Art. 39 Verordnung über die Ausübung der medizinischen Berufe (VMB) - Übergangsbestimmung

BG.2025.37 (Art. 39 Abs. 1 StPO)

Jurisdictional Dispute Between Cantons: Zurich Responsible for Prosecution

This article was used to state that authorities examine their jurisdiction ex officio and forward cases to the competent authority if necessary.

51/2011/34 · sh (Art. 39 Satz 1 StPO/SH)

Admissibility of Pre-Code Interrogation Protocols and Statements in Police Reports

Cited in the reasoning to establish the concept of fitness for questioning under the old law.

BG.2026.23 (Art. 39 Abs. 1 StPO)

Federal Court Declines Jurisdiction Ruling in Fraud Case Due to Undetermined Place of Offense

Cited regarding the duty of criminal authorities to examine their jurisdiction ex officio.

BG.2026.23 (Art. 39 Abs. 2 StPO)

Federal Court Declines Jurisdiction Ruling in Fraud Case Due to Undetermined Place of Offense

Cited concerning the obligation of cantonal prosecutor's offices to inform each other and seek agreement when multiple prosecutor's offices appear to have jurisdiction.

BG.2025.80 (Art. 39 Abs. 1 StPO)

Jurisdiction Dispute Over Fraud and Money Laundering Case Remanded for Further Factual Investigation

Cited as the basis for prosecution authorities to examine their jurisdiction and forward cases if necessary.

BG.2025.80 (Art. 39 Abs. 2 StPO)

Jurisdiction Dispute Over Fraud and Money Laundering Case Remanded for Further Factual Investigation

Cited as the basis for prosecution authorities of different cantons to inform each other and seek agreement on jurisdiction.

BG.2026.2 (Art. 39 Abs. 2 StPO)

Zurich Assumed Jurisdiction Through Prolonged Investigation

Cited as the procedural basis for informing involved cantons about case elements and seeking agreement in intercantonal jurisdiction conflicts.

BG.2025.84 (Art. 39 Abs. 1 StPO)

Jurisdiction Dispute Between Cantons Over Fraud Case

This provision states that prosecuting authorities examine their jurisdiction ex officio, which was part of the background explanation.

BG.2025.84 (Art. 39 Abs. 2 StPO)

Jurisdiction Dispute Between Cantons Over Fraud Case

This provision requires prosecuting authorities to inform each other and seek agreement on jurisdiction when multiple authorities appear to be competent, forming part of the reasoning.

BG.2025.85 (Art. 39 al. 1 CPP)

Jurisdiction Dispute: Vaud Designated Competent Canton for Robbery Case

Cited to state the general obligation of criminal authorities to verify their jurisdiction and transmit cases to the competent authority.

BG.2025.85 (Art. 39 al. 2 CPP)

Jurisdiction Dispute: Vaud Designated Competent Canton for Robbery Case

Cited to explain the obligation of prosecutors to communicate and agree on venue when multiple authorities appear competent.

BG.2025.76 (Art. 39 Abs. 1 StPO)

Zurich v. Aargau: Jurisdictional Dispute Over Financial Crimes

This article establishes that criminal authorities examine their jurisdiction ex officio and forward cases to the competent authority if necessary.

BG.2025.76 (Art. 39 Abs. 2 StPO)

Zurich v. Aargau: Jurisdictional Dispute Over Financial Crimes

This provision states that if multiple prosecuting authorities appear to have territorial jurisdiction, they must immediately inform each other about the essential elements of the case and strive for a swift agreement.

BG.2025.81 (art. 39 cpv. 1 CPP)

Jurisdiction Dispute Inadmissible Due to Incomplete Cantonal Exchange

The court cited this article to explain that penal authorities examine their jurisdiction ex officio.

BG.2025.81 (art. 39 cpv. 2 CPP)

Jurisdiction Dispute Inadmissible Due to Incomplete Cantonal Exchange

The court cited this article to explain that if multiple authorities appear competent, prosecutors must communicate and seek agreement.