Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Country Report “Germany”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Protection in Transnational Criminal Proceedings

  • 244 Accesses

Abstract

The German constitution (Basic Law—Grundgesetz (GG)) guarantees a right to an effective remedy before a tribunal as an integral part of the rule of law. Should any person’s rights be violated by public authority, he or she may have recourse to the courts (Art. 19 para. 4 GG). Thereby, the constitution contains a fundamental right to effective and comprehensive judicial protection against acts of public authority. In addition, the German constitution provides for a general right to access to justice that forms part of the rule-of-law principle in connection with fundamental rights (Art. 2 para. 1 GG). The constitutional principle guarantees access to the courts, an examination of the factual and legal issues in a formal procedure and a binding decision of the court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG), decision of 2 March 1993 – 1 BvR 249/92, official court reports (BVerfGE) 88, p. 118, para. 21.

  2. 2.

    BVerfG, decision of 12 November 1958 – 2 BvL 4/56, BVerfGE 8, p. 274, para. 196; decision of 2 May 1984 – 2 BvR 1413/83, BVerfGE 67, p. 43 para. 40; decision of 30 April 1997 – 2 BvR 817/90, 2 BvR 728/92, 2 BvR 802/795, 2 BvR 1065/95, BVerfGE 96, p. 27 para. 47; decision of 5 December 2001 – 2 BvR 527/99, BVerfGE 104, p. 220 para. 33.

  3. 3.

    See BVerfG, decision of 20 June 1995 – 1 BvR 166/93, BVerfGE 93, p. 99 para. 29; decision of 2 March 1993 – 1 BvR 249/92, BVerfGE 88, p. 118 para. 20.

  4. 4.

    See BVerfG, decision of 30 April 2003 – 1 PBvU 1/02, BVerfGE 107, p. 395 para. 17; see as well in this regard BVerfG, decision of 29 October 1975 – 2 BvR 630/73, BVerfGE 40, p. 272 para. 11; decision of 16 May 1995 – 1 BvR 1087/91, BVerfGE 93, p. 1 para. 28; permanent jurisdiction.

  5. 5.

    BVerfG, decision of 27 April 1971 – 2 BvR 708/65, BVerfGE 31, p. 33 para. 20; decision of 9 January 1991 – 1 BvR 207/87, BVerfGE 83, p. 182 para. 44.

  6. 6.

    BVerfG, decision of 31 May 1988 – 1 BvR 520/83, BVerfGE 78, p. 214 para. 34; decision of 9 January 1991 – 1 BvR 207/87, BVerfGE 83, p. 182 para. 44.

  7. 7.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 June 1997 – 2 BvR 483/95, BVerfGE 96, p. 100 para. 86 with further references.

  8. 8.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 June 1997 – 2 BvR 483/95, BVerfGE 96, p. 100 para. 86 with further references.

  9. 9.

    BVerfG, decision of 8 July 1982 – 2 BvR 1187/80, BVerfGE 61, p. 82 para. 77; decision of 17 April 1991 – 1 BvR 419/81, BVerfGE 84, p. 34 para. 47.

  10. 10.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 June 1997 – 2 BvR 483/95, BVerfGE 96, p. 100 para. 86 with further references.

  11. 11.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 paras. 101 f.

  12. 12.

    See also Schomburg et al. (2020a), introduction para. 197.

  13. 13.

    See also Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG), decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 para. 109.

  14. 14.

    Schomburg et al. (2020a), introduction para. 205.

  15. 15.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 paras. 311 f.; Grotz (2014b), § 74 para. 12.

  16. 16.

    See the Act on the establishment and the tasks of the Federal Office of Justice (Gesetz zur Errichtung und der Regelung der Aufgaben des Bundesamtes für Justiz) of 17 December 2006 (BGBl. I, p. 3171), and the circular of the Ministry of Justice (Übertragungserlass des Bundesministeriums der Justiz) of 2 January 2007 – II B 6 BfJ.

  17. 17.

    See the jurisdictional agreement of the Federal Government and the state (Länder) governments (Zuständigkeitsvereinbarung) of 28 April 2004 (Federal Bulletin [Bundesanzeiger]) p. 11494.

  18. 18.

    See e.g. the circular on the competences in international cooperation in criminal matters in the state of Northrhine-Westphalia of 16 December 2016 (Ausübung der Befugnisse im Rechtshilfeverkehr mit dem Ausland in strafrechtlichen Angelegenheiten, Berichtspflichten und die Zusammenarbeit im Europäischen Justiziellen Netz sowie mit transnationalen Verbindungsstellen - Gemeinsamer Runderlass des Justizministeriums - 9350 - III. 19 -, des Ministeriums für Inneres und Kommunales - 424 - 57.01.48 - und des Finanzministeriums - S 1320 - 5 - V B 5/ S 770 - 4 - V A 1 - vom 16. Dezember 2016), JMBI. NRW 2017, p. 74.

  19. 19.

    See the previous notes.

  20. 20.

    See Böhm (2017b), para. 724.

  21. 21.

    Schierholt (2020b), § 12 para. 29.

  22. 22.

    Johnson (2016), § 59 para. 16.

  23. 23.

    Böhm (2017b), para. 704.

  24. 24.

    Hackner (2020a), introduction IRG para. 58.

  25. 25.

    Hackner (2020a), introduction IRG para. 58.

  26. 26.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 paras. 101 and 109.

  27. 27.

    BVerfG, decision of 19 October 1966 – 1 BvR 607/66, GA 1967, p. 111; Vogler (1981), pp. 418 ff.

  28. 28.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273.

  29. 29.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 paras. 101, 113.

  30. 30.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 paras. 101, 113.

  31. 31.

    BT-Drucks. 16/1024, p. 13; Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 26 October 2006 – 3 Ausl. 52/06, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 613 (614); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 20 December 2006 – 1 AK 46/06, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 617 (618); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 11 May 2007 – 1 AK 3/07, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 2567 (2568); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 13 March 2007 – 1 AK 28/06, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2008, p. 376 (377).

  32. 32.

    Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 6 March 2007 – 3 Ausl. 52/06, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 1702 (1704).

  33. 33.

    Böse (2012), § 79 paras. 17, 22.

  34. 34.

    BT-Drucks. 16/2015, p. 12.

  35. 35.

    Federal Administrative Court of Germany, decision of 18 May 2010 – BVerwG 1 B 1.10, official court reports (BVerwGE) 137, p. 52 paras. 9 ff.

  36. 36.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 July 2005 – 2 BvR 2236/04, BVerfGE 113, p. 273 para. 107.

  37. 37.

