scholarly journals The Untenable Situation of German Criminal Law: Against Quantitative Overloading, Qualitative Overcharging, and the Overexpansion of Criminal Justice

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 579-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Krey ◽  
Oliver Windgätter
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Established Fact

It is a well-established fact that German criminal trial courts are unacceptably and unreasonably overloaded. The German Federal Constitutional Court—Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG—and the Federal Supreme Court of Justice—Bundesgerichtshof, BGH—frankly admit this fact. Even those legal scholars who are critical towards trial courts emphasize such overloading. This overloading is aggravated in the context of austerity measures, which seem to be based on a system that can briefly be described as follows: In principle, the BGH is not, if ever then only slightly, affected, and the State Courts of Appeals—Oberlandesgerichte, OLG—are not affected in an extensive manner. In contrast, the trial courts fare differently: The Higher District Courts — Landgerichte, LG—are typically severely affected by such austerity measures, while the Lower District Courts — Amtsgerichte, AG—are affected brutally. Pursuant to the authors’ view, this practice demonstrates an evident disregard for the trial courts, despite the fact that their speedy as well as convincing settlement of criminal cases is of the utmost importance for the law in action and a constitutive element of criminal proceedings under the rule of law. Hence, the guarantee of an effective criminal justice system — Gewährleistung einer effektiven Strafrechtspflege—is rightly recognized as a fundamental element of the rule of law.

On the quality of pre-trial proceedings

2019 ◽  
pp. 391-399
Author(s):  
Igor Vladimirovich Ovsyannikov
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Crime Detection ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Special Order ◽  
Objective Research

We consider the problem of the pre-trial proceedings quality and the impact on it of the shortcomings of the regulation of the procedural order of consideration of crimes reports, the special trial order, as well as the practice of their application. We characterize the dualistic nature of the previously conducted reform of the procedural order of crimes reports and strengthening the rule of law at the stage of criminal cases, which, at first glance, seems to be a solution to the problem of crime detection. We designate the expediency of refusal in the legislative order from the production of investigative actions during pre-investigation inspections and from the procedural terms of such inspections. Referring to the practice of courts of a special order of court decision, we note that the simplification and acceleration of criminal proceedings is permissible, but the existing rules of a special order should not be interpreted as a rejection of impartial and objective research by the court of the evidence available in the case, even if indirectly – on the case materials. It is stated that the shortcomings of the special order regulation and the practice of its application have a negative impact on the quality of both judicial and pre-trial proceedings. In addition, we propose scientifically based measures aimed at correcting the above shortcomings.

Ensuring Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings in the Context of a Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 99-104
Author(s):  
O. V. Kachalova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Private And Public

The coronavirus pandemic has put a number of legal issues on the agenda of the world community – how to ensure the rule of law in the face of the need to save the lives and health of many people, how to achieve a reasonable balance in the ratio of various human rights in a pandemic situation, how to determine the criteria for proportionality of restrictions on essential human rights. The criminal justice authorities and courts have a serious task to ensure human rights, achieve the effectiveness of criminal proceedings and access to justice in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, on the one hand, and take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of persons involved in criminal proceedings, including their own, from the threat of COVID-19 infection, on the other. Measures that restrict human rights in the context of a pandemic must be implemented in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, respect for human rights, the rule of law, legal certainty and proportionality. Proportionality can be established by determining a reasonable balance of private and public interests in each particular situation, through an assessment of the affected interests in terms of their significance. In General terms, the rights and freedoms that provide the most significant benefits are given priority. The criteria for determining a reasonable balance between private and public interests and for resolving an emerging conflict of human rights are determined taking into account the immediate circumstances of the case (the epidemiological situation, the state of health of participants in the process, the urgency and significance of the proceedings for participants in criminal proceedings and the interests of justice, the ability to ensure the necessary sanitary and epidemiological requirements). The coronavirus pandemic has put on the agenda the issue of creating a strategy for the transformation of criminal justice institutions in emergency situations, when the normal mode of criminal proceedings is impossible due to objective reasons.

