Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T02:30:15.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 19 March 2013 on Plea Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Andreas Mosbacher

Extract

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.

The much–awaited ruling of 19 March 2013 by the German Federal Constitutional Court is of great importance to the forensic practice. The Court ruled on the constitutional appraisal of the provisions on plea agreements in criminal procedures. The decision is basically convincing but not in every point of its arguments. Certain conclusions of the Federal Constitutional Court are particularly problematic because they alter the preceding legal situation substantially and have an extensive effect on the appraisal of appeal law.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 1: Special issue - Plea Bargains in Germany , 01 February 2014 , pp. 5 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2628/10 (Mar. 19, 2013) [hereinafter Mar. 19, 2013 Decision].Google Scholar

2 Id. marginal no. 107.Google Scholar

3 Id. marginal no. 102ff.Google Scholar

4 Id. marginal no. 108ff.Google Scholar

5 Id. marginal no. 117.Google Scholar

6 Id. marginal no. 118ff.Google Scholar

7 Id. marginal no. 121.Google Scholar

8 Id. marginal no. 121.Google Scholar

9 Id. marginal no. 121.Google Scholar

10 Id. at marginal no. 64.Google Scholar

11 Id. marginal nos. 68–99.Google Scholar

12 Id. marginal no. 66f.Google Scholar

13 Id. marginal no. 67.Google Scholar

14 See Dr. Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, “Entscheidungsbesprechung Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Verständigung im Straf- verfahren,” Zeitschrift fur Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik [ZIS], 212–16 (2013), available at http://www.zis-online.com/dat/ausgabe/2013_4_ger.pdf.Google Scholar

15 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Dec. 22, 2011, I Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] 3044, as amended, § 257c(1) s. 2.Google Scholar

16 See BGH 3 StR 285/11 v. 31.01.2012 Beweiswürdigung in den Urteilsgründen bei Verständigung, 11 Strafverteidiger [StV] 653, 654 (2012); Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NStZ–RR] 256 (2012).Google Scholar

17 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 68.Google Scholar

18 Id. marginal no. 68.Google Scholar

19 See StPO § 244(3).Google Scholar

20 See Deutscher Bundestag: Drucksachen [BT] 16/12310, 13 (Mar. 18, 209), available at http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/123/1612310.pdf; see also MEYER-Goßner, StPO: Commentary on the German Code of Criminal Procedure 55 (2012); StPO § 257c, marginal no. 14ff.Google Scholar

21 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 71.Google Scholar

22 50 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 40, 49; LR Becker, § 244, margin no. 9 (26th ed. 2009).Google Scholar

23 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 110.Google Scholar

24 Id. marginal no. 72f.Google Scholar

25 Id. marginal no. 105.Google Scholar

26 See Stuckenberg, supra note 14, at marginal no. 215.Google Scholar

27 See Stuckenberg, supra note 14, at marginal no. 106.Google Scholar

28 The confession applies only with the adherence of the upper limit of the sentence.Google Scholar

29 57 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 273, marginal no. 13; see also Friedrich-Karl Föhrig, Kleines Strafrichter-Brevier 30ff, 40 (2d ed. 2013).Google Scholar

30 Föhrig, Kleines Strafrichter-Brevier at 40.Google Scholar

31 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 105.Google Scholar

32 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], Strafverteidiger [StV] 470 (2004); Andreas Mosbacher“ Juristische Schulung [JuS] 708f (2011).Google Scholar

33 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 76; see also Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], supra note 32, at 470.Google Scholar

34 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 106.Google Scholar

35 Id. marginal no. 85.Google Scholar

36 See Föhrig at 38ff. If lay judges are involved, penalty expectations in prior talks can only be formed with reservations anyway,See Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 90.Google Scholar

37 See Bundesgerichshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 3 StR 3463, 2011 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3463 (June 30, 2011).Google Scholar

38 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 83ff.Google Scholar

39 Id. marginal no. 85.Google Scholar

40 Id. marginal no. 84.Google Scholar

41 Id. marginal no. 85.Google Scholar

42 Id. marginal no. 86.Google Scholar

43 Id. at marginal no. 96.Google Scholar

44 Id. at marginal no. 97.Google Scholar

45 See Stuckenberg, supra note 14, at 215.Google Scholar

46 This is why in both decisions the First Criminal Panel of the Federal Court of Justice correctly denied a substantial error according to § 337 StPO (1) despite infringements of the obligations to instruct according to § 257c StPO (5). These decisions have since been overturned by the Federal Constitutional Court. See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 443/10 (Sept. 17, 2013); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 469/10 (Sept. 17, 2013).Google Scholar

47 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 97.Google Scholar

48 Id. marginal no. 99.Google Scholar

49 This can be the case if the defendant already through his lawyer, his own legal knowledge, or previous instructions was aware of the ruling in StPO § 257c (4). See also Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 220/10, 2002 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 975 (Nov. 11, 2001) (discussing StPO § 136).Google Scholar

50 Mar. 19, 2013 Decision at marginal no. 98.Google Scholar

51 See Stuckenberg, supra note 14, at 213.Google Scholar