    BVerfG, decision of 9 June 2015 – 2 BvR 965/15, juris (paras. 24–25).

  38. 38.

    Administrative Court München, decision of 15 January 2019 – M 30 E 18.5442, juris (para. 14); see also BVerfG, decision of 9 June 2015 – 2 BvR 965/15, juris (paras. 21 ff.).

  39. 39.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 June 1997 – 2 BvR 483/95, 2 BvR 2501/95 und 2 BvR 2990/95, BVerfGE 96, p. 100, para. 115; BVerfG, decision of 17 October 2002 – 2 BvR 1029/02, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2003, p. 335.

  40. 40.

    Higher Regional Court Frankfurt/Main, decision of 21 February 2008 – 3 VAs 46/07, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2008, p. 174; Hackner and Schierholt (2017), para. 157, with further references.

  41. 41.

    See also Lagodny and Zimmermann (2020), § 61 para. 1.

  42. 42.

    See § 105 paras. 1 and 2 of the German code of criminal procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO): “(1) Searches may be ordered only by the judge and, in exigent circumstances, also by the public prosecution office and the officials assisting it (section 152 of the Courts Constitution Act). Searches pursuant to Section 103 subsection (1), second sentence, shall be ordered by the judge; in exigent circumstances the public prosecution office shall be authorized to order such searches.

    (2) Where private premises, business premises, or enclosed property are to be searched in the absence of the judge or the public prosecutor, a municipal official or two members of the community in the district of which the search is carried out shall be called in, if possible, to assist. The persons called in as members of the community may not be police officers or officials assisting the public prosecution office.”

  43. 43.

    Hackner (2020a), introduction IRG para. 77.

  44. 44.

    Trautmann and Zimmermann (2020), § 59 para. 55.

  45. 45.

    In particular, the regulations of the Criminal Procedure, § 77 para. 1 IRG.

  46. 46.

    Vogel and Burchard (2011), § 77 paras. 50 ff.

  47. 47.

    BVerfG, decision of 16 July 1987 – 2 BvR 682/87, in: Eser et al. (1989), no. 148d.

  48. 48.

    Higher Regional Court Dresden, decision of 30 November 2010 – OLG Ausl 74/10, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2011, p. 146; Johnson (2012), § 61 para. 15.

  49. 49.

    Vogel and Burchard (2011), § 77 para. 58.

  50. 50.

    See the explanatory memorandum, BT-Drucks. 18/9757, p. 30 (78).

  51. 51.

    See the explanatory memorandum, BT-Drucks. 18/9757, p. 30; in favour of a legal remedy against the granting decision: Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 paras. 300, 301.

  52. 52.

    See the jurisdictional agreement of the Federal Government and the state (Länder) governments of 28 April 2004 (Federal Bulletin [Bundesanzeiger] p. 11494), which entered into force on 1 May 2004 and the jurisdiction regulations of the individual federal states.

  53. 53.

    See e.g. the circular on the competences in international cooperation in criminal matters in the state of Northrhine-Westphalia of 16 December 2016 (Ausübung der Befugnisse im Rechtshilfeverkehr mit dem Ausland in strafrechtlichen Angelegenheiten, Berichtspflichten und die Zusammenarbeit im Europäischen Justiziellen Netz sowie mit transnationalen Verbindungsstellen - Gemeinsamer Runderlass des Justizministeriums - 9350 - III. 19 -, des Ministeriums für Inneres und Kommunales - 424 - 57.01.48 - und des Finanzministeriums - S 1320 - 5 - V B 5/ S 770 - 4 - V A 1 - vom 16. Dezember 2016), JMBI. NRW 2017, p. 74.

  54. 54.

    Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 64 ff.

  55. 55.

    Higher Regional Court Zweibrücken, decision of 11 July 2019 – 1 Ws 203/19, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2019, p. 2869; Higher Regional Court Hamm, decision of 1 August 2019 – 2 Ws 96/19, juris; for the position of the government see also BT-Drucks. 19/11017, p. 25.

  56. 56.

    This has been emphasised in the opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona of 30 April 2019, Case C-508/18, OG and PI, paras. 37 ff.

  57. 57.

    Ambos (2019), p. 734.

  58. 58.

    BVerfG, decision of 25 March 1981 – 2 BvR 1258/79, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1981, p. 1154 (1156); Higher Regional Court Celle, decision of 16 April 2009 – 2 VAs 3/09, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2019, p. 534 (with regard to European Arrest Warrants); Hackner and Schierholt (2017), para. 61.

  59. 59.

    Higher Regional Court Celle, decision of 16 April 2009 – 2 VAs 3/09, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2009, p. 534; Meyer and Hüttemann (2016), p. 426.

  60. 60.

    Meyer and Hüttemann (2016), p. 425; Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 295.

  61. 61.

    Higher Regional Court München, decision of 18 October 1974 – 1 V As 67/74, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1975, p. 509 (510), with regard to the transfer of proceedings.

  62. 62.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 5 April 2018 – StB 2/18, juris (paras. 11 f.); Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 295.

  63. 63.

    Grotz (2014a), § 71 para. 29. A court decision is not required if the convicted person consents to his transfer to the requested state (§ 2 ÜAG and Art. 2, Art. 3 para. 1 lit. d Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983, ETS no. 112), see Hackner and Schierholt (2017), para. 148.

  64. 64.

    Böse (2018b), § 85c para. 1.

  65. 65.

    Grotz (2014a), § 71 para. 29.

  66. 66.

    Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI) para. 71.

  67. 67.

    See Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European Investigation Order, OJ L 13/1.

  68. 68.

    BVerfG, decision of 18 June 1997 – 2 BvR 483, 2501, 2990/95, BVerfGE 96, p. 100 (117 f.); decision of 17 October 2002 – 2 BvR 1029/02, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2003, p. 335.

  69. 69.

    Higher Regional Court Hamburg, decision of 17 February 1998 – 2 VAs 11–97, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1999, p. 197; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, decision of 21 February 2008 – 3 VAs 46/07, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2008, p. 174.

  70. 70.

    BVerfG, decision of 14 January 2005 – 2 BvR 162/04, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2005, p. 182; Hackner (2020c), § 71 para. 18.

  71. 71.

    Higher Regional Court Hamm, decision of 15 October 2007 – 1 VAs 79/09; Hackner and Schierholt (2017), para. 61.

  72. 72.

    Administrative Court Köln, decision of 7 December 2010 – 5 K 7161/08, Nordrhein-Westfälische Verwaltungsblätter 2011, p. 114f.

  73. 73.

    Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 305.

  74. 74.

