No compensation for procedural delay to confiscation participants under § 199(3) GVG
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the revision filed by a confiscation participant, upholding the Hamburg Regional Court's judgment of March 23, 2023, and ordered the appellant to bear the costs of its legal remedy. The dispute concerned a criminal proceeding in which the company challenged the lower court's decision regarding its status as a confiscation participant, while also raising an issue of procedural delay; specifically, the four-month lack of progress in the BGH proceedings potentially violated the right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 ECHR, given that the enforcement of an existing attachment order had been averted by the company's deposit. The court held that this potential constitutional violation could not be compensated through the enforcement model under § 199 (3) Sentence 1 GVG, as this provision exclusively covers non-material damages for the accused, not for other procedural participants, thereby rendering the revision unfounded.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO; No compensation for procedural delay to confiscation participants under § 199(3) GVG: The dispute concerned a criminal proceeding in which the company challenged the lower court's decision regarding its status as a confiscation participant, while also raising an issue of procedural delay; specifically, the four-month lack of progress in the BGH proceedings potentially violated the right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 ECHR, given that the enforcement of an existing attachment order had been averted by the company's deposit. The court held that this potential constitutional violation could not be compensated through the enforcement model under § 199 (3) Sentence 1 GVG, as this provision exclusively covers non-material damages for the accused, not for other procedural participants, thereby rendering the revision unfounded.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive as the direct legal basis for dismissing the revision as unfounded.
Volltext
Die Revision der Einziehungsbeteiligten M. GmbH gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Hamburg vom 23. März 2023 wird als unbegründet verworfen (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).
Die Beschwerdeführerin hat die Kosten ihres Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Das Verfahren ist von dem Senat vier Monate nicht gefördert worden. Offenbleiben kann, ob diese Verzögerung mit Blick auf den bestehenden Arrestbeschluss, dessen Vollstreckung die Beschwerdeführerin durch Hinterlegung abgewendet hat, gegen Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 EMRK verstößt. Denn eine Kompensation im Wege des Vollstreckungsmodells ist in § 199 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GVG ausschließlich für immaterielle Schäden des Beschuldigten, nicht der übrigen Verfahrensbeteiligten vorgesehen (vgl. BGH, Urteil vom 30. November 2023 – 3 StR 192/18 Rn. 48 f.)
Jäger Wimmer Bär
Leplow Welnhofer-Zeitler