Required reading for Munich prosecutors Steinkraus-Koch, Schütz and Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann, among various others!

Steinkraus-Koch

Schütz

I appreciate the noble efforts of the Munich court in collaboration with German government agencies - and Ministers, staying all in true German fashion quiet - to bring down this blog, get it purged. After all, free speech had never a tradition in Good Ol'. Oh and this here could possibly be yet another way to get uncomfortable blogs off the intertubes in Germany.

Anyway, I feel an urge to elevate the knowledge base of Munich prosecutors and judges somewhat, because during those days in which I had the privilege to lounge in their court rooms on admittedly uncomfortable chairs, deprived of my Montecristo and Hennessy, and listen to these supposedly educated gents and ladies, I rarely had the feeling of being overwhelmed by too much intelligence.

I endeavour to change this ever so slightly and therefore would like to usher their interested minds for example to the following excerpt being certain, said juristic individuals know exactly what I am referring to. Here goes:

Information  Note  on  the  Court’s  case-law  No.  116

February 2009

Sergey Zolotukhin v.  Russia [GC] - 14939/03

Judgment 10.2.2009 [GC]

Article 4 of Protocol No. 7

Right not to  be  tried  or punished  twice 

As to whether the offences were the same, the Court had adopted a variety of approaches in the past, placing the emphasis on identity of the facts irrespective of their legal characterisation, on the legal classification as the same set of facts could give rise to different offences, or on the existence of essential elements common to both offences. Taking the view that the existence of these different approaches was a source of legal uncertainty which was incompatible with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the Court decided to define in detail what was to be understood by the term “same offence” for the purposes of the Convention. After examining the scope of the right not to be tried and punished twice as set forth in other international instruments, in particular the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, it stated that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 should be construed as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of an individual for a second offence in so far as it arose from identical facts or facts that were “substantially” the same as those underlying the first offence. This guarantee came into play where a new set of proceedings was instituted after a previous acquittal or conviction had acquired the force of res judicata.

In some places it is called Double Jeopardy.

It's a pleasure being of service.