    Hackner and Schomburg (2012), Vor § 68 para. 96; see now for the contrary view Hackner (2020d), § 74 para. 26.

  75. 75.

    Rackow (2020), chapter 1 para. 117.

  76. 76.

    Böse (2012), § 78 para. 15.

  77. 77.

    Böhm and Werner (2014), § 114 para. 53.

  78. 78.

    Schultheis (2019), § 131 para. 20.

  79. 79.

    Böhm and Werner (2014), § 114 para. 53 (domestic arrest warrant); Higher Regional Court Hamm, decision of 1 August 2019 – 2 Ws 96/19 (European Arrest Warrant), juris.

  80. 80.

    Higher Regional Court Hamm, decision of 30 March 1995 – (2) 4 Ausl 352/93, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1995, p. 455; Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, 9 November 2015 – 1 ARs 54/15, Strafverteidiger 2016, p. 248; Johnson (2012), § 61 para. 25; for the contrary view see Lagodny and Zimmermann (2020), § 61 para. 16.

  81. 81.

    Johnson (2012), § 61 para. 25.

  82. 82.

    Higher Regional Court Hamm, decision of 15 October 2007 – 1 VAs 79/09; Hackner and Schierholt (2017), para. 61.

  83. 83.

    Administrative Court Köln, decision of 7 December 2010 – 5 K 7161/08, Nordrhein-Westfälische Verwaltungsblätter 2011, pp. 114f.

  84. 84.

    Rackow (2020), chapter 1 para. 117; Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 305.

  85. 85.

    Also see Schomburg et al. (2020b), introduction para. 80.

  86. 86.

    Schomburg et al. (2020b), introduction para. 38; Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 267.

  87. 87.

    Schomburg et al. (2020b), introduction para. 82.

  88. 88.

    Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1321.

  89. 89.

    See in general no. 16 ff. Directive for International Cooperation in criminal matters (Richtlinien für den Verkehr mit dem Ausland in strafrechtlichen Angelegenheiten, RiVASt) available at: http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_23122016_IIB6935088.htm; Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1319.

  90. 90.

    Schomburg et al. (2020b), introduction para. 83.

  91. 91.

    Schomburg et al. (2020b), introduction para. 82.

  92. 92.

    Schomburg et al. (2020b), introduction para. 84.

  93. 93.

    Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1326.

  94. 94.

    BVerfG, decision of 20 October 1977 – 2 BvR 631/77, BVerfGE 46, p. 214 para. 20 referring to a general rule of international law in this regard; see also BVerfG, decision of 11 October 1951, 1 BvR 95/51, BVerfGE 1, p. 10 para. 9; decision of 21 March 1957 – 1 BvR 65/54, BVerfGE 6, p. 290 para. 18.

  95. 95.

    Schierholt (2020a), § 2 para. 7.

  96. 96.

    Schierholt (2020a), § 2 para. 7.

  97. 97.

    Vogel and Burchard (2009), § 2 para. 24.

  98. 98.

    Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 10.

  99. 99.

    See § 10 para. 2 IRG; Böse (2014), p. 153; Böhm (2017c), para. 798.

  100. 100.

    See in this regard also Böse (2014), p. 153.

  101. 101.

    Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 4.

  102. 102.

    Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 1.

  103. 103.

    See Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 41.

  104. 104.

    See § 10 para. 2 IRG.

  105. 105.

    Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 50.

  106. 106.

    Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 7.

  107. 107.

    Higher Regional Court Frankfurt a.M., decision of 6 September 2006 – 2 Ausl A 42/05, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2006, p. 343; Lagodny et al. (2012a), § 10 para. 27.

  108. 108.

    Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 8 February 1989 – 1 AK 31/88, juris; Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 25.

  109. 109.

    Hackner (2020b), § 10 para. 28 with further references.

  110. 110.

    Higher Regional Court München, decision of 19 December 1984 – OLG Ausl 113/84, in: Eser et al. (1989), p. 369; Lagodny and Zimmermann (2020), § 61 para. 26.

  111. 111.

    Higher Regional Court München, decision of 19 December 1984 – OLG Ausl 113/84, in: Eser et al. (1989), p. 366 (368).

  112. 112.

    Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 4 April 1990 1- Ws 221/90, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrecht 1990, p. 323 (324).

  113. 113.

    Vogel and Burchard (2009), § 2 para. 2.

  114. 114.

    Zimmermann (2020), § 81 para. 7.

  115. 115.

    Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 7 September 2004 – 3 Ausl 80/04, Strafverteidiger 2004, p. 546 (547); Böse (2012), § 83a para. 13, with further references; for the contrary view see Hackner (2020e), § 78 para. 14.

  116. 116.

    Böse (2012), § 83a para. 14, with further references.

  117. 117.

    BVerfG, decision of 20 October 1977 – 2 BvR 631/77, BVerfGE 46, p. 214 (219 f), referring to a general rule of international law; see also BVerfG, decision of 11 October 1951, 1 BvR 95/51, BVerfGE 1, p. 10 para. 9; BVerfG, decision of 21 March 1957 – 1 BvR 65/54, BVerfGE 6, p. 290 para. 18.

  118. 118.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 11 November 2004 – 5 StR 299/03, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 300 (302); decision of 21 November 2012 – 1 StR 310/12, Strafverteidiger 2014, p. 193 (196).

  119. 119.

    Federal Court of Justice (BGH), decision of 21 November 2012 – 1 StR 310/12, Strafverteidiger 2014, p. 193 (196).

  120. 120.

    Böse (2014), pp. 159 f, with further references.

  121. 121.

    Cf. recital 22 of Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order: “… In cases where objections against the EIO are submitted by an interested party in the executing State in respect of the substantive reasons for issuing the EIO, it is advisable that information about such challenge be transmitted to the issuing authority and that the interested party be informed accordingly.”

  122. 122.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 21 November 2012 – 1 StR 310/12, Strafverteidiger 2014, p. 193; Böse (2002), p. 149.

  123. 123.

    BVerfG, decision of 27 April 2000 – 2 BvR 75/94, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, p. 3557; Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 27 February 1992 – 5 StR 190/191, official court reports (BGHSt) 38, p. 214 para. 13; Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), judgment of 11 November 1998 – 3 StR 181/98, BGHSt 44, p. 243 para. 10; permanent jurisdiction.

  124. 124.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), judgment of 20 October 1992 – 4 StR 126/92, BGHSt. 38, p. 372 paras. 6 f.; permanent jurisdiction.

  125. 125.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), judgment of 22 April 1952 – 1 StR 622/51, BGHSt 2, p. 300 para. 12; Böse (2002), p. 158.

