![]() Until January 2019, further fifteen trial hearings were scheduled. ![]() Twenty-five trial hearings were held until August 2018 and another four trial hearings were held until November 2018. After a new presiding judge had been assigned to the division, the trial recommenced in December 2017. The competent court division suspended the proceedings. After twenty-three hearings, the presiding judge fell ill in August 2017, and was incapable of returning to work. After the public prosecution office had charged him with murder and other crimes, the competent criminal court commenced the trial in November 2016, scheduled trial hearings until September 2017, and ordered continued remand detention. The applicant has been confined in remand detention since May 2016. In general, any order relating to continued remand detention must include current information on whether the requirements for remand detention are still satisfied, on the balancing between the fundamental right to liberty of the person charged with the criminal offence and the public interest in law enforcement, and on the proportionality of the remand detention. Decisions with which remand detention is continued must be based on sufficient reasons. The requirement to expedite proceedings (Beschleunigungsgebot) in detention matters demands, inter alia, that law enforcement authorities and criminal courts take all possible and reasonable measures to reach a swift decision on the offences a person is charged with.ģ. A person that is only suspected of a criminal offence may be deprived of liberty only in exceptional cases and in conformity with the principle of proportionality.Ģ. When a court orders or upholds remand detention (Untersuchungshaft), it must always take account of the conflict between the individual’s right to personal liberty (second sentence of Article 2.2 of the Basic Law) and the indisputable demands of effective law enforcement. For further information, please consult the CODICES database.Ībstract of the Federal Constitutional Court’s Order of 23 January 2019, /18 Ībstract First Chamber of the Second Senateġ. Abstracts published by the Venice Commission summarise the facts of the case and key legal considerations of the decision. The following abstract was prepared by the Federal Constitutional Court and submitted for publication to the CODICES database maintained by the Venice Commission.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |