Article 39 Examination the competence and agreement
1 The criminal jurisdiction of authorities check their official duties and conduct a case if necessary, the responsible department.
2 shows several law enforcement agencies as a local jurisdiction, then the participating prosecutor informed immediately of the essential elements of the case and seek a possible agreement.
Article 40 Jurisdiction 1 Is
conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal authorities of the canton of the same dispute, the decision is the top or Attorney General or if not so provided, the final appeal body of the canton.
2 Can the law enforcement authorities different cantons can not agree on jurisdiction, it shall submit the prosecutor of the canton, which was first seized of the matter, the question immediately, in any case before the
indictment, the Federal Court for decision.
3 can for decision on jurisdiction competent authority to set a different than those provided for in Articles 31-37 of jurisdiction, especially where the focus of the tortious activity or the personal circumstances of the suspect is or there is other good reason.
Article 41 challenge to the jurisdiction of the parties involved
1 Will a party with the responsibility of the criminal proceedings Challenge authority, it shall apply for this immediately transfer the case to the competent criminal authorities.
2 against the decision taken by the relevant decision on the prosecutor's jurisdiction (Article 39 paragraph 2) to the parties within 10 days with the complaint under Article 40 for a decision on jurisdiction competent authority
. Prosecutors have agreed to a different jurisdiction (Article 38 paragraph 1), so that complaint is only open to possibility of the party whose application has been rejected under paragraph 1.
Common provisions Article 42 1 Up
the mandatory provision of the forum shall take the first with the Case authority dealing with the urgent measures. If necessary, referred to the decision on jurisdiction competent authority that authority, the
tentatively has to deal with the matter.
two arrested persons are supplied to the authorities of other cantons only if the jurisdiction has been designated as binding.
3 A defined in accordance with Articles 38-41 of jurisdiction can only be changed from new good cause and only before the indictment.
Articles 39 - 42, the control method for the determination of jurisdiction.
This was hitherto regulated by Articles 345 and 264 of the Criminal Code BSTP very summarily. These provisions to and supplemented by existing case law (see message BBl. 2006, p. 1143). Article 264 BSTP has, however, repealed with the enactment of the Federal Law on the Federal Court (SGG). According to article 28 paragraph 1 lit. g SGG the Federal Criminal Court has jurisdiction to rule on contentious jurisdiction among the cantons. At this responsibility is not changed (Article 40 para 2 CHStPO). More marginal procedural rules for court proceedings as are now found also in Article 279 BSTP.
Article 39 is the consequence of the criminal investigation force principle (Article 6 CHStPO). Accordingly it is just the local jurisdiction, ex officio be clarified. Does a criminal authority to decline jurisdiction, it shall immediately forward the documents to the competent authority in their view (paragraph 1). Several potentially relevant criminal authorities have to agree, ex officio and as soon as possible to reach an agreement (paragraph 2).
Article 40 governs the procedure if they disagree on potentially to law enforcement can not. In intra-cantonal money decides the appeal stage. In the cantons, which provide an upper or Attorney General, will decide this. Decisions on intra-cantonal jurisdiction can not be appealed to the Federal Criminal Court. They also bind the judging court (Paragraph 1).
the inter-cantonal relations, the first to call the matter dealt with criminal authorities in case of dispute, the Federal Court (para 2).
According to paragraph 3 can also specify the competent authority in case of dispute a different jurisdiction (see Article 38).
Article 41 deals with the appeals of the other parties (other than the prosecutor). Essence of this provision is that the parties involved can appeal against decisions of the prosecutor's appeal by the competent authority in accordance with Article 40. Do they want to challenge a different jurisdiction, they are only legitimate complaint when they advance a have filed for referral to another authority. Such a need to make it even if a prosecutor without negotiating with other prosecutors are considered responsible and therefore by itself is no formal decision. The request of the parties to transfer to another authority has carried out in accordance with the terms of Article 41, paragraph 1 immediately. It can be concluded that the right to defend itself against the acceptance of responsibility by a criminal authority, it is forfeited if not immediately (to the knowledge of the facts establishing the jurisdiction) asserted.
Article 42 seeks to ensure that the process does not suffer from conflicts of competence.
According to paragraph 1, the prosecution, pending a definitive decision on the jurisdiction of the lead first with the case have authority, at least as far as urgent measures. If necessary, means the competent authority according to Article 40 the competent authority for urgent measures.
According to paragraph 2 shall be supplied to persons arrested only after binding clarification of jurisdiction to another canton.
According to paragraph 3, a once-defined jurisdiction only be changed from new good cause and only before the indictment. This also means that the judging court can not declare jurisdiction. After charge, may order only the Appeals Board a "transfer" of jurisdiction (Article 38 paragraph 2).
0 comments:
Post a Comment