to enforce the law.
Picture credits: vichie81_AdobeStock.com