Russia

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Ward ◽  
Dmitri Bartenev
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Justice Of The Peace ◽  
Commercial Courts

Russia is a civil law country. It is a federation of constituent entities (‘entities’). Laws affecting adults are made mainly at the federal level. Entities have very limited powers in this regard, such as defining the structure of public agencies responsible for implementing federal standards. The judicial system comprises courts of general jurisdiction (which hear both civil and criminal cases), commercial courts, the federal constitutional court, and (in some entities) regional constitutional courts. Courts of first instance are justice of the peace, district, and regional courts. The highest court with general jurisdiction is the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. District courts hear most adult protection cases, for which there are no special tribunals.

Case Nos. 2 BvR 2115/01, 2 BvR 2132/01, & 2 BvR 348/03.60 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 499 (2007)

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz
Keyword(s):  
Police Officers ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional

Case Nos.2 BvR 2115/01, 2 BvR 2132/01, & 2 BvR 348/03.60 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 499 (2007). At <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de>.Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), September 19, 2006.On September 19, 2006, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) held in jointly decided Case Nos. 2 BvR 2115/01, 2 BvR 2132/01, & 2 BvR 348/03 that a failure to provide consular information to foreign nationals pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) violates the guarantee of a fair trial as provided by the German Constitution (Grundgesetz). The result is in contrast to a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, a strikingly similar case.The defendants, two nationals of Turkey and two of Serbia-Montenegro, were arrested in the course of different criminal investigations. They were informed of their rights as defendants as guaranteed by Germany's law of criminal procedure. The prosecuting authorities failed, however, to provide information on the defendants’ right to contact the consular staffs of their own countries in compliance with the VCCR. Three defendants were found guilty of murder and sentenced to lifetime imprisonment by the district court (Landgericht) of Braunschweig. The district court of Hamburg found the fourth defendant guilty of a robbery that resulted in the death of a victim, and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. Since the defendants refused to make statements, the criminal courts relied, inter alia, on the testimony of the police officers questioning the defendants after their various arrests. During the subsequent criminal proceedings, the defendants, presumably out of ignorance, made no attempt to invoke their consular rights, and the district courts seemed to be equally unaware of those rights.

scholarly journals UPAYA HUKUM PENINJAUAN KEMBALI DALAM PERKARA PIDANA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 198
Author(s):  
Ani Triwati ◽  
Subaidah Ratna Juita ◽  
Tri Mulyani
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The One

