No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Constitutionality of § 89a of the German Criminal Code (StGB) and the Concept of a Serious Act of Violent Subversion: The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Judgement of 8th May 2014 - 3 StR 243 / 13
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
As a reaction to the increasing terrorist threat in Europe, the German Parliament (Bundestag) passed a law penalizing the preparation of terrorist acts endangering the state: § 89a German Criminal Code (StGB). The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (LG Frankfurt) was the first to apply this section to a case where a young man was accused of building a pipe bomb. Upon his conviction, the defendant appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), claiming § 89a StGB to be unconstitutional. The BGH reviewed whether the statute was in conformity with the principles of the German Constitution (GG), including the principle of legal certainty and appropriateness. It held that these principles were fulfilled, if stricter requirements are applied regarding the mens rea in order to counterbalance the broad actus reus. It decided that the Regional Court had not fulfilled this particular requirement and quashed the conviction insofar. This case and § 89a StGB caused ripples amongst legal scholars, especially due to the unusual penalization of preparatory acts and the broad scope of the statute's application. This case also produced an unprecedented change within the judge's bench.
- Type
- Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2017 by German Law Journal, Inc.
References
1 Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], § 89a, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html.Google Scholar
2 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] May 8, 2014, 3 StR 243/13 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3459 (Ger.) [hereinafter Judgment of May 8, 2014].Google Scholar
3 Grundgesetz [GG], translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html.Google Scholar
4 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 80, 83, 149, 202c, 275, 310, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index. html.Google Scholar
5 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 1.Google Scholar
6 See Jarass, Hans D. & Bodo Pieroth, Jarass/Pieroth Grundgesetz: GG, Art. 20 para. 32 (13th ed. 2011).Google Scholar
7 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], 1 BvL 83/86, 1 BvL 24/88, 1991, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1602.Google Scholar
8 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 15/62, 1962, LMRR 14; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 2273/06, 2007, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1666.Google Scholar
9 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 234/87, 2 BvR 1154/86, 1989, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1663 (1665); see also Mark A. Zöller, Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter zum 70. Geburtstag, 503–06 (2013).Google Scholar
10 Jarass & Pieroth, supra note 6, at Art. 103 para. 48.Google Scholar
11 See Mitsch, Wolfgang, Vorbeugende Strafbarkeit zur Abwehr terroristischer Gewalttaten, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 209 (2015) (providing an evaluation from the perspective of practitioners).Google Scholar
12 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 932/06, 2007, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1666.Google Scholar
13 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 1 BvR 2150/08, 2010, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 47, para. 107.Google Scholar
14 See Schmitz, Ronald, Joecks/Miebach Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, §§ 242–45 (2nd ed. 2011).Google Scholar
15 See, for e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 2559/08 i.a., 2010, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3209.Google Scholar
16 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvL 11/85, 1987, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3175.Google Scholar
17 Bundesverfassungsgericht.Google Scholar
18 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 211, 212, 239a or 239b, translation at, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (having committed an offense according to such sections of StGB).Google Scholar
19 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz.Google Scholar
20 See, e.g., Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] 2001, 3 StR 378/00 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1359,.Google Scholar
21 See Regierungsentwurd [Cabinet Draft] Deutscher Bundestag: Druckashen [BT] 16/12428, 14.Google Scholar
22 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3461.Google Scholar
23 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (excluding §§ 80, 83 and 234a (3) StGB, which are restricting hereunto).Google Scholar
24 But see Gazeas, N., Leipold/Tsambikakis/Zöller, Anwaltskommentar zum StGB, § 89a para. 6, (1st ed. 2011) (offering critical commentary on this position).Google Scholar
25 See Sternberg-Lieben, Schönke/Schröder, StGB Kommentar § 89a para. 15 (29th ed. 2014).Google Scholar
26 See supra note 21, at para. 15; see J. Schäfer, Joecks/Miebach, Münchener Kommentar zum StGB § 89a para. 48 (2nd ed. 2011).Google Scholar
27 See Backes, K., Der Kampf des Strafrechts gegen nicht-organisierte Terroristen, StV 654, para. 658 (2008).Google Scholar
28 See Haverkamp, R., Verbrechen - Strafe - Resozialisierung: Festschrift für Heinz Schöch zum 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 2010 381, 392 (2010).Google Scholar
29 See supra note 21, at para. 1.Google Scholar
30 See H.-U. Paeffgen, Kindhäuser/Neumann/Paeffgen § 89a StGB (2013) (opposing the notion that the de facto law includes the endangerment of all states, not just the BRD—which could be critical under international law).Google Scholar