  126. 126.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 3 November 1987 – 5 StR 579/87, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1988, p. 563; see, in contrast, Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 17 March 2010 – 2 StR 397/09, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2010, p. 2224 (2225 f.), where the German authorities initiated a corresponding request, but the requested state (Turkey) did not allow for defence counsel to participate in the examination of the witness.

  127. 127.

    Böse (2002), p. 150; Gleß (2013), p. 607; Schuster (2006), p. 119.

  128. 128.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 11 November 2004 – 5 StR 299/03, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 300 (302); decision of 21 November 2012 – 1 StR 310/12, Strafverteidiger 2014, p. 193 (196).

  129. 129.

    Böse (2002), p. 153; see also, most recently, Higher Regional Court München, decision of 13 June 2019 – 2 Ws 587/19, juris (paras. 20 f.).

  130. 130.

    Schuster (2014), p. 200.

  131. 131.

    Schuster (2014), p. 201; see also Gleß (2013), p. 607.

  132. 132.

    BT-Drucks. 18/9757, p. 32; see also Böse (2014), p. 163.

  133. 133.

    Böhm (2017a), p. 1515.

  134. 134.

    Administrative Court Wiesbaden, judgment of 3 July 2013 – 6 K 396/13.WI, ZD 2013, 636, juris; Administrative Court Wiesbaden, judgment of 3 July 2013 – 6 L 329/13/13.WI, juris; Meyer and Hüttemann (2016), p. 425.

  135. 135.

    Administrative Court Wiesbaden, judgment of 19 July 2013 – 6 K 993/12.WI, juris; Administrative Court Wiesbaden, judgment of 9 August 2013 – 6 L 778/13.WI, juris.

  136. 136.

    Administrative Court Wiesbaden, judgment of 19 July 2013 – 6 K 993/12.WI, juris.

  137. 137.

    Classen (2005), p. 482.

  138. 138.

    Classen (2005), p. 482.

  139. 139.

    Classen (2005), p. 482.

  140. 140.

    BT-Drucks. 15/4232, p. 9.

  141. 141.

    Trautmann (2020), § 93 para. 3.

  142. 142.

    See Böse (2007), pp. 140 f.

  143. 143.

    BVerfG, decision of 21 June 2016 – 2 BvR 637/09, BVerfGE 142, p. 234 paras. 23, 27ff. with differing special vote of the judge Huber.

  144. 144.

    Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims.

  145. 145.

    Entered into force on 6th August 2004.

  146. 146.

    Art. 12 of the Directive 2004/80/EC: The rules on access to compensation in cross-border situations drawn up by this Directive shall operate on the basis of Member States’ schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime committed in their respective territories.

  147. 147.

    Art. 1 para. 4 lit. 1 OEG: “Foreign nationals shall be entitled to compensation, if they are nationals of a member state of the European Communities; …”.

  148. 148.

    § 6a para. 2 OEG.

  149. 149.

    See in this regard § 3a para. 4 sentence 2 OEG—conclusion from the offsetting of benefit entitlements under other public or private social protection or pension schemes.

  150. 150.

    Art. 1, Art. 4, and Art. 5 Directive 2004/80/EC.

  151. 151.

    A search engine for the competent foreign authorities can be found on the website of the European justice portal (https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_compensation_to_crime_victims-448-de.do), as well as corresponding transmission form (Art. 14 Directive 2004/80/EC ), which can be translated into the desired language (Art. 6 Directive 2004/80/EC; https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_compensation_to_crime_victims_forms-272-de.do.).

  152. 152.

    Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 84.

  153. 153.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 26 July 1984 – 4 Ars 8/84, BGHSt 33, 26 (Art. 10 European Convention on Extradition).

  154. 154.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 19 June 2012 − 4 ARs 5/12, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2012, p. 2980 (2982 f.), with regard to Art. 5 no. 2 FD EAW and § 83 para. 1 no. 4 IRG.

  155. 155.

    Gleß et al. (2020), § 73 para. 5.

  156. 156.

    Hackner and Schierholt (2017), para. 29.

  157. 157.

    BVerfG, decision of 26 January 1982 – 2 BvR 856/81, BVerfGE 59, p. 280 (282 f); decision of 31 March 1987 – 2 BvM 2/86, BVerfGE 75, p. 1 (19); decision of 24 March 2016 – 2 BvR 175/16, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2017, p. 43 (45).

  158. 158.

    Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 230.

  159. 159.

    BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, p. 1149 (1151 ff.).

  160. 160.

    BVerfG, decision of 26 January 1982 – 2 BvR 856/81, BVerfGE 59, p. 280 (282 f); decision of 31 March 1987 – 2 BvM 2/86, BVerfGE 75, p. 1 (19); decision of 24 March 2016 – 2 BvR 175/16, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2017, p. 43 (45).

  161. 161.

    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), judgment of 7 July 1989, Application no. 14038/88 (Soering v. United Kingdom).

  162. 162.

    Higher Regional Court Frankfurt/Main, decision of 1 March 2007 – 2 Ausl A 73/06, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2008, p. 166 (167 f.).

  163. 163.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 16 October 2001 – 4 ARs 4/01, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2002, p. 166 (167 – Art. 6 ECHR); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 14 February 2005 – 1 AK 23/04, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2005, p. 351 (352 – Art. 8 ECHR); Gleß et al. (2020), § 73 paras. 49 ff.

  164. 164.

    See also the reservation of the German government to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983 (ETS no. 112).

  165. 165.

    BVerfG, decision of 19 December 2017 – 2 BvR 424/17, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2018, p. 686 (688); Higher Regional Court Bremen, decision of 8 December 2015 – 1 Ausl A 23/15, juris.

  166. 166.

    Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 25 February 2010 – no. 1 Ausl (24) 1246/09; see the comparative analysis of the implementation practice in France, Germany and the Netherlands: Böse (2013), p. 349.

  167. 167.

    E.g. Directive (EU) 2016/343 of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings OJ L65/1.

  168. 168.

    See Brodowski (2016), p. 417.

  169. 169.

    Böse (2017), p. 759.

  170. 170.

    See Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Grand Chamber), judgment of 06 September 2016, Case C-182/15 (Petruhhin), paras. 51 ff.

  171. 171.

    Higher Regional Court Berlin, decision of 14 May 2019 - 4 AuslA 151/16, 151 AuslA 65/16, (4) AuslA 65/16 (151/16), juris.

  172. 172.

    Gleß and Wahl (2020), Einführung Schengener Informationssystem para. 41.

  173. 173.

