The Traunstein Case
The District Court had convicted the defendant of unlicensed cannabis trading in more than a minor quantity and additionally for cultivation. Police found several press-seal bags containing marijuana and hashish, along with several cannabis plants. On the question of personal use, the court merely noted that the defendant had set aside some for personal consumption when needed.
📑 Inhaltsverzeichnis
Bavaria’s Supreme Court describes these findings as remarkably careless. The guilty verdict still stood because the court had supported the resale conclusion with additional evidence. However, the sentencing portion was vacated. The case goes back to a different criminal chamber of the district court for new proceedings.
Why Personal Use Must Be Calculated Out
At first glance, an argument speaks against the effort. Section 34 Paragraph 1 KCanG provides the same sentencing framework for cannabis possession as for trading. Someone skimming the law might consider the distinction unnecessary. Bavaria’s Supreme Court clearly contradicts this interpretation.
Unlawful possession carries less culpability compared to more specific forms of conduct. For this reason, the quantity intended for resale and the personal consumption portion both affect both the legal classification and the weighting of the offense. With daily consumption, as the district court itself had found, a considerable part of the seized amount can be attributed to personal needs. We discuss where exactly the line between legal possession and criminal conduct runs in our article on quantities above the minor threshold, and we’ve compiled the pitfalls for private cultivation in our safer grow overview.
More-Than-Minor Quantity Doesn’t Belong in the Guilty Verdict
The second point of the ruling is systematically at least equally important. Cannabis trading in more-than-minor quantity under Section 34 Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 Number 4 KCanG is not a separate offense. It is an aggravated form of the base crime. The characteristic of more-than-minor quantity therefore belongs to sentencing, not to the guilty verdict itself.
In practice, this means: The additions „unlicensed“ and „in more-than-minor quantity“ had to be struck from the judgment text. The separate conviction for cultivation also fell away. When someone cultivates cannabis to later sell it for profit, they are already engaged in trading. Both elements form a single assessment unit and therefore a single act. The threshold for more-than-minor quantity remains at 7.5 grams of THC—a figure that courts continue to dispute.
What This Ruling Means for Ongoing Cases
The court gives the new chamber a clear mandate. It must determine the personal consumption portion, if necessary through estimation. Afterwards, it must determine the active substance content of the amount intended for trade. For living plants, special rules apply because the THC content varies significantly depending on the degree of maturity.
Only once these figures are established is it clear whether the elevated sentencing framework applies. For those affected, this is far more than a formality, since sentence length and collateral consequences depend on it. How much digital evidence plays a role is shown in our earlier article on chat logs and emails as evidence. What collateral consequences a case can have becomes clear through the example of vehicle confiscation. Our overview of the Cannabis Act describes the broader context of the reform.
What’s most remarkable about this ruling is one thing above all: decriminalization has not lowered the standards for trial courts, but shifted them. Where disputes once centered on controlled substances, they now concern the question of how much of a quantity was legally permitted for use. Exactly this calculation is what the first court failed to perform.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a guilty verdict stand if findings on personal use are missing?
It can stand if other evidence supports the sales charge. In this case, the press-seal packaging and the finding of intended resale were sufficient. For sentencing, however, that wasn’t enough—the court overturned the verdict on that point.
What is the more-than-minor quantity threshold for cannabis?
The Federal Court of Justice has set the threshold for KCanG at 7.5 grams of THC. What matters is the active substance content, not the total weight of the material. What’s decisive is only the portion actually intended for resale.
Can a court estimate the personal consumption portion?
Yes, estimation is permissible and recognized in case law. However, it must be based on comprehensible factors, such as the established daily consumption. A blanket statement without figures is insufficient according to the ruling.
Is cultivation a separate crime alongside trading?
Not if the cultivation serves later profitable resale. Then it forms part of the same trading activity and constitutes a single assessment unit with other portions. An additional conviction for cultivation therefore had to be overturned.
What does this mean for people with legal private cultivation?
The ruling doesn’t change the permitted quantities for private cultivation. However, it shows how important a clean separation between private supply and everything else is. Once quantities are passed on, the protected area is left, and the evidence determines the outcome.
Sollten Gerichte den Eigenbedarf vom Handelsvorwurf abziehen müssen?
Source: Bavarian Supreme State Court, ruling of July 13, 2026, case number 206 StRR 182/26, documented in the blog of attorney Detlef Burhoff.
Branchen-Update
News, Analysen und Reportagen — mehrmals im Monat direkt in dein Postfach.
Folge uns
