We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Numerous comments have already been published on the verdict of the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of 19 March 2013 (2 BvR 2628/10, 2 BvR 2883/10, 2 BvR 2155/11) regarding the constitutionality of the legal regulations on plea bargaining in criminal proceedings under the central provision of § 257c of the (German Code of Criminal Procedure) (StPO). The assessments range from perplexity, “mixed, but with modestly auspicious overtones” and “provisional legal security” to agreement with the decision, although only “in the approach, but not in every point of the justification.”
1 Fezer, Gerhard, Vom (noch) verfassungsgemäßen Gesetz über den defizitären Vollzug zum verfassungswidrigen Zustand, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung im Stafrecht [HRRS] 117 (2013), available at http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/archiv/13-04/hrrs-4-13.pdf; Christoph Knauer, Die Entscheidung des BVerfG zur strafprozessualen Verständigung—Paukenschlag oder Papiertiger?, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ] 433, 435 (2013); Hans Kudlich, Grenzen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit—die Entscheidung des BVerfG zur strafprozessualen Verständigung, NStZ 379 (2013); Hans Kudlich, Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu den strafprozessualen Absprachen—Konsequenzen für den Gesetzgeber? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 162 (2013) Andreas Mosbacher, Praktische Auswirkungen der Entscheidung des BVerfG zur Verständigung, Neue Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-, Steuer- und Unternehmensstrafrecht [NZWiSt] 201 (2013); Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, Entscheidungsbesprechung zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik [ZIS] 212 (2013), available at http://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2013_4_748.pdf; Thomas Trück, Strafprozessuale Verständigungen auf dem Prüfstand des BVerfG—mehr Fragen als Antworten, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsstrafrecht und Haftung im Unternehmen [ZWH] 169 (2013).Google Scholar
2 Meyer-Goßner: Strafprozessordnung, § 257c marginal note 1 (2003); Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, commentary in Löwe-Rosenberg: Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungesetz, § 257c marginal note 1 (Volker Erb et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar
3 Knauer, supra note 1, at 433.Google Scholar
4 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 218.Google Scholar
5 Peters, rescriptum 131, 136 (2013).Google Scholar
6 Mosbacher, supra note 1.Google Scholar
7 Knauer regards this as the most decisive intervention in the system of the criminal procedure code by the BVerfG. Knauer, supra note 1, at 436. Kudlich speaks of far-reaching criminal procedure statements. Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381. Mosbacher discusses the most problematic and certainly momentous statements of the BVerfG. Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar
8 Stuckenberg, supra note 2, § 257c marginal note. For a summary of the judicial rulings before the BVerfG verdict, see Folker Bittmann, Übersicht über die Rechtsprechung zum Verständigungsgesetz seit 2010, ZWH 260, 260 (2013).Google Scholar
9 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Aug. 28, 1997, 195, 206.Google Scholar
10 Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 13. Describes the establishment of plea bargaining as a step backwards, which eliminated the achievements of the reformed criminal procedure in an unreflective manner.Google Scholar
11 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Mar. 19, 2013, 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 74.Google Scholar
12 Thomas Fischer, commentary in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, § 244 marginal note 30 (C.H. Beck ed., 2013).Google Scholar
13 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Mar. 03, 2005, 40, 47.Google Scholar
14 Ambos, Kai & Ziehn, Pamela, commentary in Strafprozessordnung, § 257c marginal note 22 (Henning Radtke & Olaf Hohmann, eds., 2011); Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 29 e.E., 73.Google Scholar
15 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice], Aug. 28, 1997, 40, 47.Google Scholar
16 Frank Saliger, Absprachen im Strafprozess an den Grenzen der Rechtsfortbildung, Juristische Schulung [JuS] 8 (2006). Saliger's work is referring to: Hans-Joachim Weider, Strafprozessuale Vergleich 540 (2000); Peter Rieß, NStZ 99 (2000); Thomas Weigend, Eine Prozessordnung für abgesprochene Urteile, NStZ 57, 59 (1999).Google Scholar
17 Id. Google Scholar
18 Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Mar. 03, 2005, 40, 63. See also, Gerd Pfeiffer & Rolf Hannich, commentary in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, marginal note 29h (C.H. Beck ed., 2008).Google Scholar
19 Petra Velten, commentary in Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, §§ 257b–257c ff. marginal note 10 (2012).Google Scholar
20 Karsten Altenhain, Ina Hagemeier & Michael Haimerl, Die Vorschläge zur gesetzlichen Regelung der Urteilabsprachen im Lichte aktuelle rechstatsächlicher Erkentnisse, NStZ 71, 72 (2007). For this study interviews were conducted with 142 lawyers specializing in commercial criminal law in the period from May to October 2005 on their experience with sentence plea bargaining. All the presiding judges of the Commercial Crime Courts in North Rhine Westphalia and 50 public prosecutors selected at random with commercial criminal law departments and specialist lawyers with experience in commercial criminal law. They were all surveyed in an anonymized form on plea bargain practice and in particular asked whether and to what extent the guidelines of the BGH had been implemented.Google Scholar
