Conflict between BGH criminal senates on legal interpretation triggering unification of case law under § 132 GVG

The Third Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued a resolution agreeing with the legal view held by the Fifth Criminal Senate and formally abandoned its own conflicting case law on the matter. The dispute involved a conflict between decisions of different criminal senates regarding the interpretation of a specific legal issue within criminal proceedings, necessitating a unification of judicial precedent. By siding with the Fifth Senate’s position, the Court established that the prior conflicting jurisprudence of the Third Senate is no longer valid, thereby resolving the inter-senate inconsistency in favor of the Fifth Senate's doctrinal approach.