<p>Dengan adanya Putusan MK No. 34/PUU-XI/2013, untuk upaya hukum luar biasa yaitu peninjauan kembali dapat dilakukan lebih dari satu kali. Putusan MK yang memperbolehkan upaya hukum luar biasa peninjauan kembali lebih dari satu kali tersebut, berkaitan dengan kepastian hukum dan keadilan. Apabila peninjauan kembali diperbolehkan lebih dari satu kali tetapi tidak ada pembatasan sampai berapa kali maka perkara tersebut tidak akan ada akhirnya, bahwa adanya asas litis finiri oportet (setiap perkara harus ada akhirnya) tidak akan terpenuhi. Beberapa permasalahan yang perlu dibahas adalah apakah dengan adanya Putusan MK No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 dapat memenuhi nilai keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Selanjutnya bagaimana pengaturan mengenai peninjauan kembali sebagai implementasi Putusan MK No. 34/PUU- XI/2013 agar asas kepastian hukum dan asas litis finiri oportet akan terpenuhi. Putusan MK No. 34/PUU- XI/2013, yang menyatakan bahwa Pasal 268 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat, dapat memenuhi kepastian hukum tanpa mengabaikan nilai keadilan. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari pihak kepentingan terpidana yang mana dengan diperbolehkannya peninjauan kembali dalam perkara pidana lebih dari satu kali, memberikan kesempatan untuk memperoleh kebenaran materiil dan keadilan sehingga dapat diperoleh kepastian hukum yang berkeadilan bagi terpidana mengenai perkara yang dihadapi. Untuk memenuhi asas litis finiri oportet, perlu dilakukan pengaturan bahwa untuk upaya hukum peninjauan kembali dalam perkara pidana dapat dilakukan dua kali, hal ini dilakukan untuk mencapai kepastian hukum yang berkeadilan. Di satu pihak peninjauan kembali dapat dilakukan lebih dari satu kali untuk mencari kebenaran materiil dan memenuhi nilai keadilan. Di lain pihak adanya pembatasan permohonan peninjauan kembali yang boleh dilakukan dua kali adalah untuk menjamin kepastian hukum, sehingga nilai kemanfaatan, keadilan dan kepastian hukum dapat terpenuhi.</p><p>With the Constitutional Court No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013, for an extraordinary legal remedy which reconsideration can be done more than once. Constitutional Court ruling that allows an extraordinary legal remedy reconsideration more than once that, with regard to legal certainty and justice. If allowed to review more than one time but there are no restrictions on how many times it is the case there will be no end, that the principle of litis finiri oportet (every case there should be eventually) will not be met. Some issues that need to be addressed is whether the Constitutional Court No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 can satisfy the value of justice and legal certainty. Furthermore, how the arrangements regarding the review of the implementation of the Constitutional Court as No. 34 / PUU-X / 2013 that the principle of legal certainty and the principle of litis finiri oportet will be met. Constitutional Court decision No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013, which states that Article 268 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 and has no binding force, can meet the legal certainty without ignoring the value of justice. It can be seen from the interests of the convict which the permissibility of judicial review in criminal cases more than once, providing an opportunity to acquire the material truth and justice so as to obtain legal certainty to convict justice regarding the case at hand. To meet the principle of litis finiri oportet, it is necessary that the arrangements for legal remedy reconsideration in criminal cases can be done twice, this is done to achieve a just rule of law. On the one hand, the review can be performed more than once to search for the material truth and fulfill justice values. On the other hand the restrictions on the reconsideration request should be done twice is to ensure legal certainty, so that the value of expediency, justice and the rule of law can be fulfilled.</p>

scholarly journals The german separation between police and the offices for the protection of the Constitution. Legal framework

2016 ◽  
pp. 36-43
Author(s):  
CODRIN TIMU ◽  
MARTIN IBLER
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Separation Principle ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Federal Constitutional

“The rule of law and the federal state, as well as the protection of the fundamental rights could forbid the fusion of certain offices or the delegation of these offices with functions that are incompatible with their constitutional position“1. In this manner the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany mentions the separation between police and the offices for the protection of the constitution. After the terrorist attacks in the USA, Spain, France, Belgium and Germany, the teamwork between the state offices has kept on intensifying. The discussion (debate) about the legal framework of the separation principle continued however to exist. In a time, where the security of the citizens steals away the space of the fundamental rights, to treat this subject is of the utmost importance2, in order not to allow the recurrence of the mistakes of the Weimar Republic. The article deals with the legal framework of the German separation between police and the offices for the protection of the constitution and gives an answer to the question if this principle has a constitutional status.

Does Age Prevent Punishment? The Struggles of the German Juridical System with Alleged Nazi Criminals: Commentary on the Criminal Proceedings Against John Demjanjuk and Heinrich Boere

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Beck
Keyword(s):  
Old Age ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Nazi Era ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Citizen

Modern western societies are aging—according to statistical analyses, in 2060, every seventh German citizen will be over 80 years old. The challenges of an aging society occupy jurisprudence and the legal practice. Issues specific to aging offenders and aging victims are more relevant than ever and must be analyzed. The question of old age is one of many problematic aspects of two criminal cases recently decided by the German Federal Constitutional Court. In the following, age's relevance to criminal prosecution and material criminal law will be discussed and related to an analysis of the proceedings of John Demjanjuk and Heinrich Boere, two alleged Nazi criminals, tried in their old age. Demjanjuk's case especially has raised questions well beyond the relevance of his age (89 years). The cases open up many interesting facets of German criminal procedural law and material law connected to the crimes of the Nazi era.