21 Velten, supra note 19.Google Scholar
22 Altenhain, Hagemeier & Haimerl, supra note 20, at 76, n.55Google Scholar
23 Id. at 76Google Scholar
24 Id. Google Scholar
25 Id. at 73.Google Scholar
26 Id. at 77.Google Scholar
27 Id. Google Scholar
28 Id. at 72.Google Scholar
29 Id. Google Scholar
30 Meyer-Gossner: Strafprozessordnung, supra note 2, at marginal note 3.Google Scholar
31 Id. at marginal note 13 f.Google Scholar
32 Id. at marginal note 12; Gerwin Moldenhauer, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht 250 (Carsten Momsen, Thomas Grützner & Karsten Altenhain et. al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar
33 Meyer-Goßner: Strafprozessordnung, supra note 2, at marginal note 16; Moldenhauer, supra note 32, at 251; Pfeiffer & Hannich, supra note 18, Introduction, marginal note 29g.Google Scholar
34 See Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 38 f.Google Scholar
35 Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren [BT] 16/11736, 11, available at http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/123/1612310.pdf.Google Scholar
36 Meyer-Gossner: Strafprozessordnung, supra note 2, at marginal note 16.Google Scholar
37 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 48. For this purpose a total of 190 judges in North Rhine Westphalia who dealt with criminal cases were surveyed of whom 117 worked as criminal court judges or presided over lay judges and of whom 73 presided in criminal divisions. As a control group, 68 public prosecutors and 76 criminal law specialist lawyers were surveyed.Google Scholar
38 2 BvR 2628/10, para. 49.Google Scholar
39 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 49.Google Scholar
40 BGH, BeckRS 2010, 27615; BGH, BeckRS 2010, 28945; BGH, BeckRS 2011, 22742.Google Scholar
41 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 64.Google Scholar
42 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 71.Google Scholar
43 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 75.Google Scholar
44 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 96 f.Google Scholar
45 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 99.Google Scholar
46 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 100.Google Scholar
47 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 116.Google Scholar
48 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 118.Google Scholar
49 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 119.Google Scholar
50 2 BvR 2628/10 marginal note 121.Google Scholar
51 Alexander Ignor, Holger Matt, Gunter Weider, commentary in Münchener Anwaltshandbuch Strafverteidigung § 13 marginal note 32 (Widmaier et. al. eds., 2006).Google Scholar
52 Id. Google Scholar
53 Sommer, Ulriche, Der moderne Strafverteidiger und die neuen Deal-Strategien, Deutscher Anwalt Verein [AnwBl] 197 (2010).Google Scholar
54 Satzger, Helmut, commentary in Handbuch des Fachanwalts Strafrecht pt. 8 ch. 3 marginal note 5 (Jan Bockemühl ed., 2009).Google Scholar
55 Döllen, Armin von, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht 280f (Carsten Momsen et. al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar
56 See Hans Dahs, Handbuch des Strafverteidigers, marginal note 296 (2005). See generally, Alfred Dierlamm, commentary in Handbuch des Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrechts 1700 (Heinz-Bernd Wabnitz & Thomas Janovsky eds., 2007).Google Scholar
57 Sommer, supra note 53, at 198.Google Scholar
58 Ignor, Matt, & Weider, , supra note 51, § 13 marginal note 36.Google Scholar
59 Id. at marginal note 37.Google Scholar
60 Id. at marginal note 49.Google Scholar
61 See Velten, supra note 19, § 257c marginal note 48 f (calling for generalization).Google Scholar
62 Ignor, Matt, & Weider, , supra note 51, § 13 marginal note 46; Hans-Joachim Weider, Strafverteidiger Forum (StraFo) 406, 408 (2003).Google Scholar
63 Fischer, Zeitung für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 249, 251 (2009).Google Scholar
64 Diessner, Annika, Der Deal nach alter Schule im Lichte des Verständigungsgesetzes—eine strafrechtliche Risikoanalyse, Strafverteidiger 43, 48 (2011); See also Imme Roxin, commentary in Beck'sches Rechtsanwaltshandbuch, § 52 marginal note 54 (Hans-Ulrich Büchting & Benno Heussen eds., 2011). For more on the aspect of collusion, see generally Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt] [Federal Court of Justice] Sept. 1, 1992, 345, 348.Google Scholar
65 Diessner, supra note 64.Google Scholar
66 Id. at 48 f.Google Scholar
67 Schlothauer, Reinhold & Weider, Hans-Joachim, Das Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, Strafverteidiger 600, 606 (2009); see also Stefan Kirsch, Die gesetzliche Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren, Strafverteidiger Forum [StraFo] 96, 101 (2010).Google Scholar
68 Not without reason, Stuckenberg speaks of “haggling luck” and refers to Kant's Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre, which warns against giving away justice for any old price. See Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal notes 3, 9; See also, Immanuel Kant, Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (1798).Google Scholar
69 Dierlamm, supra note 56, at 1685.Google Scholar
70 Ignor, Matt, & Weider, , supra note 51, § 13 marginal note 54 f; Pfeiffer & Hannich, supra note 18, at marginal note 29i. These articles justifiably deal with civil law claims to damages.Google Scholar
71 Dahs, supra note 56, at marginal note 497.Google Scholar
72 Sommer, supra note 53, at 199.Google Scholar
73 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 74.Google Scholar
74 Id. Google Scholar
75 Trück, supra note 1, at 172.Google Scholar
76 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 203.Google Scholar
77 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 74.Google Scholar
78 Knauer, supra note 1, at 435; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 203; Trück, supra note 1, at 172.Google Scholar