31 Geeignetheit means that the measure taken by the state must be appropriate to further or reach the intended aim, while Erforderlichkeit denotes that the measure must be the least severe in comparison to other options. See Grzeszick, B., Art. 20 GG-Kommentar, Maunz/Dürig, para. 112 (2016).Google Scholar
32 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3459.Google Scholar
33 This margin of discretion cannot be fully scrutinized by the courts due to practical reasons. See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvL 43/92, 1994, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1577 (commenting further regarding the margin of discretion).Google Scholar
34 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3459.Google Scholar
35 See M. Zöller, Die Vorbereitung schwerer staatsgefährdender Gewalttaten nach § 89 a StGB – wirklich nicht verfassungswidrig?, NStZ 373 (2015).Google Scholar
36 See S. Huster & J. Rux, V. Epping/C. Hillgruber, Beck'scher Online-Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Art. 20 para. 197 (26th ed. 2015).Google Scholar
37 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3462.Google Scholar
38 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 89a, para. 7, 49, para. 2, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index. html.Google Scholar
39 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3462.Google Scholar
40 See Mitsch, supra note 11, at 211; see Zöller, supra note 35, at 377.Google Scholar
41 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3463 (detailing a list of similar statutes).Google Scholar
42 Id. Google Scholar
43 Id. Google Scholar
44 See Bundesverfassungsgericht. [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 396/69, year, BVerfGE 28, para. 175 (referring to a previous version of § 100e StGB, which criminalized conduct that may endanger official secrets).Google Scholar
45 Id. at para. 186, 188.Google Scholar
46 See [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 869/92, 1993, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1911, (regarding a previous version of § 180a StGB); see [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 1656/03, 2006, [NVwZ] 583 (584), (regarding § 316b StGB).Google Scholar
47 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3463.Google Scholar
48 Id. Google Scholar
49 See, e.g., Mitsch, supra note 11, at 211; see Zöller, supra note 35, at 377; see Gazeas, N., T. Grosse-Wilde & A. Kießling Die neuen Tatbestände im Staatsschutzstrafrecht – Versuch einer ersten Auslegung der §§ 89a, 89b und 91 StGB, NStZ 593, 604 (2009).Google Scholar
50 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3463.Google Scholar
51 Joecks, See W., W. Joecks/K. Miebach, Münchener Kommentar zum StGB § 16 para. 20 (2nd ed. 2011).Google Scholar
52 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3463. But see Mitsch, supra note 11, at 211.Google Scholar
53 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz [GVB] [German Courts Constitution Act].Google Scholar
54 Similar to a low level of recklessness.Google Scholar
55 Similar to the second level of intent.Google Scholar
56 See Sternberg-Lieben, supra note 25, at para. 17; see Paeffgen, supra note 30, at 25.Google Scholar
57 See also construing the requisite mens rea below under subparagraph (e).Google Scholar
58 see Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3464.Google Scholar
59 See supra note 21, at 14.Google Scholar
60 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 211–212, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (criminalizing the conduct under law).Google Scholar
61 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 239a, 239b, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (criminalizing the conduct under law).Google Scholar
62 See OLG Karlsruhe [OLG], 2 Ws 157/11, StV 348, 350 (2012).Google Scholar
63 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3464; see Sternberg-Lieben, supra note 25, at para. 4.Google Scholar
64 See Gazeas, Grosse-Wilde & Kießling, supra note 49, at 597; see R. Deckers & J. Heusel Strafbarkeit terroristischer Vorbereitungshandlungen – rechtsstaatlich nicht tragbar, in ZRP 169, 171 (2008) (providing further examples of neutral behaviors which fulfill the actus reus).Google Scholar
65 See Zöller, supra note 35, at 377.Google Scholar
66 See Gazeas, Grosse-Wilde & Kießling, supra note 49, at 604; see Deckers & Heusel, supra note 64, at 171; see Zöller, supra note 35, at 378.Google Scholar
67 See Paeffgen, supra note 30, at 22.Google Scholar
68 See Judgment of May 8, 2014, supra note 2, at para. 3464.Google Scholar
69 Similar to the first level of intent.Google Scholar
70 See Zöller, supra note 35, at 378; see Mitsch, supra note 11, at 211.Google Scholar
71 See Mitsch, supra note 11, at 211.Google Scholar
72 See Zöller, supra note 35, at 378.Google Scholar
73 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 211, 212, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html.Google Scholar
74 See Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [German Penal Code], §§ 239a, 239 b translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html.Google Scholar
75 See Schäfer, supra note 26, at 57.Google Scholar
76 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure].Google Scholar
77 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] April 2, 2014, 3 StR 243/13 [BeckRS] 05923 para. 2.Google Scholar
78 See Regierungsentwurd [Cabinet Draft] Deutscher Bundestag: Druckashen [BT] 18/4087.Google Scholar
79 See Puschke, J., Der Ausbau des Terrorismusstrafrechts und die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshof, StV 457, 459 (2015).Google Scholar
80 See Beukelmann, S., Neues im Kampf gegen den Terror, NJW-Spezial 2015 120f; see Puschke, supra note 79, at 459; see M. Zöller, Der Terrorist und sein (Straf-)Recht 90, 103 (GA, 2016); see Gazeas, N., Zu viel des Guten? – Zur Verschärfung im Terrorismusstrafrecht, in DRiZ 218, 220 (2015).Google Scholar
81 See, e.g., U.N. Res. 2178 (2014).Google Scholar
You have
Access