projects

Foreign-law immigration consequences are not key sentencing factors

BGH 5 StR 502/15Bgh / Criminal Chamber 5Jan 12, 2016Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Court of Justice rejected the defendant’s revision against a Hamburg Regional Court judgment. It held that foreign-law immigration consequences are, as a rule, not decisive sentencing factors. This remains so in light of the revised Residence Act, which now generally requires balancing expulsion interests against residence interests under §§ 53(1) and (2) AufenthG. The court therefore found no reason to interfere with the sentence and also decided not to charge the appellant with the costs of the remedy.

Omnilex headnote

§ 46 StGB; §§ 53 Abs. 1, 2, 54, 55 AufenthG; sentencing and immigration consequences: foreign-law residence or expulsion consequences are in principle not determining sentencing considerations. This applies also after the 2016 revision of the Residence Act, because the expulsion decision now requires a general balancing of the expulsion interest under § 54 AufenthG against the residence interest under § 55 AufenthG. Such consequences may be considered only within the framework of the concrete assessment of the offender and the offence, but do not as such justify a mitigation as a specific sentencing factor (consid. not stated).

Full text

BGH — 5 StR 502/15, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-01-12

Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 502/15

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:120116B5STR502.15.0

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 46 StGB, § 53 Abs 1 AufenthG vom 20.10.2015, § 53 Abs 2 AufenthG vom 02.10.2015, § 54 AufenthG, § 55 AufenthG

Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Hamburg, 24. Juni 2015, Az: 604 KLs 4/15

Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat

Titelzeile

Strafverfahren: Ausländerrechtliche Folgen als Strafzumessungsgründe

Tenor

Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Hamburg vom 24. Juni 2015 wird nach § 349 Abs. 2 StPO als unbegründet verworfen.

Es wird davon abgesehen, dem Beschwerdeführer die Kosten des Rechtsmittels aufzuerlegen.

Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:

Ausländerrechtliche Folgen sind grundsätzlich keine bestimmenden Strafzumessungsgründe (vgl. BGH, Urteil vom 5. Dezember 2001 – 2 StR 273/01, BGHR StGB § 46 Abs. 2 Ausländer 6). Dies gilt insbesondere, nachdem gemäß § 53 Abs. 1 und 2 AufenthG in der seit dem 1. Januar 2016 gültigen Fassung generell eine Abwägung zwischen Ausweisungsinteresse (§ 54 AufenthG) und Bleibeinteresse (§ 55 AufenthG) vorzunehmen ist.

Sander Schneider Dölp

Bellay Feilcke

Keywords

sentencingimmigration consequencesexpulsionrevisioncosts

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the defendant’s foreign-law immigration consequences had to be treated as a decisive factor in sentencing.

Extracted holding

They are generally not key sentencing factors; this remains true even under the new balancing regime in the 2016 version of the Residence Act.

Extracted reasoning

The Senate reiterated prior case law and noted that, since 1 January 2016, §§ 53(1) and (2) AufenthG require a general balancing of expulsion interests and residence interests, so immigration consequences do not normally determine the criminal sentence.

Key legal question

Whether the revision against the Regional Court judgment should succeed.

Extracted holding

The revision was unfounded.

Extracted reasoning

No reversible sentencing error was found.

Key legal question

Whether the appellant should bear the costs of the revision.

Extracted holding

The court declined to impose the costs of the appeal on the defendant.

Extracted reasoning

The Senate expressly ordered that costs not be charged to the appellant.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.