    Art. 5 para. 7 of the proposed Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, COM (2018) 225 final, 17 April 2018; for a critical assessment see Böse (2018a), p. 42 and passim.

  174. 174.

    BT-Drucks. 18/4347, p. 144; Higher Regional Court Celle, decision of 22 December 2016 – 1 AR (Ausl) 59/16, OLGSt IRG § 85c Nr. 2; Böse (2018b), § 85 para. 9.

  175. 175.

    BVerfG, decision of 10 July 1958 – 1 BvR 532/56, BVerfGE 8, p. 81 para. 13 in regard to extradition; decision of 14 November 1979 – 1 BvR 654/79, BVerfGE 52, p. 391 para. 38; decision of 23 February 1983 – 1 BvR 1019/82, BVerfGE 63, p. 215 paras. 32 ff.

  176. 176.

    BVerfG, decision of 5 February 1963 – 2 BvR 21/60, BVerfGE 15, p. 275 para. 18; decision of 10 November 1964 – 2 BvL 14/61, BVerfGE 18, p. 203 para. 32; decision of 15 February 1967 – 2 BvR 658/65, BVerfGE 21, p. 191 para. 12; decision of 28 January 1970 – 2 BvR 319/62, BVerfGE 28, p. 10 para. 14.

  177. 177.

    BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317 para. 69; BVerfG, interim order of 26 January 1982 – 2 BvR 856/81, BVerfGE 59, p. 280 para. 10; interim order of 9 March 1983 – 2 BvR 315/83, BVerfGE 63, p. 332 paras. 21f. and 28; BVerfG, decision of 3 March 2004 – 2 BvR 26/04, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2004, p. 308 (309); see as well BVerfG, decision of 24 January 1991 – 2 BvR 1704/90, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1991, p. 1411.

  178. 178.

    BVerfG, decision of 13 November 2017 – 2 BvR 1381/17, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2018, p. 37 (38); decision of 9 April 2015 – 2 BvR 221/15, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2015, p. 1204 (1204).

  179. 179.

    According to BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, p. 317 para. 66 even the requesting state might be asked for a statement. If necessary, it may be necessary to obtain an expert opinion or official information.

  180. 180.

    Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 14 May 2007 – 3 Ausl 87/06, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2007, p. 273 (273/274).

  181. 181.

    See e.g. BVerfG, decision of 24 June 2003 – 2 BvR 685/03, BVerfGE 108, p. 129 para. 40.

  182. 182.

    BVerfG, decision of 10 July 1958 – 1 BvR 532/56, BVerfGE 8, p. 81 para. 13; decision of 14 November 1979 – 1 BvR 654/79, BVerfGE 52, p. 391 para. 38; decision of 22 June 1990 – 2 BvR 116/90, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1990, p. 2193 (2193); see also BVerfG, decision of 23 February 1983 – 1 BvR 1019/82, BVerfGE 63, p. 215 paras. 32 f.; decision of 13 April 1983 – 1 BvR 866/82, BVerfGE 64, p. 46 paras. 56 f.

  183. 183.

    BVerfG, decision of 14 November 1979 – 1 BvR 654/79, BVerfGE 52, p. 391 para. 38.

  184. 184.

    Regarding extradition: BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, p. 317 paras. 64 and 66.

  185. 185.

    Pieronczyk (2018), p. 155.

  186. 186.

    Riegel (2020), § 30 para. 12.

  187. 187.

    BVerfG, decision of 31 May 1994 – 2 BvR 1193/93, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1994, p. 2883.

  188. 188.

    Hartwig (2018), p. 747.

  189. 189.

    See Böhm (2017b), para. 708: usually not less than 2 weeks.

  190. 190.

    Böhm (2017b), para. 708.

  191. 191.

    Regarding extradition: BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, p. 317 paras. 64 and 69.

  192. 192.

    See BVerfG, decision of 5 November 2003 – 2 BvR 1243/03, BVerfGE 109, p. 13 para. 74; decision of 5 November 2003 – 2 BvR 1506/03, BVerfGE 109, p. 38 para. 76.

  193. 193.

    Gazeas (2018), p. 278.

  194. 194.

    Gazeas (2018), p. 278.

  195. 195.

    Gazeas (2018), p. 277.

  196. 196.

    According to § 8 IRG, if the offence is punishable by death under the law of the requesting State, extradition shall not be granted unless the requesting State gives assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed, or if already imposed, not be enforced. § 11 IRG demands for assurances regarding the rule of specialty such as extradition is not granted unless the following conditions are met that the person sought will neither be punished in the requesting State without Germany’s consent for any reason which arose prior to his transfer with the exception of that offence for which extradition had been granted, nor be restricted in his personal freedom or be prosecuted through measures which could not also be taken in his absence; that the person sought will not be delivered, transferred or deported to a third State without Germany’s consent; and that the person sought may leave the requesting State after the final conclusion of the proceedings for which extradition had been granted.

  197. 197.

    See BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, p.1154 with further references.

  198. 198.

    Böhm (2017c), para. 805 in reference to BVerfG, decision of 17 May 2017, 2 BvR 893/17, juris; BVerfG, decision of 23 February 1983 – 1 BvR 1019/82, BVerfGE 63, p. 215 paras. 33f.; decision of 20 December 2007, 2 BvQ 51/07, juris; decision of 9 April 2015 – 2 BvR 221/15, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2015, p. 1205; decision of 17 May 2017 – 2 BvR 893/17, juris (paras. 30 f.); see in regard to the rule of specialty as a sufficient guarantee: BVerfG, decision of 9 January 1963 – 1 BvR 85/62, BVerfGE 15, p. 249 paras. 9 ff.; decision of 19 February 1975 – 1 BvR 449/74, BVerfGE 38, p. 398 para. 16; decision of 4 May 1982 – 1 BvR 1457/81, BVerfGE 60, p. 348 para. 19; Federal Court of Justice (BGH), decision of 24 May 1977, 4 ARs 6/77, BGHSt 27, p. 191 para. 13; Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 4 February 2009, 1 AK 57/08, juris (paras. 7f.); Lagodny (2012e), § 73 para. 42; BVerfG, decision of 2 February 2016, 2 BvR 2486/15, juris (para. 22).

  199. 199.

    BVerfG, decision of 2 February 2016, 2 BvR 2486/15, juris (para. 22); decision of 17 May 2017, 2 BvR 893/17, juris (para. 30); decision of 24 June 2003 – 2 BvR 685/03, BVerfGE 108, p. 129 paras. 42, 43.

  200. 200.

    Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 14 December 2015, III-3 AR 15/15, juris; Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 8 June 2016, 1 Ausl 321/15, juris.