79 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 380.Google Scholar
80 Cf. Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 203.Google Scholar
81 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 79.Google Scholar
82 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar
83 Deutscher Bundestag: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren [BT] 16/12310, 13 available at http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/123/1612310.pdf.Google Scholar
84 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar
85 Accord Knauer, supra note 1, at 435. This view is supported by Velten among others, admittedly based on the legal position before March 2013. See Velten, supra note 19, at marginal note 3, 30.Google Scholar
86 Trück, supra note 1, at 173.Google Scholar
87 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 91.Google Scholar
88 Dölling, Dieter, commentary in Gesamtes Strafrecht, preamble to § 1 StPO, marginal note 25 (Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge & Dieter Rössner eds., 2011).Google Scholar
89 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 85.Google Scholar
90 Knauer, supra note 1, at 436; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar
91 Mosbacher, , supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar
92 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 75, 90, 115. See also, Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 77 (prior to March 2013).Google Scholar
93 Knauer, supra note 1, at 436. See also, Trück, supra note 1, at 172 (highlighting a contradiction to § 257b stop).Google Scholar
94 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 84.Google Scholar
95 Id. at marginal note 75.Google Scholar
96 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar
97 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381.Google Scholar
98 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 78.Google Scholar
99 Knauer, Likewise, supra note 1, at 435; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 204.Google Scholar
100 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 71. The trend was already evident prior to the Constitutional Court decision. Cf. Ambos & Ziehn, supra note 14, at marginal note 22.Google Scholar
101 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 70 f., 129.Google Scholar
102 Knauer, supra note 1, at 435; likewise, See also, Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 10, 41 (prior to March 2013).Google Scholar
103 Trück, supra note 1, at 170, 171; Ambos & Ziehn, supra note 14, at marginal note 17, n.69, marginal note 22, n.85; Stuckenberg, supra note 2, at marginal note 23.Google Scholar
104 JUVE Rechtsmarkt, Feb. 2013, at 62.Google Scholar
105 Cf. Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206.Google Scholar
106 According to Mosbacher, the “necessary assertiveness” ought to be assured in practice. See Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206.Google Scholar
107 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 96 f.Google Scholar
108 Id. at marginal note 97.Google Scholar
109 Knauer, supra note 1, at 436; Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206; Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar
110 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Oct. 20, 2010, NStZ 2011, 592 at 593.Google Scholar
111 Bittmann, supra note 8, at 265.Google Scholar
112 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 96.Google Scholar
113 Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 205 f.Google Scholar
114 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 215.Google Scholar
115 In accordance with 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 78, an incorrect negative test may be a punishable offence in accordance with § 348 StGB. Stuckenberg considers this to be doubtful as the record of the proceedings is no official document and therefore has no evidential value for or against anyone as § 274 StPO only applies to appeal proceedings. Id. Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381 (referring also to § 339 StGB).Google Scholar
116 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 98.Google Scholar
117 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar
118 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Jan. 2, 1955, [BGHSt] 7, 162 (established case law).Google Scholar
119 Cf. Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar
120 Stuckenberg, supra note 2, § 271 marginal note 77.Google Scholar
121 According to Mosbacher, this must also be seen in the context of the “inseparable unity” of formal obligations and settlement. See Mosbacher, supra note 1, at 206.Google Scholar
122 2 BvR 2628/10, marginal note 124, 127.Google Scholar
123 Id. at marginal note 99.Google Scholar
124 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 381 (including in comparison to § 136 (1), sentence 2 StPO et al.).Google Scholar
125 Michael Tsambikakis & Joachim Kretschmer, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht in der Praxis, 1056 (Marcus Böttger ed., 2011).Google Scholar
126 Josephine Scharnberg, Die Absprache im Strafverfahren—historische Entwicklung, heutiger Diskussionsstand und Entwürfe zu einer gesetzlichen Regelung, 31 (2010).Google Scholar
127 For acceleration and eliminatory effects, see also Ambos & Ziehn, supra note 14, at marginal note 17; Huber, NStZ 530, 533 (1996); Armin von Döllen, commentary in Wirtschaftsstrafrecht, 280 (Carsten Momsen & Thomas Grützner eds., 2013).Google Scholar
128 See also Knauer, supra note 1, at 435; Kudlich, supra note 1, at 380.Google Scholar
129 Stuckenberg, supra note 1, at 216.Google Scholar
130 Id. at 215.Google Scholar
131 Kudlich, supra note 1, at 380.Google Scholar
132 Overview also in Werner Beulke, Strafprozessrecht, marginal note 15 (2010).Google Scholar
You have
Access
