scholarly journals Developments in German Criminal Law: Speed Merchant or Murderer? The Ku’Damm Road Race Case and the New Criminal Legislation Regulating Illegal Motor Racing

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-302
Author(s):  
Khulan Davaanyam ◽  
Franziska Wolff ◽  
Ranya Khalaf

AbstractThe Regional Court of Berlin (Landgericht (LG) Berlin) was the first court in Germany to mete out a life sentence for murder—pursuant to § 211 German Criminal Code (StGB)—to two men convicted of killing an uninvolved driver whose car they hit while they were participating in an illegal car race on a public highway. Upon their convictions, the defendants appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; BGH) claiming that they did not intend to kill the person and were thus acting without the necessary mens rea for murder. The question whether or not the case could be qualified as murder, and thus whether or not the existence of a killing with intent had been sufficiently proven by the LG Berlin, was the subject of several appeals and retrials. In its latest decision, the BGH confirmed the murder conviction of one of the defendants, while quashing the other defendant’s conviction and issuing a retrial. This case caused ripples amongst legal scholars as it called for the toughest possible sanctions to be imposed. However, whether the conduct qualifies as murder remains questionable. As a reaction to several similar cases of illegal car races in recent years, the German parliament subsequently passed a new law—§ 315d StGB—proscribing illegal vehicle races, thereby penalizing the participation, organization, or carrying out of an illegal vehicle race. Until that point there had been no provision criminalizing illegal racing.

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 631-646
Author(s):  
Christopher Ohnesorge ◽  
Julia Wilkes ◽  
Marius Eichfelder ◽  
Jinnus Rastegar ◽  
Matthias Derra ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Heinrichs

Since the abolishment of singular admission to the higher regional courts in 2000, the judiciary has been asking itself the question whether singular admission to the Federal Court of Justice is compatible with the German Constitution and the laws of the European Union. In particular, the non-transparent selection procedure was and is the trigger of controversial discussions and the subject of legal disputes. The work questions the conformity of singular admission to the Federal Court of Justice with the German Constitution and considers the selection procedure to be without transparency, comprehensibility and rule of law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 775-786
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Zaunseder ◽  
Michelle Heblik

AbstractThis Article discusses the constitutionality of the recently implemented § 89a IIa of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch—StGB) on the basis of the case 3 StR 326/16 decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on April 6, 2017. First, this Article introduces § 89a IIa of the StGB with a short summary of the events leading to the present anti-terrorist legislation in Germany and the development of the legislation over the past few decades. Second, the facts of the BGH’s case will be outlined, and an overview of the systematic structure of § 89a I, II No. 1, IIa StGB will be provided. Within this framework, the constitutionality of § 89a IIa StGB will be discussed, focusing on the prerequisite of appropriateness, with special attention paid to the requirement of reasonability and the prerequisite of legal certainty pursuant to Article 103(II) Basic Law (Grundgesetz—GG). Finally, § 89a I, II No. 1, IIa StGB will be applied to the BGH’s case after discussing the contentious legal issues regarding these doctrines. This Article concludes by discussing the BGH’s decision, which deems § 89a IIa StGB to be constitutional.


2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-453
Author(s):  
Timo Kost

Within less than two months, three court decisions were rendered that seem to be the last step in the seemingly never-ending story of Mounir El Motassadeq before German criminal courts. First, on 16 November 2006, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof- hereinafter BGH) found Motassadeq guilty for being a member of a terrorist organisation and for abetting the murder of 246 people, according to sections 129 and 211 (27) of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch- hereinafter StGB). The court sent the case back to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (hereinafter OLG Hamburg), which sentenced Motassadeq to 15 years imprisonment on 8 January 2007. Following the decision of 16 November 2006, Motassadeq lodged a constitutional complaint to the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht- hereinafter BVerfG), which declined to hear Motassadeq's case on the grounds that the complaint was both inadmissible and unsubstantiated.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Brandt

The decisions of the Federal Court of Justice in 2013 and 2015 revived the debate on the scope of Section 228 of the German Criminal Code. This doctoral thesis takes a detailed look at the current state of the discourse and develops its own, restrictive approach to the principles of morality. In particular, it will be examined which groups of cases are to be subject to consent at all, and thus also to Section 228 of the German Criminal Code. In this respect, it becomes apparent that some cases are already to be treated as autonomous self-endangerment and thus escape the question of a violation of the principles of morality.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Nees