scholarly journals PERSEPSI KETUA PENGADILAN NEGERI DAN KETUA PENGADILAN AGAMA TENTANG PENINJAUAN KEMBALI (PK) PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 34/PUU-XI/2013 DALAM HUKUM ACARA PERDATA

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
BAHRAN BASERI
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Basic Human Needs ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Legal Force

Since test material to the provisions of Pasal 268 ayat (3) Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1981on Criminal Proceedings in Mahkamah Konstitusi, Mahkahmah decided in its decision number 34 /PUU-XI / 2013, which states that the provisions was inconsistent with the Undang-Undang Dasar1945, so it does not have binding legal force. Therefore, Peninjauan Kembali (PK) in criminal cases maybe done more than once with the new circumstances or conditions found substantial novum new foundduring previous PK undiscovered. If problems associated PK novum criminal case is considered sub-stantial, and neither should Novum issues related PK in civil cases, as may be after the filing of the PKand disconnected, no new circumstances or substantial novum recently discovered that during theprevious PK undiscovered or if there is a decision of a judges mistake or a real mistake was discoveredafter PK decided. PK is an extraordinary remedy that aims to find justice and truth material. Justice cannot be limited by time or formal provision that limits that PK is only one time. Justice is a very basichuman needs, the more basic human needs of the rule of law. But in civil cases, the results of this studyindicate that the filing PK limited only once.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Reaktualisasi Proses Penyidikan oleh Kepolisian Berbasis Nilai-Nilai Pancasila dan Optimalisasi Pemanfaatan Teknologi

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1737
Author(s):  
Ira Alia Maerani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
The Times

Abstract                Indonesian Criminal Justice System consists of the police, public prosecutor and the courts. The role of the police investigators is certainly vital as the frontline in building public confidence in the rule of law in Indonesia. The role of the investigator is quite important in realizing society’s  justice. The era of globalization requires a pattern fast-paced, instant, measurable, and transparent of life and it requires investigators to follow the times by optimizing the use of technology. The aim of this study is to give effect to the rule of law in Indonesia that provides fairness, expediency and certainty. However, it considers to have priority of Pancasila values in the process of inquiry and investigation. The values of supreme divinity, God (religious), humanity, unity, democracy and justice are values that establish a balance (harmony) in enforcing the law. Law and its implementation can create product which meets the demands for social justice. This paper will examine the role of the investigator according to positive law currently in force as well as the role of investigator in implementing the values of Pancasila, accompanied by optimizing the use of technology. Keywords: Re-actualizing, Investigation, Police, values of Pancasila, Technology   AbstrakSistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia meliputi institusi kepolisian, kejaksaan, dan pengadilan. Peran penyidik dalam institusi kepolisian tentunya amat vital sebagai garda terdepan dalam membangun kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap penegakan hukum di Indonesia. Peran penyidik amat besar dalam terwujudnya keadilan di masyarakat. Era globalisasi yang menuntut pola kehidupan yang serba cepat, instan, terukur, dan transparan menuntut penyidik untuk mengikuti perkembangan zaman dengan mengoptimalkan pemanfaatan teknologi. Tujuannya adalah untuk memberikan arti bagi penegakan hukum di Indonesia yakni memberikan keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan kepastian. Namun yang harus diperhatikan adalah mengutamakan nilai-nilai Pancasila dalam melakukan proses penyelidikan dan penyidikan. Nilai-nilai ketuhanan yang maha esa (religius), kemanusiaan, persatuan, kerakyatan dan keadilan merupakan nilai-nilai yang membangun keseimbangan (harmoni) dalam menegakkan hukum. Sehingga produk hukum dan pelaksanaannya memenuhi rasa keadilan masyarakat. Tulisan ini akan mengkaji tentang peran penyidik menurut hukum positif yang saat ini berlaku serta peran penyidik dalam mengimplementasikan  nilai-nilai Pancasila dengan diiringi optimalisasi pemanfaatan teknologi.Kata Kunci: Reaktualisasi,Penyidikan,Kepolisian,Nilai-nilai Pancasila,Teknologi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document