  201. 201.

    Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 25 February 2016 – 1 AK 4/16, juris (paras. 9 ff.); Higher Regional Court München, decision of 27 October 2015 – 1 AR 392/15, juris (paras. 35 ff.); expressly against this: Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 8 March 2016 – 1 Ausl 8/16, juris (para. 14); Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1211 with further references.

  202. 202.

    BVerfG, decision of 22 June 1992 – 2 BvR 1901/91, juris; Higher Regional Court Frankfurt a.M., decision of 1 March 2007– 2 Ausl. A 73/06, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2008, p. 166 (167).

  203. 203.

    BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, p. 3127 paras. 51f, 65, 74.

  204. 204.

    See also Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 17. April 1985 – 1 AK 15/85, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1985, p. 2906.

  205. 205.

    Schomburg et al. (2020a), § 8 paras. 15, 20; BVerfG, decision of 9. November 200 – 2 BvR 1560/00, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2001, p. 203; Federal Court of Justice (BGH), decision of 13 January 1987 – 4 ARs 22/86, BGHSt 34, p. 256 para. 23.

  206. 206.

    See e.g. BVerfG, decision of 24 June 2003 – 2 BvR 685/03, BVerfGE 108, p. 129 para. 33.

  207. 207.

    Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 25 February 2016, 1 AK 4/16, juris.

  208. 208.

    BVerfG, decision of 9 March 2016, 2 BvR 348/16, juris (para. 11); Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1212.

  209. 209.

    Pieronczyk (2018), p. 172.

  210. 210.

    See BVerfG, decision of 09 March 2016, 2 BvR 348/16, juris (para. 10); decision of 09 January 1963– 1 BvR 85/62, BVerfGE 15, p. 249 paras. 8, 9; decision of 19 February 1975 – 1 BvR 449/74, BVerfGE 38, p. 398 paras. 14f.; decision of 09 April 2015 – 2 BvR 221/15, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2015, p. 1205.

  211. 211.

    BVerfG, decision of 2 February 2016, 2 BvR 2486/15, juris (para. 22).

  212. 212.

    See in this regard also BVerfG, decision of 9 April 2015– 2 BvR 221/15, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2015, p. 1205 with remarks Huber (2015), p. 1206.

  213. 213.

    Pieronczyk (2018), p. 173.

  214. 214.

    BVerfG, decision of 2 February 2016, 2 BvR 2486/15, juris (para. 23); Higher Regional Court Rostock, decision of 30 August 2011 – 2 Ausl 28/11, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2012, p. 145; Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 8 June 2016, 1 Ausl 321/15, juris; Higher Regional Court München, decision of 27 October 2015, 1 AR 392/15, juris (para. 39).

  215. 215.

    See in this regard also Gazeas (2018), p. 278.

  216. 216.

    Gazeas (2018), p. 278.

  217. 217.

    Meyer (2016), p. 622.

  218. 218.

    Gazeas (2018), p. 283; Riegel and Speicher (2016) p. 255.

  219. 219.

    Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 15 February 2018 – Ausl 301 AR 135/17, para. 32; Higher Regional Court Nürnberg, decision of 14 March 2018 – 1 Ausl AR 44/17, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht Rechtsprechungs-Report 2018, p. 327.

  220. 220.

    Herdegen (2020), § 15 para. 1.

  221. 221.

    Herdegen (2020), § 15 para. 16.

  222. 222.

    Herdegen (2020), § 15 para. 1.

  223. 223.

    Also see in this regard Herdegen (2020), § 15 para. 1.

  224. 224.

    Herdegen (2020), § 15 para. 1.

  225. 225.

    Hackner (2020c), § 72 para. 13.

  226. 226.

    Hackner (2020c), § 72 para. 4.

  227. 227.

    § 68 para. 1 IRG: “A person sought who has been provisionally transferred upon request and on the condition that he would be returned later for proceedings pending against him on German territory shall be returned to the requested State at the time agreed upon unless return has been waived. The public prosecution service in charge of the proceedings referred to in the 1st sentence above shall order the return and execute it.”

  228. 228.

    Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG), decision of 8 June 2010 – 2 BvR 432/07, 2 BvR 507/08, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 591 (592).

  229. 229.

    In this sense Hackner (2020c), § 72 para. 8.

  230. 230.

    Gazeas (2018), p. 285.

  231. 231.

    Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1213; Riegel and Speicher (2016), p. 255.

  232. 232.

    See also BVerfG, decision of 24 March 2016 – 2 BvR 175/16, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2017, p. 46 f.

  233. 233.

    Ahlbrecht (2017), para. 1213; Riegel and Speicher (2016), p. 255.

  234. 234.

    Higher Regional Court Brandenburg, decision of 10 April 2019 – (1) 53 AuslA 66/17 (34/17), juris (para. 14); see also Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, decision of 7 January 2019 – Ausl 301 AR 95/18, juris (para. 70).

  235. 235.

    Administrative Court Munich, decision of 15 January 2019 – M 30 E 18.5442, juris (paras. 14 f.), referring to the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), decision of 18 May 2010 – 1 B 1.10, BVerwGE 137, p. 52.

  236. 236.

    See also Administrative Court München, decision of 15 January 2019 – M 30 E 18.5442, juris (para. 29).

  237. 237.

    See also BVerfG, decision of 24 March 2016 – 2 BvR 175/16, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2017, p. 46 f.

  238. 238.

    Higher Administrative Court Münster, decision of 15 August 2018 – 17 B 1029/18, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2018, p. 1493 (1496).

  239. 239.

    The Court reached this decision in a case concerning a Turkish national living in Germany who was to be deported to Turkey. Against the deportation, he argued, among other things, that the detention conditions in Turkey did not meet the minimum human rights requirements and demanded assurances in this regard. The court did not comply with this request but replaced the possibility of reviewing by the German embassy and consular staff by a review with the help of a legal counsel to be chosen by the respondent in the event of imprisonment. The legal counsel had to be allowed to visit the defendant in the prison if the person concerned was to be imprisoned. During such visits, the person concerned could inform his legal counsel of any deficiencies in the conditions of detention; the legal counsel could then apply for the necessary remedies and appeal. In particular, the legal counsel could also inform the German Embassy in Turkey. The latter could then demand that the responsible Turkish authorities comply with the assurance regarding the conditions of imprisonment. Under the given circumstances, the court thereby considered sufficient control of the conditions of detention to be given, see BVerwG, decision of 9 November 2017, 1 VR 9/17, juris (para. 5) and also see BVerwG, decision of 19 September 2017 – 1 VR 7/17, juris.

