Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:43:10.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Volker Krey  and
Oliver Windgätter

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.

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.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , June 2012 , pp. 579 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1737/05, Nov. 11, 2005, 2006 NJW 668, 670 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1610/03, Mar. 29, 2005, BVerfGK 5, 155 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. GSSt 1/04, Mar. 2, 2005, 50 BGHSt 40, 53, 54 (Ger.). For legal literature, see generally Volker Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law (2009); Volker Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht 162 (2007); Hans Kudlich, Erfordert das Beschleunigungsgebot eine Umgestaltung des Strafverfahrens?, in 1 Verhandlungen des 68. Deutschen Juristentages Berlin 2010, C 19 (2010).Google Scholar

2 See inter alia Kühne, Hans-Heiner, Abteilung Strafrecht. Die realen und potentiellen Auswirkungen des Beschleunigungsgebots für die Struktur des Strafverfahrensrechts, 65 JuristenZeitung 821, 822, 828 (2010) (following, partially, Kudlich, supra note 1); Michael Hettinger, Die Absprache im Strafverfahren als rechtsstaatlichs Problem, 66 JuristenZeitung 292, 293, 296 (2011).Google Scholar

3 See, e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1349/01, Sept. 20, 2001, 2002 NJW 51, 52 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 1086/85, Feb. 25, 1987, 74 BVerfGE 257, 262 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 454/71, Jan. 31, 1973, 34 BVerfGE 238, 248–51 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvL 7/71, July 19, 1972, 33 BVerfGE 367, 383 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 5 StR 190/91, Feb. 27, 1992, 38 BGHSt 214, 220 (Ger.); Lutz Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung. Mit GVG und Nebengesetzen intro. n.18 (54th ed. 2011); Volker Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at n.16; Volker Krey, 1 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht nn.478 (2006); Gunnar Duttge, BGH, 14.6.200 5 — 5 StR 129/0 5. Der “Miβbrauch” des Beweisantragsrechts, 20 JuristenZeitung 1010, 1012 (2005); Werner Beulke, Strafprozessrecht n.3 (11th ed. 2010); Uwe Hellmann, Strafprozessrecht n.5 (2nd ed. 2006); Herbert Landau, Die Pflicht des Staates zum Erhalt einer funktionstüchtigen Strafrechtspflege, 3 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 121–29 (2007). But see inter alia Claus Roxin & Bernd Schünemann, Strafverfahrensrecht 1/7 (26th ed. 2009); Winfried Hassemer, Funktionstüchtigkeit der Strafrechtspflege - ein neuer Rechtsbegriff ?, 1982 StV 275; Kühne, supra note 2, at 822–23.Google Scholar

4 Proceedings in which claims for damages resulting from crimes are decided under criminal procedure by criminal trial courts, instead of by civil courts.Google Scholar

5 Most recently by the Opferrechts reformges etz [Victims’ Rights Law Reform], June 24, 2004, BGBl I at 1354 (Ger.). But see in detail and very critically Volker Krey & Theresa Wilhelmi, Ausbau des Adhäsionsverfahrens: Holzweg oder Königsweg? Kritische Analyse mit rechtshistorischen und rechtsvergleichenden Hinweisen, in Festschrift für Harro Otto 933–53 (Gerhard Dannecker, Winrich Langer & Otfried Ranft eds., 2007), with further references.Google Scholar

6 See infra Part C.Google Scholar

7 See convincingly Kühne, supra note 2, at 822, 828 (following Kudlich, supra note 1). Furthermore, the criminal procedure law becomes more and more complex due to the permanent flood of statutes reforming or amending the criminal procedure code. With regard to those erroneous developments, see infra Part B.II.3.Google Scholar

8 PEBB§Y (Personal-bedarfs-berechnungs-system, i.e., a calculation system of the judges’ workload) has been in use since 2005. See Baden-Württemberg, Justizministerium, PEBB§Y - Leitfaden für Gerichte und Staatsanwaltschaften, http://www.bdr-online.de/base/bin/download.php?ID=228 (last visited May 3, 2012).Google Scholar

