Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
3 StR 483/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:090823B3STR483.22.0 KI-generiert

Readmission into the previous status for breach of the revision justification deadline mooted by substantive dismissal of the appeal

Geschäftsnummer 3 StR 483/22
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the defendant's appeal as unfounded, upholding the judgment of the Landgericht Duisburg from February 16, 2021, and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the legal remedy. The dispute concerned a criminal case where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision through a revision, specifically invoking a claim for readmission into the previous status due to alleged delay in filing the appeal justification. The decisive legal basis was § 349 Abs. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), under which the court's review found no legal error to the defendant's detriment; consequently, the issue of whether readmission into the previous status would have been granted was deemed moot due to the substantive dismissal of the appeal.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO; Readmission into the previous status for breach of the revision justification deadline mooted by substantive dismissal of the appeal: The dispute concerned a criminal case where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision through a revision, specifically invoking a claim for readmission into the previous status due to alleged delay in filing the appeal justification. The decisive legal basis was § 349 Abs. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), under which the court's review found no legal error to the defendant's detriment; consequently, the issue of whether readmission into the previous status would have been granted was deemed moot due to the substantive dismissal of the appeal.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Beschwerdelegitimation Revision eines Entscheids bisheriger Rechtsstatus Verfahrensverzögerungen materielle Begründetheit Strafprozessordnung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO
The main ground for the verdict, explicitly cited in the operative part to dismiss the appeal as unfounded because the review did not reveal a legal error to the defendant's detriment.
KI-generiert
5 StR 209/23
Reinstatement into former position after lapse of revision justification deadline and subsequent substantive dismissal of criminal appeal
2 BvR 960/11
Calculating the readmission deadline under § 45 StPO from the removal of the hindrance rather than knowledge of the missed deadline; violation of the right to be heard by denying access to opposing party’s submission.
2 AZN 294/11
Non-admission of revision: Failure to file substantive justification within statutory deadline bars readmission despite pending application for readmission into filing period
3 StR 92/18
Admissibility of readmission after expired revision deadline: knowledge of service and refusal to accept notification
3 StR 85/23
Late withdrawal of criminal revision: timeliness barred by prior dismissal via § 349 Abs. 2 StPO order

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO

The main ground for the verdict, explicitly cited in the operative part to dismiss the appeal as unfounded because the review did not reveal a legal error to the defendant's detriment.

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 →

Volltext

Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Duisburg vom 16. Februar 2021 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).

Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.

Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:

Da die Revision in der Sache keinen Erfolg hat, kann dahinstehen, ob dem Angeklagten auf seinen Antrag oder gegebenenfalls von Amts wegen Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand gegen die Versäumung der Revisionsbegründungsfrist zu gewähren gewesen wäre.

Schäfer

Berg

Erbguth

Kreicker

Voigt