Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
5 StR 421/25 ECLI:DE:BGH:2025:171125B5STR421.25.0 KI-generiert

Hearing complaint in criminal appeal: non-apprehension of written submissions and alleged violation of the right to be heard dismissed as unsubstantiated

Geschäftsnummer 5 StR 421/25
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Criminal Justice (BGH) dismissed the convicted person’s hearing complaint (Anhörungsrüge), ordering the complainant to bear the costs. The dispute concerned a motion challenging a prior panel decision of October 21, 2025, arguing that the court had violated the right to be heard by either relying on procedural material without providing the accused an opportunity to comment or overlooking the accused’s submissions. The court held that no violation of hearing rights existed because the written submissions from August 21 and September 19, 2025, were present and served as the basis for the panel's deliberations, and no relevant arguments were ignored. The decision rests on the doctrine that a hearing complaint is only successful if the tribunal used evidence without a prior hearing or disregarded essential arguments, with the cost allocation derived by applying Section 465(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) by analogy.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 465 Abs. 1 StPO; Hearing complaint in criminal appeal: non-apprehension of written submissions and alleged violation of the right to be heard dismissed as unsubstantiated: The dispute concerned a motion challenging a prior panel decision of October 21, 2025, arguing that the court had violated the right to be heard by either relying on procedural material without providing the accused an opportunity to comment or overlooking the accused’s submissions. The court held that no violation of hearing rights existed because the written submissions from August 21 and September 19, 2025, were present and served as the basis for the panel's deliberations, and no relevant arguments were ignored. The decision rests on the doctrine that a hearing complaint is only successful if the tribunal used evidence without a prior hearing or disregarded essential arguments, with the cost allocation derived by applying Section 465(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) by analogy.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör Strafanzeige Verletzung von Verfahrensrechten E-Justice Verfahrenskosten unbefugtes Aufnehmen von Gesprächen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 465 Abs. 1 StPO
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for ordering the costs to be borne by the complainant through analogous application.
KI-generiert
1 StR 82/14
Hearing complaint: No violation of right to be heard for unreasoned dismissal of criminal appeal without substantive engagement with merits
5 StR 517/25
Hearing complaint: No violation of right to be heard where appellate court omits arguments already addressed by opposing party or subsumed in prior judgment
2 StR 52/23
Hearing complaint against unexplained rejection of appeal in criminal revision: admissibility requirements and absence of hearing obligation under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO
2 StR 156/24
Hearing complaint dismissed: no violation of right to be heard for failure to explicitly address defense counsel's arguments in partial revision rejection
1 StR 389/22
Hearing objection in criminal revision: absence of oral hearing and counsel’s non-compliance with client’s instructions do not violate right to be heard

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 465 Abs. 1 StPO

Cited in the dispositive as the basis for ordering the costs to be borne by the complainant through analogous application.

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 Anhörungsrüge des Verurteilten gegen den Senatsbeschluss vom 21. Oktober 2025 wird auf seine Kosten verworfen.

[GRUENDE]

Die zulässige Anhörungsrüge gegen den Beschluss des Senats vom 21. Oktober 2025 hat in der Sache keinen Erfolg, weil der Senat bei seiner Entscheidung weder Verfahrensstoff verwertet hat, zu dem der Verurteilte nicht gehört worden wäre, noch zu berücksichtigendes Vorbringen des Verurteilten übergangen hat. Die Schriftsätze vom 21. August und 19. September 2025 lagen vor und waren Gegenstand der Beratung. Eine Gehörsverletzung ist nicht gegeben. Die Kostenentscheidung folgt aus einer entsprechenden Anwendung von § 465 Abs. 1 StPO.

Gericke Mosbacher Köhler

Resch von Häfen