9 Regarding the former, merging the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior (State of North Rhine - Westphalia, NRW), see Verfassungsgerichtshof NRW-State Constitutional Court, 54 JuristenZeitung 1243, 1247 (1999); Volker Krey, The Public Prosecution's Role in Criminal Proceedings Under the Rule of Law: Legal Situation in Germany with Comparative Law Remarks on UK and USA, in 46 Rechtspolitisches Forum 19–20 (Institut für Rechtspolitik an der Universität Trier ed., 2009); Marvin Oppong, Zwisc henruf - Finger weg von der Justiz - Für eine Unabhängigkeit der Staatsanwaltschaft, 1 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 22, 23 (2009). Regarding the latter, incorporation into the State Chancellery (among others Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) see Oppong, supra note 9, at 23; Thomas Roggenfelder, Staatsanwalt und Richter als Wächter des Gesetzes gegenüber der Polizei im strafprozessualen Ermittlungsverfahren, Ch. 1, § 2, II, III, (forthcoming).Google Scholar

10 Strafprozessordnung [StPO - Code of Criminal Procedure] [hereinafter StPO].Google Scholar

11 StPO § 275, subs. 1 reads: “If the judgment including reasons has not been fully incorporated in the record, it shall be placed on file without delay. This must be done no later than five weeks after pronouncement; this time limit shall be extended by two weeks if the main hearing lasted longer than three days, and, if the main hearing lasted longer than ten days, by another two weeks for every ten days of the main hearing or part thereof. Once the time limit has expired the reasons for the judgment may no longer be amended. The time limit may be exceeded only if and so long as the court, due to a circumstance which cannot be anticipated or averted in the particular case, has been prevented from observing it. The date of receipt and any amendment of the reasons shall be noted by the registry.”Google Scholar

12 As to the mentioned principles as basis for StPO § 275, see inter alia Volker Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at n.66; Krey, 1 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 3, nn. 66, 466; Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, n. 1160; Hans-Heiner Kühne in Löwe-Rosenberg (LR), 1 Strafprozessordnung, intro. sec. I, n. 67 (26th ed. 2006).Google Scholar

13 The text of StPO § 338 is available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/german_code_of_criminal_procedure.pdf.Google Scholar

14 Regarding the German system of criminal trial courts and appellate instances, see Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at nn.69, 70, diagrams 1, 2.Google Scholar

15 See StPO § 275.Google Scholar

16 Regarding the respective case law, see Hanns Engelhardt in Karlsruher Kommentar (KK) § 275 n.49 (5th ed. 2003); Karl-Peter Julius in Karl-Peter Julius et al., Strafprozessordnung § 275 n.6 (4th ed. 2009); Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 275 nn.13, 15.Google Scholar

17 See Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.1148–50, 1246; Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 267 nn.42–44 (with references to case law).Google Scholar

18 This holds particularly for the BGH requirements for the judgment's explanations concerning the defendant's personal data—like parents, childhood, debt, criminal record, etc.—although not at all expressly required by statute law. See StPO § 267; Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at n.1148. Also holds for the BGH-requirements concerning the explanation of evidence taking and weighing of the evidence as well as the sentencing.Google Scholar

19 StPO § 121, subs. 1.Google Scholar

20 See Krey, Volker, The Rule of Law in German Criminal Proceedings. German Constitutional Law and the European Convention on Human Rights, in 43 Rechtspolitisches Forum 12–14 (Institut für Rechtspolitik an der Universität Trier ed., 2008).Google Scholar

21 Regarding the competence of the Oberlandesgericht for extending the mentioned six month-deadline under StPO § 121 subs. 1 and StPO § 122. Concerning the constitutional complaint before the BVerfG alleging that the respective Oberlandesgericht has violated constitutional rights of the arrested, see Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I, Art. 93, para. 1 (Ger.); Krey, supra note 9, at 10, 11.Google Scholar