  240. 240.

    § 839 German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB): “If an official intentionally or negligently breaches the official duty incumbent upon him in relation to a third party, then he must compensate the third party for damage arising from this.” in connection with Art. 34 Sentence 1 GG: “If any person, in the exercise of a public of him, violates his official duty to a third party, liability shall rest principally with the state or public body that employs him.”

  241. 241.

    See e.g. Art. 64 para. 2 N.SIS.II (COUNCIL DECISION 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) Liability: “If the Member State against which an action is brought is not the Member State issuing the alert, the latter shall be required to reimburse, on request, the sums paid out as compensation unless the use of data by the Member State requesting reimbursement infringes this Decision.”; Art. 43 para. 1 to 4 of the Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders: “Where, in accordance with Articles 40 and 41 of this Convention, officers of a Contracting Party are operating in the territory of another Contracting Party, the first Contracting Party shall be liable for any damage caused by them during their operations, in accordance with the law of the Contracting Party in whose territory they are operating. 2. The Contracting Party in whose territory the damage referred to in paragraph 1 was caused shall make good such damage under the conditions applicable to damage caused by its own officers. 3. The Contracting Party whose officers have caused damage to any person in the territory of another Contracting Party shall reimburse the latter in full any sums it has paid to the victims or persons entitled on their behalf. 4. Without prejudice to the exercise of its rights vis-à-vis third parties and with the exception of paragraph 3, each Contracting Party shall refrain in the case provided for in paragraph 1 from requesting reimbursement of damages it has sustained from another Contracting Party.”

  242. 242.

    See § 839 BGB, Art. 34 sentence 1 GG.

  243. 243.

    §§ 276, 827, 828 BGB.

  244. 244.

    Federal Administrative Court of Germany (BVerwG), judgment of 3 June 2003 – 5 C 50/02, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2004, p. 104 (105): “Both the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) and, in particular, the civil courts responsible for conducting official liability proceedings assume as a rule that a civil servant is not at fault if a collegial court composed of several professional judges has regarded the official activity as objectively lawful (so-called “Collegial Court Directive”).”

  245. 245.

    See e.g. Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), judgment of 29 May 1958 – III ZR 38/57, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1959, p. 37; BGH, judgment of 28 June 1971 – III ZR 111/68, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1971, p. 1701; BGH, judgment of 25 September 1980 – III ZR 74/78, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1981, p. 677; Federal Administrative Court of Germany (BVerwG), judgment of 15 December 1972 – IV C 18/71, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1973, pp. 1014f.; see regarding possible exceptions to this rule and criticism Papier and Shirvani (2017), BGB § 839 para. 290.

  246. 246.

    BVerfG, decision of 13 March 1979 – 1 BvR 1085/77, BVerfGE 50, p. 381; decision of 17 March 1983 – 2 BvR 731/80, BVerfGE 64, p. 135; Böhm (2014), § 30 para. 39.

  247. 247.

    Vogel (2009), § 10, para. 41.

  248. 248.

    Pieronczyk (2018), pp. 69 f.

  249. 249.

    Böse (2012), § 79 p. 22.

  250. 250.

    Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 269.

  251. 251.

    Johnson (2016), § 59 para. 35.

  252. 252.

    See with regard to the latter argument: Johnson (2016), § 59 para. 25.

  253. 253.

    Radtke and Hagemeier (2019), para. 10.

  254. 254.

    Hackner and Riegel (2020), § 40 para. 44.

  255. 255.

    BVerfG, decision of 20. January 1980 - 1 BvR 1352/79, in: Eser et al. (1989), p. 175.

  256. 256.

    Pieronczyk (2018), pp. 116 f.

  257. 257.

    Ahlbrecht and Schlei (2013), p. 267; Pieronczyk (2018), p. 119.

  258. 258.

    Hackner and Riegel (2020), § 40 para. 43.

  259. 259.

    Ahlbrecht and Schlei (2013), p. 267.

  260. 260.

    See regarding extradition also Pieronczyk (2018), p. 176.

  261. 261.

    BVerfG, decision of 23 March 2011 – 2 BvR 882/09, BVerfGE 128, p. 282 (311); Pieronczyk (2018), p. 186.

  262. 262.

    BVerfG, decision of 16 September 2010 – 2 BvR 1608/07, Strafverteidiger 2011, p. 170, (171 f).

  263. 263.

    Böhm (2012), § 22 paras. 20 ff.

  264. 264.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 17 January 1984 – 4 ARs 19/83, BGHSt 32, p. 221 paras. 10f.

  265. 265.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 9 June 1981 – 4 ARs 4/81, BGHSt 30, p. 152 paras. 18/19.

  266. 266.

    Pieronczyk (2018), p. 182.

  267. 267.

    § 77 IRG in conjunction with §§ 467 and 467a StPO, see Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 17 January 1984 – 4 ARs 19/83, BGHSt 32, p. 221.

  268. 268.

    The webpage (https://www.brak.de/) forwards to a European platform (“find a lawyer”): https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_find_a_lawyer-334-de.do.

  269. 269.

    See Walther (2019), § 184 paras. 3, 4.

  270. 270.

    Böse (2002), p. 153; see BVerfG, decision of 20 October 1977 – 2 BvR 631/77, BVerfGE 46, p. 214 para. 20 referring to a general rule of international law in this regard; see also BVerfG, decision of 11 October 1951 – 1 BvR 95/51, BVerfGE 1, p. 10 para. 9; decision of 21 March 1957 – 1 BvR 65/54, BVerfGE 6, p. 290 para. 18.

  271. 271.

    Higher Regional Court München, decision of 13 June 2019 – 2 Ws 587/19, juris (para. 20); Böse (2002), p. 152.

  272. 272.

    BT-Drucks. 18/9757, p. 32; see also Böse (2014), p. 163.

  273. 273.

    Böhm (2017a), p. 1515.

