VB.2019.00541 · Cantonal Regulation Conflict with Federal Law on Substitute Custody Measures (Verwaltungsgericht)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The court considered an appeal concerning the transfer of an individual to open anticipatory execution of a sentence, where the relevant cantonal regulation purported to grant the execution authority, rather than the competent court, the power to order such a transfer as a substitute measure for custody during criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that even assuming open execution was permissible as an alternative measure, only the competent court could order it, not the execution authority, thus rendering the cantonal regulation provisionally inapplicable due to its conflict with federal law concerning procedural competence for substitute measures during detention.

Legislator-Regeste

Amtlich

Versetzung in den offenen vorzeitigen Strafvollzug | Versetzung in den offenen vorzeitigen Strafvollzug Sofern der vorzeitige Strafvollzug überhaupt in einer offenen Anstalt zulässig sein sollte, könnte ihn allein das zuständige Gericht - und nicht die Vollzugsbehörde - als Ersatzmassnahme zur strafprozessualen Haft im geschlossenen Vollzug anordnen (E. 5.3). Der Beschwerdeführer hätte sein Gesuch um Versetzung in den offenen vorzeitigen Strafvollzug daher an die Verfahrensleitung richten sollen. Soweit § 20 Abs. 2 Satz 3 JVV die Kompetenz zum Entscheid über die Gewährung des offenen vorzeitigen Strafvollzugs der Vollzugsbehörde zuweist, ist die Bestimmung bundesrechtswidrig und daher nicht anzuwenden (E. 5.4). Abweisung im Sinn der Erwägungen.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert

Ersatzmassnahmen für Haft Obhutsübertragung prozessleitende Verfügungen Ersatzstrafe politischer Kompetenzstreit Kompetenzübertragung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert

Art. 79 Abs. I KV

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

§ 20 Abs. II JVV

The provision assigning competence for granting open early sentence execution to the execution authority was found to be contrary to federal law and thus not applicable.

§ 221 StPO

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

§ 235 Abs. II StPO

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

§ 235 Abs. III StPO

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

§ 236 StPO

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

§ 5 Abs. II VRG

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

§ 16 Abs. I VRG

This provision is listed among the norms applied in the context of the court's considerations, which led to the final order.

KI-generiert

PQ150078

Cantonal Court Decision on Appeal Response Period in Custody Case

VB.2002.00015

Jurisdictional Challenge to Detention Order Based on Cantonal Law Finality

PQ110014

Zurich Cantonal Court Restores Suspensory Effect to Appeal Against Partial Custody Revocation Where Urgency for Child Protection Measure Not Proven

AA090100

Cantonal Court Upholds Enforcement of Visitation Despite Pending Modification

LY130017

Cantonal High Court Upholds Custody Transfer to Father Based on Child's Stability

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert

§ 20 Abs. II JVV

The provision assigning competence for granting open early sentence execution to the execution authority was found to be contrary to federal law and thus not applicable.

Art. 79 Abs. I KV