22 Scheduling days for trial by the presiding judge, as well as speedy fulfilment of the defense counsel's functions under StPO §§ 147, 148, 168c, are made more difficult in case of significant distance between the defense counsel's office and the seat of the court—not to mention the increasing costs of the proceeding.Google Scholar

23 Such defense counsels in Germany are frequently characterized as Konfliktverteidiger. Google Scholar

24 See infra Part B.III.4.Google Scholar

25 E.g. Alfred Dierlamm, Ausschließung und Ablehnung von Tatrichtern nach Zurückverweisung durch das Revisionsgericht, nn.6 (1994); Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at nn.107, 122, 123.Google Scholar

26 See Hans-Heiner Kühne, Strafprozessrecht, n.732 (8th ed. 2010). But see Dierlamm supra note 25, at nn.615 (citing authors that illustrate the mentioned abuse convincingly).Google Scholar

27 Unfortunately, this provision is not of great relevance in courts’ practice, since it is very difficult for trial judges to substantiate the legal requirements of the mentioned provision in a way not being subject to a successful appeal on law. See Krey, supra note 25, at n.122 (with further references).Google Scholar

28 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 4 StR 252/91, Nov. 7, 1991, 38 BGHSt 111 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 5 StR 129/05, June 14, 2005, 2005 NJW 2466 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], 1 StR 484/08, Sept. 2 3, 2008, 52 BGHSt 355 (Ger.); see also infra Part II.3.1.b.i–iii; Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.1081–82 (with further references).Google Scholar

29 StPO § 244 subs. 3, sentence 2.Google Scholar

30 See Gerhard Herdegen in Karlsruher Kommentar, supra note 16, § 244 nn.86; Krey, supra note 28; Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 244 nn.67.Google Scholar

31 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 4 StR 252/91, Nov. 7, 1991, 38 BGHSt 111 (Ger.).Google Scholar

32 Id. at 112.Google Scholar

33 Id. at 112–113.Google Scholar

34 See Beulke, supra note 3, at nn.16, 150; Hans-Heiner Kühne, 65 JuristenZeitung 821, 826 (2010). See also Hellmann, supra note 3, at nn.773, 774; Krey, Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 3, at nn.480, 481; Volker Krey, Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.1066, 1067 (with further references); Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, at § 244, n.69 (with further references pro and contra).Google Scholar

35 Concerning this principle, supra A. with note 3.Google Scholar

36 Opposing the recourse to the prohibition of abusing rights as basis for restricting defendant's and defense counsel's rights, see Kühne, supra note 34, at 826, 827 (with further references); Roxin & Schünemann, supra note 3, at 19/13. Contra, the Supreme Court's practice, supra note 28 and the leading opinion among legal scholars, see Beulke, supra note 3, at n.126a; Volker Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at n.26; Volker Krey, 1 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 3, at nn.233, 480, 481 (with further references); Volker Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.1010, 1066, 1070, 1242; Kudlich, supra note 1, at C8990; Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, at intro. n.111 (with further references).Google Scholar

37 See e.g. Kühne, supra note 34, at 826, 827 (with further references).Google Scholar

38 Available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/index.html (last visited May 1, 2012).Google Scholar

39 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice], June 14, 2005, 5 StR 129/05, 2005 NJW 2466 (Ger.). Critical remarks by Gunnar Duttge, BGH, 14.6.2005 - 5 StR 129/05: Exzessive Beweisantragstellung in Prozessverschleppung sabsicht, 2005 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2466, 2466–69. Available at http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/5/05/5-129-05.php.Google Scholar

40 Supra note 39 (online version), at n.11.Google Scholar

41 Supra note 39 (online version), at n.5. As to such motions, see supra Part B.II.3.1.a.Google Scholar

42 Supra note 39 (online version), at n.5.Google Scholar

43 Hilfsbeweisantrag is a motion to take evidence, only filed for the eventuality of the defendant's conviction. See Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 244 n.22; Julius, supra note 16, § 244 nn.19, 58.Google Scholar

