Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
2 StR 622/11 KI-generiert

Barred from adjudicating recusal petitions due to pending identical recusal motions against the deciding judges

Geschäftsnummer 2 StR 622/11
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice ordered that three specific judges be barred from participating in the decision on recusal petitions against the presiding judge and two other judges, thereby requiring the recusal proceedings to be decided by a panel excluding these three individuals. The dispute arose in a criminal revision case where the defendant filed recusal petitions against the presiding judge and two senior judges of the 2nd Criminal Senate, while the three judges originally designated to adjudicate those petitions disclosed that they were themselves the subject of a separate, pending recusal petition in another case before the same Senate based on identical grounds. Relying on Article 101(1) Sentence 2 of the Basic Law, which prohibits judges from deciding on their own status ("nemo iudex in causa sua") even in recusal proceedings, and citing § 30 StPO, the court held that this conflict of interest legally prevented the three judges from exercising jurisdiction over the defendant's current recusal requests.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert
§ 30 StPO, Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG; Barred from adjudicating recusal petitions due to pending identical recusal motions against the deciding judges: The dispute arose in a criminal revision case where the defendant filed recusal petitions against the presiding judge and two senior judges of the 2nd Criminal Senate, while the three judges originally designated to adjudicate those petitions disclosed that they were themselves the subject of a separate, pending recusal petition in another case before the same Senate based on identical grounds. Relying on Article 101(1) Sentence 2 of the Basic Law, which prohibits judges from deciding on their own status ("nemo iudex in causa sua") even in recusal proceedings, and citing § 30 StPO, the court held that this conflict of interest legally prevented the three judges from exercising jurisdiction over the defendant's current recusal requests. (§ 30 StPO: Cited in the reasoning section as the statutory basis for the judges to report the conflict of interest, which forms the procedural context for the dispositive order barring them from the recusal proceedings.) (Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG: Cited as the constitutional principle prohibiting judges from deciding on their own status, directly justifying the order that the specific judges are barred from participating in the recusal decision.) «Wiederholte Richterablehnungen im Strafverfahren: Mitwirkende Richter in den Ablehnungsverfahren»

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Richterablehnungsbegehren Richterausstand deutsches Bundesverfassungsgericht Ausstandsbegehren Ausstand eines Richters § 30 StPO Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 30 StPO

Cited in the reasoning section as the statutory basis for the judges to report the conflict of interest, which forms the procedural context for the dispositive order barring them from the recusal proceedings.

Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG

Cited as the constitutional principle prohibiting judges from deciding on their own status, directly justifying the order that the specific judges are barred from participating in the recusal decision.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →
JURE120012848
Disqualification of BGH judges from ruling on recusal motions against their peers due to parallel challenges to case distribution rules
KORE703702026
Recusal and right to a hearing as inadmissible post-rejection of an appeal
KVRE447502201
Recusal inadmissible due to prior involvement in separate proceeding on identical legal question; failure to demonstrate fundamental rights violation
KORE677922022
Recusal motions in judicial disciplinary proceedings deemed inadmissible for duplicative grounds previously adjudicated
KVRE445682101
Recusal request rejected for judges not assigned to case and non-admission of constitutional complaint under § 93d BVerfGG

Volltext

Wiederholte Richterablehnungen im Strafverfahren: Mitwirkende Richter in den Ablehnungsverfahren

[TENOR] Die Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Berger und Dr. Eschelbach sowie die Richterin am Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Ott sind wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit an der Mitwirkung bei der Entscheidung über die Ablehnungsgesuche gegen den Vorsitzenden Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Ernemann sowie die Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Prof. Dr. Fischer und Prof. Dr. Krehl gehindert.

[GRUENDE] 1

Die als nicht abgelehnte Richter des 2. Strafsenats an sich zur Entscheidung über die Ablehnungsgesuche des Angeklagten gegen den Vorsitzenden Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Ernemann sowie die Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Prof. Dr. Fischer und Prof. Dr. Krehl berufenen Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Berger und Dr. Eschelbach sowie Richterin am Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Ott haben gemäß § 30 StPO angezeigt, dass gegen sie in einer anderen beim Senat anhängigen Sache aus den gleichen Gründen, wie sie in vorliegendem Revisionsverfahren vorgetragen worden sind, ein Ablehnungsgesuch angebracht worden ist. Unter Bedacht auf das aus Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG folgende Gebot, dass auch im Ablehnungsverfahren ein "Entscheiden in eigener Sache" zu vermeiden ist (vgl. BVerfG NJW 2005, 3410), schließt es dieser Umstand aus, dass sie an der Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch in vorliegender Sache mitwirken (vgl. BGH NStZ 2012, 45).

Appl Roggenbuck Cierniak

Schmitt Quentin