The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
BGH 5 StR 331/11•Substitute signature after vacation delay; reinstatement granted
BGH 5 StR 331/11Bgh / Criminal Chamber 5Sep 14, 2011Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Court granted E. reinstatement after a missed deadline for the revision grounds, making the Berlin Regional Court's June 8, 2011 order moot. On the merits, it dismissed the defendants' revisions against the Regional Court judgment of March 14, 2011 as unfounded. The Court held that the procedural complaint under Section 338 No. 7 StPO was admissible but failed: no reviewable error existed in not waiting for the vacation return of the additional lay judge before expiry of the maximum time limit under Section 275 StPO, and the handwritten amendments by the presiding judge did not support an inference of special deliberation needs. Costs were imposed on each appellant.
§ 275 Abs. 1 S. 2, Abs. 2 S. 2 StPO; § 338 Nr. 7 StPO; reinstatement and procedural complaint regarding delayed signing of the judgment reasons: A court does not commit an error of assessment merely because it decides not to await the return from vacation of an additional judge prevented under § 275 Abs. 2 S. 2 StPO if the maximum period under § 275 Abs. 1 S. 2 StPO would otherwise expire. Handwritten alterations by the presiding judge do not, without further indications, justify the assumption of special deliberation requirements for the drafting of the reasons. The procedural complaint is admissible but unfounded where such circumstances do not show a violation of the statutory composition or signing requirements.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-09-14
Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 331/11
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 275 Abs 1 S 2 StPO, § 275 Abs 2 S 2 StPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Berlin, 14. März 2011, Az: (503) 4 Op Js 1787/09 KLs (24/10)
Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat
Strafurteil: Ersetzung der Unterschrift des wegen Urlaubs verhinderten Beisitzers trotz Urlaubsendes vor Fristablauf
Dem Angeklagten E. wird Wiedereinsetzung in den vori-gen Stand gegen die Versäumung der Frist zur Begründung der Revision gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Berlin vom 14. März 2011 gewährt. Damit ist der Beschluss des Landgerichts vom 8. Juni 2011 gegenstandslos.
Die Revisionen der Angeklagten gegen das genannte Urteil werden nach § 349 Abs. 2 StPO als unbegründet verworfen.
Jeder Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten seines Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Die Verfahrensrüge nach § 338 Nr. 7 StPO ist zulässig, aber unbegründet. Für einen Beurteilungsfehler bei der Entscheidung, nicht auf die Urlaubsrückkehr des nach § 275 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO verhinderten weiteren Beisitzers vor Ablauf der Höchstfrist des § 275 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StPO zu warten, ist nichts ersichtlich (vgl. Meyer-Goßner, StPO, 54. Aufl., § 275 Rn. 21). Ein tragfähiger Rückschluss aus handschriftlichen Änderungen des Vorsitzenden auf einen besonderen Beratungsbedarf für die Fassung der Urteilsgründe ist nicht möglich.
Basdorf Brause Schaal
Schneider Bellay
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether E. should receive reinstatement after missing the deadline to substantiate the revision.
Yes. Reinstatement was granted.
The request was allowed and the lower court's order of 2011-06-08 became moot.
Whether the defendants' revisions against the Berlin Regional Court judgment were well founded.
No. The revisions were unfounded and were dismissed under Section 349(2) StPO.
The procedural complaint under Section 338 No. 7 StPO was admissible but unfounded. No assessment error was shown in deciding not to await the vacation return of the additional lay judge before expiry of the maximum period under Section 275(1) sentence 2 StPO; handwritten changes by the presiding judge did not justify an inference of special deliberation needs.
Who bears the costs of the appellate proceedings?
Each appellant bears the costs of his own remedy.
The court ordered costs against each complainant.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.