44 This provision reads: “In order to establish the truth, the court shall, proprio motu, extend the taking of evidence to all facts and means of proof relevant to the decision.”Google Scholar

45 Supra note 39 (online version), at n.27.Google Scholar

46 Supra note 39 (online version), at Leitsatz 1.Google Scholar

47 See Krey, 1 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 3, at nn.480, 481; Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.1068, 1069; see also Meyer-Goßner supra note 3, § 244 n.69b (with further references). Contra Beulke, supra note 3, at n.452; apparently also Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 244 n.69b.Google Scholar

48 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 484/08, Sept. 23, 2008, 52 BGHSt 355 (Ger.).Google Scholar

49 StPO § 246(1).Google Scholar

50 See Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 244 n.33, § 246 n.1 (with further references).Google Scholar

51 Supra note 48, at Leitsatz 1.Google Scholar

52 StPO § 244(2).Google Scholar

53 Supra note 48, at Leitsatz 2.Google Scholar

54 See inter alia Beulke, supra note 47; Kühne, supra note 2, at 826; see also Meyer-Goßner supra note 47 (with further references).Google Scholar

55 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2580/08, Oct. 6, 2009, 2010 NJW 592 (Ger.).Google Scholar

56 See Heusch, Andreas in Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz. Mitarbeiterkommentar und Handbuch (Dieter C. Umbach, Thomas Clemens & Franz-Wilhelm Dollinger eds., 2nd ed. 2005), § 31 n.55 (with further references); lately Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice] Case No. 4 ARs 16/09, Feb. 18, 2010, 2010 NStZ-RR 177 (Ger.).Google Scholar

57 See Heusch, Andreas, supra note 56.Google Scholar

58 Yet, StPO § 229(2)–(4) allows for longer periods of interruption in a limited number of enumerated cases.Google Scholar

59 See supra B. II. 2. b, Fourth with note 23.Google Scholar

60 See Hellmann, supra note 3, at n.617 (apparently arguing in favor); Klaus Tolksdorf in Karlsruher Kommentar, supra note 16, § 213 nn.4-4b; Krey, 1 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 3, at 299 & n.200; Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 213 n.6 (both taking an intermediary position).Google Scholar

61 Kühne, supra note 2, at 822, 828.Google Scholar

62 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice] Case No. GSSt 1/83, Oct. 17, 1983, 32 BGHSt 115, 124 (Ger.). Contra Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 111/02, Sept. 26, 2002, 2003 NJW 74 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 1 StR 315/04, Aug. 17, 2004, 2005 NStZ 43 (Ger.).Google Scholar

63 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice] Case No. 1 StR 315/04, Aug. 17, 2004, 2005 NStZ 43 (Ger.).Google Scholar

64 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 3 StR 316/02, Sept. 11, 2003, 2004 NStZ 345–47 (Ger.). A chamber of the Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] acknowledges this danger in Case No. 2 BvR 547/08 (Oct. 8, 2009) (Ger.), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20091008_2bvr054708.html, nn.23, 24.Google Scholar

65 See Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.919–23. Unfortunately, the BVerfG has accepted this “audio-visual masquerade” as not being unconstitutional. Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 547/08, (Oct. 8, 2009) (Ger.), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20091008_2bvr054708.html (decreeing the non-acceptance of a constitutional complaint, chamber ruling). However, this ruling is neither binding, see cases cited supra note 56, nor viably reasoned.Google Scholar

66 See cases cited supra note 1.Google Scholar

67 See e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 28/71, Mar, 8, 1972, 32 BVerfGE 373, 383 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. 4 StR 519/63, Feb. 21, 1964, 19 BGHSt 325, 330 (Ger.). For criticism see Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at n.28.Google Scholar