References

  • Ahlbrecht H (2017) Das Rechtshilfeverfahren. In: Ahlbrecht H, Böhm KM, Esser R, Eckelmans F (eds) (2017) Internationales Strafrecht, 2nd edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlbrecht H, Schlei M (2013) Verteidigung gegen und mit Rechtshilfe. Strafverteidiger Forum 7:265–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2019) Zur Unabhängigkeit der deutschen Staatsanwaltschaft. JuristenZeitung 74:732–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM (2012) §§ 20 – 22 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM (2014) §§ 29 – 32 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM (2017a) Die Umsetzung der Europäischen Ermittlungsanordnung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 70:1512–1515

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM (2017b) Allgemeine Strukturen des Verfahrens. In: Ahlbrecht H, Böhm KM, Esser R, Eckelmanns F (eds) (2017) Internationales Strafrecht, 2nd edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM (2017c) Das Auslieferungsverfahren. In: Ahlbrecht H, Böhm KM, Esser R, Eckelmanns F (eds) (2017) Internationales Strafrecht, 2nd edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM, Werner E (2014) §§ 114 – 115a StPO. In: Knauer Ch, Kudlich H, Schneider H (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2002) Die Verwertung im Ausland gewonnener Beweismittel im deutschen Strafverfahren. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 114:148–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2007) Der Grundsatz der Verfügbarkeit von Informationen in der strafrechtlichen Zusammenarbeit der Europäischen Union. V&R unipress, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2012) Vor § 78 – § 81 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2013) Comparative overview of the country reports and surveys. In: Albers P, Beauvais P, Bohnert J-F, Böse M, Langbroek P, Renier A, Wahl T (2013) Final Report, Towards a common evaluation framework to assess mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Available at https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2013/09/27/final-report-towards-a-common-evaluation-framework-to-assess-mutual-trust-in-the-field-of-eu-judicial-cooperation-in-criminal-m

  • Böse M (2014) Die Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung – Beweistransfer nach neuen Regeln? Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 9:152–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2017) Neue Standards für Abwesenheitsverfahren in “Fluchtfällen”? Zu den Auswirkungen der Richtlinie 2016/343/EU auf die Auslieferung und Vollstreckungshilfe in der Europäischen Union. Strafverteidiger 37:754–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2018a) An assessment of the Commission’s proposals on electronic evidence. Manuscript completed in September 2018. © European Union 2018. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses

  • Böse M (2018b) §§ 84 – 85 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski D (2016) Die drohende Verletzung von Menschenrechten bei der Anerkennung Europäischer Haftbefehle auf dem Prüfstand: Die zweifelhafte Aktivierung der Verfassungsidentität durch das BVerfG und eine Kurskorrektur in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH. Juristische Rundschau 2016:415–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Classen CD (2005) Rechtsschutz gegen fremde Hoheitsgewalt – zu Immunität und transnationalem Verwaltungshandeln. Verwaltungsarchiv 96:464–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser A, Lagodny O, Wilkitzki P (1989) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen: Rechtsprechungssammlung 1949–1992, Freiburg i. Br.: edition iuscrim

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazeas N (2018) Zusicherungen im Auslieferungsverkehr innerhalb der Europäischen Union. Golthammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 165:277–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2013) Grenzüberschreitende Beweissammlung. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 125:573–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S, Wahl T (2020) Das Schengener Informationssystem – Einführung (III E 2). In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S, Wahl T, Zimmermann F (2020) § 73 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotz M (2014a) § 71 IRG: In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotz M (2014b) § 74 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020a) Einführung IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020b) § 10 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen. C.H. Beck, München, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020c) §§ 71 – 72 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020d) § 74 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020e) § 78 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T, Riegel R (2020) § 40 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T, Schierholt C (2017) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T, Schomburg W (2012) Vor § 68 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T (eds) (2012) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig M (2018) Bericht zur völkerrechtlichen Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Jahr 2016. Zeitschrift für ausländisches Recht und Völkerrecht 78:717–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen M (2020) Völkerrecht, 19th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber B (2015) Zur Prüfung des Asylanspruchs im Auslieferungsverfahren bei drohender politischer Verfolgung (Anmerkung zu einer Entscheidung des BVerfG, Beschluss vom 09.04.2015 – 2 BvR 221/15). Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 34:1206–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C (2012) §§ 60 – 61 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C (2016) Vor § 59 - § 59 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagodny O, Zimmermann F (2020) § 61 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2016) Zur Frage der Auslegung des Rahmenbeschlusses zum Europäischen Haftbefehl (Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGHs vom 05.04.2016 – C-404/15). JuristenZeitung 71:621–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F, Hüttemann SD (2016) Internationale Fahndung nach Personen – von Steckbriefen, Rotecken und Funksprüchen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 128:394–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papier HJ, Shirvani F (2017). § 839 BGB. In: Säcker FJ, Rixecker R, Oetker H, Limperg B (eds) (2017) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieronczyk AK (2018) Die prozessualen Rechte des Verfolgten im Auslieferungsverfahren nach dem Zweiten Teil des IRG. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rackow P (2020) In: Ambos K, König S, Rackow P (eds) (2020) Rechtshilferecht in Strafsachen. 2nd edn. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Radtke H, Hagemeier A (2019) Art. 103 GG. In: Epping V, Hillgruber C (eds) BeckOK zum Grundgesetz, 41st edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegel R (2020) §§ 28 – 33 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegel R, Speicher K (2016) Die Haftsituation im ersuchten Staat als Auslieferungshindernis. Strafverteidiger 4:250–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Schierholt C (2020a) §§ 2 – 5 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schierholt C (2020b) §§ 11 – 14 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg S, Hackner T, Zimmermann F (2020a) §§ 7 – 8 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (2020b) Einleitung. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Einleitung. Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultheis U (2019) §§ 119 – 132a StPO. In: Hannich R (ed) (2019) Karlsruher Kommentar zur Straßprozessordnung, 8th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster FP (2006) Verwertbarkeit im Ausland gewonnener Beweise im deutschen Strafprozess. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster FP (2014) Anmerkung zu BGH, Beschluss vom 21.11.2012 – 1 StR 310/12. Verwertung von unter Verstoß gegen Rechtshilfebestimmungen im Ausland erlangten Beweise. Strafverteidiger 34:198–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann S (2020) § 93 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann S, Zimmermann F (2020) § 59 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J (2009) § 10 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J, Burchard C (2009) § 2 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J, Burchard C (2011) §§ 75 – 77 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J, Burchard C (2017) Vor § 1 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler T (1981) Rechtsschutz im Auslieferungsverfahren. Europäische GRUNDRECHTE-Zeitschrift 8:417–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther A (2019) §§184 – 191a. In: Graf JP (ed) BeckOK zum GVG, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München, Stand: 01.11.2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann F (2020) §§ 80 – 81 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Martin Böse & Maria Bröcker

Authors
  1. Martin Böse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Bröcker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Martin Böse

  2. Department of Law, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Maria Bröcker

  3. Department of Law, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Anne Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Böse, M., Bröcker, M. (2021). Country Report “Germany”. In: Böse, M., Bröcker, M., Schneider, A. (eds) Judicial Protection in Transnational Criminal Proceedings. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55796-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55796-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55795-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55796-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation