progetti

Retroactivity and judicial change in criminal law

BGH 5 StR 491/09Bgh / Criminal Chamber 58 apr 2010Dismissed

Apri la fonte

Estratto da Omnilex

Sintesi Omnilex

The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the defendant's appeal against the Potsdam Regional Court's conviction for aggravated party betrayal. It held that the constitutional prohibition of retroactive punishment is not violated when criminal liability follows from a change in case law without any change in the statutory text. The court further rejected the renewed argument that the defendant had acted under an unavoidable mistake of law. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal.

Massima Omnilex

Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG; § 356 Abs. 2 StGB; change in case law and retroactivity; an evolution of judicial interpretation with unchanged statutory wording does not amount to an impermissible retroactive extension of criminal liability. The principle of legality protects against unforeseeable judicial creation of criminal offences, but not against a foreseeable consolidation of interpretation where the statutory text remains constant and the doctrinal development was already openly discussed (consid. 2). A renewed invocation of unavoidable mistake of law under § 17 StGB fails where the lower court has duly considered the Senate's prior guidance and its findings disclose no revisable legal error (consid. 3).

Testo completo

BGH — 5 StR 491/09, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-04-08

Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 491/09

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: Art 103 Abs 2 GG, § 356 Abs 2 StGB

Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Potsdam, 3. April 2009, Az: 25 KLs 16/08, Urteilnachgehend BVerfG, 16. Mai 2011, Az: 2 BvR 1230/10, Nichtannahmebeschluss

Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat

Titelzeile

Strafverfahren wegen schweren Parteiverrates: Rückwirkungsverbot bei Rechtsprechungsänderung

Tenor

Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Potsdam vom 3. April 2009 wird nach § 349 Abs. 2 StPO als unbegründet verworfen.

Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.

Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:

Die im Anschluss an die Senatsentscheidung BGHSt 52, 307 erfolgte Verurteilung wegen Parteiverrats nach § 356 Abs. 2 StGB verstößt schon deshalb nicht gegen das durch Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG geforderte Verbot einer rückwirkenden Verschärfung der Strafbarkeit, weil dieses bei einer Änderung der Rechtsprechung bei gleichbleibendem Gesetzeswortlaut nicht eingreift (vgl. BVerfGE 18, 224, 240 f.; 32, 311, 319; BVerfG [Kammer] NStZ 1990, 537; NJW 1995, 125, 126; BGHSt 41, 101, 111 f.; Dannecker in LK 12. Aufl. § 1 Rdn. 432 ff., Fischer, StGB 57. Aufl. § 1 Rdn. 14 ff.). Hier stand zudem die vollzogene Rechtsprechungsänderung schon vor Tatbegehung in der fachlichen Diskussion (vgl. BGHSt aaO S. 310 f.).

Soweit die Revision nochmals darauf abhebt, der Angeklagte habe sich in einem unvermeidbaren Verbotsirrtum nach § 17 StGB befunden, berücksichtigen die im angefochtenen Urteil hierzu getroffenen Feststellungen und Wertungen die Ausführungen des Senats in der genannten Entscheidung (BGHSt aaO S. 313) in sachgerechter Weise und sind revisionsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden.

| Basdorf | | RiBGH Dr. Brause ist durch urlaubsbedingte Abwesenheit verhindert zu unterschreiben | | Schaal | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | Basdorf | | | | | König | | Bellay | |

Parole chiave

retroactivitychange in case lawlegality principlemistake of lawparty betrayalcriminal appealcosts

Estratto da Omnilex

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Omnilex

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the conviction for party betrayal violated the prohibition of retroactive criminal punishment after a judicial change in case law.

Decisione estratta

No. A change in judicial interpretation with unchanged statutory wording does not trigger the constitutional prohibition of retroactive aggravation; moreover, the shift in case law had already been discussed in the profession before the conduct.

Motivazione estratta

The Senate held that Art. 103(2) GG does not bar conviction where the statute remained unchanged and only case law evolved. The prior decision and ensuing debate were sufficiently foreseeable.

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the defendant acted under an unavoidable mistake of law under Section 17 StGB.

Decisione estratta

No. The factual findings and assessment in the lower court adequately addressed the Senate's prior guidance and were not open to revision.

Motivazione estratta

The lower court's evaluation of the defendant's legal error was consistent with the cited Senate decision and disclosed no revisable error.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.