68 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1444/00, Feb. 21, 2001, 103 BVerfGE 142 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2292/00, May 15, 2002, 105 BVerfGE 239 (Ger.). Both are decisions of the Second Senate. For references to the innumerous further Court decisions (chamber rulings) see Thomas Trück, Mündliche Entscheidung des Ermittlungsrichters ohne Akten ? - Überlegungen zu Zweck und Tragweite des strafprozessualen Richtervorbehalts am Beispiel von Durchsuc hung und Blutprobenentnahme, 65 JuristenZeitung 1106 in footnote 16 et passim (2010). As to such subsidiary powers in exigent circumstances, see infra note 69.Google Scholar

69 See e.g., in veiled terms Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1444/00, Feb. 21, 2001, 103 BVerfGE 142, 153 (Ger.). The mentioned phrase “subsidiary powers in exigent circumstances” means the public prosecution's (and often also the police's) power to order interference with civil rights like seizure in preliminary proceedings instead of waiting for a court order which is in principle required by law. Such subsidiary powers are laid down in numerous provisions of the StPO. See, e.g., StPO §§ 98(1), 105(1); see also GG Art. 13, para. 2. In this context, the following formulation of the law is common: The respective measure “may be ordered only by the court and, in exigent circumstances, by the public prosecution's office … .” However, there are some corresponding regulations that conform in content, but differ in wording. See, e.g., StPO § 81a(2) (“The authority to give such order shall be vested in the judge and, if a delay would endanger the success of the examination, also in the public prosecution office including the officials assisting it (§ 152 of the Federal Judicature Act).”).Google Scholar

70 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1444/00, Feb. 21, 2001, 103 BVerfGE 142 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2292/00, May 15, 2002, 105 BVerfGE 239 (Ger.); Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz [GVG] [Judicature Act], Sept. 12, 1950, § 22c nn.2, 3 (Ger.).Google Scholar

71 See Herrmann, Dirk, Neuregelung des richterlichen Bereitschaftsdienstes und richterliche Unabhängigkeit, 2004 Deutsche Richterzeitung 316, 319, 321; remarks by Malte Rabe von Kühlewein, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] NJW 2007, 1345 in 2007 Juristische Rundschau (JR) 516, 519; Deutscher Bundestag [BT] Drs. 14/9166 (Ger.). But see Christoph Krehl, Die Bindungswirkung verfassungsgerichtlicher Entscheidungen und richterlicher Bereitschaftsdienst bei Gefahr im Verzug, 2002 Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrecht (wistra) 294, 296 (supporting an optimistic outlook that has been refuted by legal reality).Google Scholar

72 This is because the AG Trier has to carry out the still existing, aforementioned stand-by duty on weekends and public holidays during midday.Google Scholar

73 In Festschrift für Hans Achenbach (Christian Schröder & Uwe Hellmann eds., 2011), the authors unfortunately described this additional stand-by duty on weekends and public holidays as lasting from 8 AM (instead of 6 AM) to 9 PM due to a typing error.Google Scholar

74 As to physical examination/blood test, see StPO § 81a. As to longer-term observation, see StPO § 163f.Google Scholar

75 Regarding the inviolability of the home, more precisely house searches, GG Art. 13(2) (as well as electronic surveillance of private homes (“bugging operations”)), GG Art. 13(3)–(5), and Deprivation of Liberty, GG Art. 104(2). Whether, and if so, in which cases, there are reservations of judicial authority with constitutional rank despite the lack of expressive regulation in the German Federal Constitution shall not be discussed here. Nevertheless it should be emphasized that the BVerfG accepts such unwritten constitutional reservations when the respective interference with civil rights is very serious. See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case Nos. 2 BvR 1596 & 2346/10 (Feb. 24, 2011) (Ger.), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20110224_2bvr159610.html at n.17.Google Scholar

76 In principle including even cases of simple blood tests within the scope of the stand -by duty, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 273/06, Feb. 12, 2007, 10 BVerfGK 270 (Ger.). See also Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 105 nn.2, 3, § 81a nn.25a, 25b and Trück, supra note 68, 1108. More restrictive lately: Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case Nos. 2 BvR 1596 & 2346/10 (Feb. 24, 2011) (Ger.), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20110224_2bvr159610.html (emphasizing that the reservation of judicial authority in StPO § 81a has no constitutional rank).Google Scholar

