BGH 4 StR 567/16•Revision dismissed; procedural complaint inadmissible
BGH 4 StR 567/16Bgh / Criminal Chamber 410 mai 2017Dismissed
Extrait par Omnilex
The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the defendant's revision against the Bochum Regional Court judgment as unfounded. The panel found no legal error detrimental to the defendant on review. It further stated that the procedural complaint raised by defense counsel was inadmissible because, given the rejection under section 26a StPO, no concrete line of attack could be discerned from the submissions, which merely recited procedural facts; it would in any event also have failed on the merits. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the remedy.
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO; revision dismissed as unfounded; requirements for a procedural complaint after rejection under § 26a StPO. A revision is to be rejected when the review of the judgment on the basis of the statement of grounds discloses no legal error to the defendant's disadvantage. A procedural complaint is inadmissible if, in view of the challenged decision, it does not identify a concrete line of attack and merely reproduces procedural facts; such a complaint need not be examined on the merits. Costs of the unsuccessful remedy are borne by the appellant (cf. §§ 464 Abs. 3 StPO, 19 Abs. 2 GKG).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2017-05-10
Aktenzeichen: 4 StR 567/16
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:100517B4STR567.16.1
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 464 Abs 3 StPO, § 19 Abs 2 GKG
Vorinstanz: vorgehend BGH, 10. Mai 2017, Az: 4 StR 567/16, Beschlussvorgehend LG Bochum, 20. Januar 2016, Az: 7 KLs 21/14nachgehend BGH, 10. Mai 2017, Az: 4 StR 567/16, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 4. Strafsenat
Die Revision der Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Bochum vom 20. Januar 2016 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil der Angeklagten ergeben hat (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).
Die Beschwerdeführerin hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Die von Rechtsanwalt M. unter B. I. 3. erhobene Verfahrensrüge ist bereits unzulässig, da ihr mit Blick auf die Ablehnung nach § 26a StPO eine konkrete Angriffsrichtung nicht zu entnehmen ist. Die zu dieser Rüge gemachten Ausführungen beschränken sich auf die bloße Wiedergabe von Verfahrenstatsachen. Im Übrigen wäre die Rüge unbegründet, worauf der Generalbundesanwalt zutreffend hingewiesen hat.
| Sost-Scheible | Roggenbuck | Franke | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quentin | Feilcke |
Extrait par Omnilex
Whether the defendant's revision against the Bochum Regional Court judgment was well-founded.
The revision was unfounded because the review of the judgment on the basis of the appeal submissions revealed no legal error to the defendant's disadvantage.
Under the limited review in revision, no reversible error was found.
Whether the procedural complaint raised by counsel under section 26a StPO was admissible and well-founded.
The complaint was inadmissible because, in light of the rejection under section 26a StPO, it did not disclose any concrete line of attack; in any event it would also have been unfounded.
The submissions merely repeated procedural facts and did not identify a specific challenge to the ruling.
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.