Football associations taking recourse to imposing penalties is not only an issue that the German Federal Court of Justice, the Bundesgerichtshof, has had to deal with repeatedly, but is also the subject of numerous articles. However, the topic has not yet been sufficiently covered by monographs. This work closes that gap in research by addressing the topic and discussing in detail the legal issues that arise when football associations impose a penalty on a spectator. The author first addresses the offences that cause liability, pointing out the need for more in-depth reflections. He then examines known problem areas (attribution of damage, limiting the value of the compensation for damages, case-by-case partition of damages and the legal practice of association courts). He also focuses on answering the question of whether the possibility of imposing a penalty is affected in cases where the penalty imposed by the football association is based on its own ineffective regulations. Considering previously expressed positions on this issue, the author presents his own solutions to it.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 756-774
Author(s):  
Dorothee Karbe ◽  
Charlotte Jawurek ◽  
Philipp Sarder

AbstractThe German police stopped and searched a car crossing the border from the Netherlands and thereby detected large quantities of drugs. What sounds like a standard procedure is actually a very controversial case recently heard at the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; BGH), dealing with so called legendierte Polizeikontrollen. These are apparently random police checks that are, in reality, well prepared and specifically targeted at the subject of the police check due to ongoing investigations. This case raised the issue of lawful evidence gathering by the police when pursuing both preventive and repressive objectives, as well as the question of the subsequent exploitation in court of the evidence obtained. Addressing issues of the utmost significance, such as the circumvention of the rights of the accused, this BGH judgment was critically reviewed among legal scholars.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Kudlich ◽  
Florian Melloh

The possibility of monitoring telecommunications pursuant to § 100a of the Strafprozeßordnung (StPO – Criminal Procedure Code) existed in Germany for the last 35 years. Nonetheless, the surveillance of telecommunications is still the subject of controversy and dispute; not only in connection with new forms of communications but also with regard to the extent and grounds of application in “normal” cases of telephone surveillance.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1292-1305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Safferling ◽  
Timo Ide

AbstractThe German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) has to frequently adjudicate cases related to terrorism. The “War on Terror” has reached the German judiciary shortly after its proclamation as a reaction to the 9/11-attacks. Ever since, German criminal law is grappling with the question of how to harmonize security interests on the one hand with individual rights and liberties on the other. The expansion of the criminal law is a real threat for the previously liberty-oriented criminal law. The court decision discussed in this case addresses a specific aspect of terrorism: the financing of terrorist activities. As there is no special law prohibiting such kind of behavior, the judges had to apply section 263 of the German Criminal Code, which deals with fraud, and combine this with sections 129 a and b of the German Criminal Code, which makes being merely a member of a criminal organization into a criminal offence. A highly sensitive field of law that is put under scrutiny by anti-terrorism measures is procedural law. As secret investigation measures through electronic surveillance become more prevalent and sophisticated, the admissibility of the evidence, which was gained mainly by intelligence, becomes more and more questionable. The court decision discussed in this paper proves the willingness of the Federal Judges in Germany to reduce individual liberty rights in order to enhance the effectiveness of criminal prosecution.


Author(s):  
Ihor Oheruk

Purpose. The purpose of the work is to analyze the application of the second and third parts of Article 3692 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to officials in the context, that defines them by the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the note to Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of the available scientific and theoretical material and the formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. In the course of the study, the following methods of scientific knowledge were used: terminological, logical-semantic, system-structural, logical-normative. Results: in the course of research the cause of criminalization of such act as "abuse of power" is considered, the subject of the specified criminal act which has the features of "an official" in the context, that defines it by the note to Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is analyzed and the main ways of committing criminal acts, that are provided for in this article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are identified. Originality. The study found, that one of the key conditions for the opportunity to influence officials, that are authorized to perform government or local self-government functions, is the position held by the official and the related opportunities. Therefore, taking into account the opinion of the scientists, that the subject of crimes, that are provided for by the second and third parts of Article 3692 is special, the peculiarities of which is the cumulative feature, that denotes, that such person is not endowed with the status of an official, well-founded need to specify the criminal legislation of Ukraine in terms of the application the second and third parts of Article 3692 of the Criminal code of Ukraine concerning officials in the context, that defines them by the criminal legislation of Ukraine in the note to Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Practical significance. The research results can be used in lawmaking in the improvement of anti-corruption legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document