77 Alkohol am Steuer: BGH-Präsident will Blutprobe ohne Richterbeschluss, Der Spiegel, Feb. 5, 2010, http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/0,1518,676185,00.html (last visited May 5, 2012).Google Scholar

78 See Bundesrat Drucksache [BR-Drs.] 615/10 (Ger.); Bundesrat Drucksache [BR-Drs.] 615/1/10 (Ger.). In the meantime, it has been accepted by the Bundesrat and passed on to the Bundestag. See Deutscher Bundestag [BT] 615/10 (Ger.).Google Scholar

79 Allowing orders by telephone e.g., Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice] 51 BGHSt 285, 295 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 2267/06 (July 23, 2007) (Ger.), http://www.rechtsportal.de/Rechtsprechung/Rechtsprechung/2007/BVerfG/Anforderungen-an-die-Begruendung-eines-Durchsuchungsbeschlusses-in-Eilfaellen (paid subscription), n.4. See also Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3; Trück, supra note 68, 1108-1115 (both with further references).Google Scholar

80 The judicial practice is inconsistent. However, the authors agree with the legal standpoint that, at least in the case of ordering preventive detention against mentally ill persons due to their dangerousness for themselves and/or third persons, a judge's personal interrogation is necessary.Google Scholar

81 See Oberlandesgericht Hamm [OLG - Higher Regional Court], Case No. 3 Ss 293/08, Aug. 18, 2009, 2009 NJW 3109 (Ger.) (3. Strafsenat, answering affirmatively even in the case of StPO § 81a, blood test); Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 105 n.2. But see Oberlandesgericht Hamm [OLG - Higher Regional Court], Case No. 4 Ss 316/09 (Sept. 9, 2010) (Ger.), http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=4%20Ss%20316%2F09&Suche=4%20Ss%20316%2F09 (4. Strafsenat, and other Strafsenate, answering negatively). More vaguely, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/02, Dec. 10, 2003, 2 BVerfGK 176 (Ger., chamber ruling); BVerfG [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case Nos. 2 BvR 1596 & 2346/10 (Feb. 24, 2011) (Ger.), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20110224_2bvr159610.html (left undecided, chamber ruling); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1444/00, Feb. 21, 2001, 103 BVerfGE 142 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2292/00, May 15, 2002, 105 BVerfGE 239 (Ger.) (refusing, correctly, to demand a 24-hour stand-by duty, senate decision); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2292/00, May 15, 2002, 105 BVerfGE 239 (Ger.) (same, senate decision).Google Scholar

82 See cases cited supra note 68.Google Scholar

83 See supra note 75.Google Scholar

84 See Krey, supra note 9; Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at nn.143–45, 154, 166–72.Google Scholar

85 See, e.g., Berlin Bundesverfassungsgericht [BerlVerfGH - Constitutional Court of the State of Berlin], Case No. VerfGH 55/92, Jan. 12, 1993, 1993 NJW 515 (Ger.) (so called “Honecker” case); Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at nn.31, 32 (with further references).Google Scholar

86 See supra Part B.II.2.b.Google Scholar

87 Some decades ago, State ministries of justice (e.g., in Rhineland-Palatinate) created new judge positions in cases where the State Courts of Appeals had to set prisoners free under StPO § 122 and, in that context, emphasized the trial courts’ permanent overload. At the time, co-author Krey was a judge at the State Court of Appeals Koblenz. At that time, nobody would have imagined that State ministries of judges would intimidate overloaded trial judges through disciplinary measures of supervision instead of unburdening them.Google Scholar

88 See the convincing and blistering criticism by Prantl, Heribert, Die Abhängigkeit der Unabhängigen, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Dec. 10–11, 2005; see also Krey, German Criminal Procedure Law, supra note 1, at n.66; Kühne, supra note 26, at n.110.Google Scholar

