Article 33 jurisdiction in the case of parties
1 The participants of a crime will be prosecuted and judged by the same authorities as the perpetrator or perpetrators.
2 If a crime has been committed by several co-perpetrators or accomplices, the authorities of the place are responsible for the acts of persecution are first been made.
Article 34 The venue for multiple offenses committed at different locations
1 When a person accused of multiple offenses committed at different locations, so for the prosecution and adjudication of all actions by the authorities in charge of the place where that has been committed with the most severe punishment threatened action.
With the same threat of punishment, the authorities in charge of the place where the first acts of persecution have been made
.
2 If a party in Canton at the time of the jurisdiction under Articles 39-42 for one of the offenses have been indicted, then the procedures done separately.
3 If convicted a person of different dishes at a number of similar sentences, it is the court that the heaviest Penalty is pronounced, firm at the request of the convicted person has a cumulative sentence.
Article 35 The venue for crime through media
1 For an offense committed in Switzerland pursuant to Article 28 of the Criminal Code, the authorities in charge of the place at which the media company has its headquarters.
2 If the author or the author has known and he or she is the resident or ordinarily resident in Switzerland, so are the authorities of the domicile or habitual residence jurisdiction. In this case, the process is carried out there, where are the first acts of persecution have been made. Case of the latter may choose the claimant between the two jurisdictions.
3 If there is no jurisdiction under paragraphs 1 and 2, are the authorities in charge of the place where the media product has been distributed. If the spread in several places, the authorities of the place are responsible for the acts of persecution are first been made.
Article 36 The venue for enforcement and bankruptcy crimes and criminal proceedings against companies
1 For offenses under Articles 163-171bis of the Penal Code are the authorities on domicile, ordinary residence or at the seat of the debtor or the debtor's jurisdiction.
2 For criminal proceedings against the company under Article 102 of the Criminal Code are the authorities at the headquarters of the company responsible. This also applies if the proceeding is governed by reason of the same facts against a person acting for the company.
3 If there is no jurisdiction under paragraphs 1 and 2, it shall be governed by Articles 31-35.
Article 37 The venue for self recovers
a self recovery (Art. 376-378) shall be performed at the site, located at which the recovered objects or assets.
2 are the recovered objects or assets in several cantons, provided it was because of the same crime or offense by the same work, so the authorities in charge of the place where the recovery procedure was first opened is.
Article 38 designation of a different jurisdiction
1 The prosecutor may agree among themselves a place other than those specified in Articles 31-37 provided for jurisdiction, especially where the focus of the tortious activity or the personal circumstances of the suspect is or there is other good reason.
2 In order to safeguard the procedural rights of a party, the Appeal Board to transfer the canton at the request of that party or ex officio to impeach the finding in derogation of the jurisdiction provisions of this chapter to another court or court of first instance of Canton for evaluation.
does Article 33, with some modifications in the present Article 343 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, Article 33, the already repeated in Article 29 paragraph 1 in so-called "internal relations" established principle that criminal acts involved multiple perpetrators of the crime (as accomplices or participants) will be assessed jointly.
Section 2 defines the "forum präventionis" set, again with the modification that instead of investigative actions must be based on acts of persecution is. This refers to the case where several accomplices an act - perpetrate in different places - or more actions. Otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would not even ask.
Article 34 does the current Article 344 of the Criminal Code.
Section 1 deals with the constellation, where an offender has committed several crimes in various places. Responsible, the authorities at the site of action which is threatened with severe punishment. In determining the "most serious offense" is primarily due to the threat maximum sentence to an end. With the same maximum penalty on the amount of the threatened Mindesstrafe. This qualifying and unfair privileges to the factual circumstances of the Special Section of the Criminal Code to be considered. Rules that apply are those offenses that the accused are charged by the respective law enforcement agency at the time of the determination of jurisdiction, that is what this time in the process object is. Deviate from the suspension of the respective law enforcement authority is only when this is clearly untenable. It is also the principle in dubio per duriore ", ie when there is uncertainty whether the alleged facts meet this or that event, in case of doubt on the facts with the heavier penalty prescribed remedy: BG.2006.20 .
In determining the "worst act" as reduced sentences are objective reasons to consider (such as that of the only attempted perpetration: BK_G 031/04). Not included, however, is raising the penalty because of the multiple offense;: BK_G 092/04.
If the Perpetrators of crimes committed several different places, which are threatened each with the same penalty, that in turn is the "forum präventionis" applies.
causes a material change in the law of Paragraph 2 of Article 34th Under this provision, procedure no longer unite, if already charges were filed. So far, the Federal Court that date to adopt the first-instance ruling was postponed. The bring forward the date on which a union is no longer in question is appropriate. Otherwise, the trial would be delayed by the fact that it is still to unite with methods that at best do not yet ripe accusatory.
para 3 is a subsequent corrective, in the event that has not been met for any reason Article 49 of the Criminal Code.
It is now the question is how to proceed when multiple parties at one or more acts of perpetrators (or participants) one or more accomplices in addition to, or has the jointly committed act (s) nor delinquiert otherwise. In this case, the principles of Articles 33 and 34 are to combine. This means that a person who is the District of evaluating all acts of jurisdiction in which one of the accomplices has committed the most serious offense punishable respectively. with the same threat of punishment the canton, who first performed acts of persecution ( BG.2006.12 )
Article 35, which governs the jurisdiction for criminal acts by the media, takes over the current content of Article 341 of the Criminal Code. In this connection, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present Article 356 of the Criminal Code be deleted. This means in effect that a District of another extradition of the accused may not refuse on the grounds that it involves the prosecution of political crimes or offenses committed via the media. For this reason, also Article 341 para 3 of the Criminal Code to be deleted (see the message this purpose, FF 2006, p. 1142 f).
Article 36 sets out the jurisdiction for enforcement and bankruptcy crimes, as well as for criminal acts by companies. This is the current practice adopted.
Article 37 does the present Article 344a of the Criminal Code.
Article 38 allows for the determination of departure from the above rules of jurisdiction. This purpose to the competent prosecutor's some (paragraph 1). After charge, the Board has jurisdiction (paragraph 2). This possibility already exists under the present Article 262 and 263 BSTP each para 3 The departure from the legal jurisdiction shall be the exception, be based on clear grounds and are intended to speed up the process or the process economics. The reflection on the inappropriateness of the legal jurisdiction must imperatively force ( BG.2005.9 ).
0 comments:
Post a Comment