89 See StPO §§ 257c, 273 subs. 1a sentence 2.Google Scholar

90 For criticism, see Altenhain, Karsten & Haimerl, Michael, Die gesetzliche Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren - eine verweigerte Reform, 65 JuristenZeitung 327–37 (2010). For extremely harsh criticism, see Hettinger, Michael, Die Absprache im Strafverfahren als rechtsstaatliches Problem, 66 JuristenZeitung 292–301 (2011); Kühne, supra note 2, at 824, 825; Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 257c n.3; Roxin & Schünemannn, supra note 3, at 44/64–65, 17/19. Regarding the statutory regulation of the deal, see Beulke, supra note 3, at nn.394–96 (with further references).Google Scholar

91 Likewise, inter alia, Kudlich, supra note 1, at C65. Most German defense counsels favor the deal.Google Scholar

92 See Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.776, 987, 1040–55 (with further references).Google Scholar

93 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 1133/86, Jan. 27, 1987, 9 NStZ 419, 420 (Ger.) (chamber ruling); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], Case No. GSSt 1/04, Mar. 3, 2005, 50 BGHSt 40 (Ger.).Google Scholar

94 See Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at nn.1040.Google Scholar

95 This through application of the exception rule in Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung [VwGO] [Administrative Courts Act], Jan. 21, 1961, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl. I] at 17, § 40(1) (Ger.).Google Scholar

96 Polizei- und Ordnungsbehördengesetz [POG] [State Police Act], Nov. 10, 1993, Gesetzes- und Verordnungsblatt [GVBl.] S. 595 last amended by Dec. 20, 2011 Gesetz [G], Dec. 20, 2011, GVBl. at 427, § 7 (Ger.).Google Scholar

97 Id. §§ 10(2)–(3), 15.Google Scholar

98 Id. §§ 12(3), 15.Google Scholar

99 Id. §§ 14, 15.Google Scholar

100 Id. § 11a(3).Google Scholar

101 Id. § 21(1).Google Scholar

102 Id. § 28(5).Google Scholar

103 Id. § 29(7).Google Scholar

104 Id. §§ 11a(3); 15(2); 21(1); 28(5); 29(10). Regarding the stand-by duty, see supra Part B.II.4.b.Google Scholar

105 See supra note 4.Google Scholar

106 See supra note 5.Google Scholar

107 See supra note 5.Google Scholar

108 See supra note 7.Google Scholar

109 See in detail Kühne, Hans-Heiner, Das Nebenstrafrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Korean Institute of Criminology, 2008).Google Scholar

110 Bernd Hecker, Europäisches Strafrecht, 7/76-104 (3rd ed. 2010); Volker Krey, Zur Verweisung auf EWG-Verordnungen in Blankettstrafgesetzen, in EWR: Schriftenreihe zum europäischen Weinrecht 109–201 (1981); Dietmar Moll, Europäisches Strafrecht durch nationale Blankettstrafgesetzgebung (1998).Google Scholar

111 Hecker, supra note 110, at 7/88-92.Google Scholar

112 Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] §§ 261(5); 264(4) (Ger.).Google Scholar

113 See, e.g., Fischer, Thomas, Strafgesetzbuch Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze § 265b nn.4, 5 (57th ed. 2010): This criminal offence was unnecessary (with further references).Google Scholar

114 Regarding the Criminal Law as ultima ratio among the instruments of the legislator, see, e.g., Volker Krey, 1 Deutsches Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, nn.1–15, 16–27, 28 (2002).Google Scholar

115 See Kühne in LR, supra note 12, Einl. F nn.151–63.Google Scholar

116 See Krey, 2 Deutsches Strafverfahrensrecht, supra note 1, at n.913.Google Scholar

117 See Meyer-Goßner, supra note 3, § 247 nn.7, 20b.Google Scholar

118 See supra Part B.II.4.a, notes 62–64.Google Scholar