Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview of Public Prosecutors in Germany: Position, Powers, and Accountability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe

  • 893 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter offers an overview of the position, powers, and accountability of public prosecutors in Germany.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sect. 6.1.1.1, para 2.

  2. 2.

    See Section 120 and 142(a) of the Court Organization Act (COA) in the version published on May 9, 1975, as most recently amended by Article 4 of the Act of December 7, 2011; Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 9. Mai 1975, das zuletzt durch Artikel 4 des Gesetzes vom 7. Dezember 2011 geändert worden ist.

  3. 3.

    Section 142 subs. 1 COA.

  4. 4.

    Section 141 COA. On the German institution of the “Amtsanwaltschaft” (assistant prosecutor office), see Elsner and Peters (2006), p. 209.

  5. 5.

    Section 147 COA.

  6. 6.

    Supervision of the Prosecution Service as a whole by the Minister of Justice.

  7. 7.

    Supervision of lower-ranking prosecutors by higher-ranking prosecutors.

  8. 8.

    Section 145 COA.

  9. 9.

    On the internal structures of the prosecution service in Germany, see Elsner and Peters (2006), pp. 208–209.

  10. 10.

    Section 149 COA.

  11. 11.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 221.

  12. 12.

    Section 148 COA. As civil servants, their work is regulated by the Federal Civil Service Act in the version published on February 5, 2009 as last amended by Article 2 of the Act of March 15, 2012; Bundesbeamtengesetz vom 5. Februar 2009, das zuletzt durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 15. März 2012 geändert worden ist.

  13. 13.

    Candidates at the beginning of their careers are appointed as junior prosecutor (Anfänger) and on a temporary basis for a test period of 3 years (Section 11 Federal Civil Service Act).

  14. 14.

    Until recently, the retirement age was 65. From 2012 until 2029 the retirement age will be increased stepwise on the age 67. See also Section 51 subs. 1 Federal Civil Service Act.

  15. 15.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 220.

  16. 16.

    Section 9 German Judiciary Act in the version published on April 19, 1972, as last amended by Article 17 of the Act of December 6, 2011; Deutsches Richtergesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 19. April 1972, das zuletzt durch Artikel 17 des Gesetzes vom 6. Dezember 2011 geändert worden ist.

  17. 17.

    Section 5 subs. 1 German Judiciary Act.

  18. 18.

    Section 5a German Judiciary Act.

  19. 19.

    Section 5b German Judiciary Act.

  20. 20.

    Section 64 Federal Civil Service Act.

  21. 21.

    An exception is made for junior prosecutors. They have the duty to attend courses organized by the prosecutor general on a systematic basis (Trendafilova and Róth 2008, p. 226).

  22. 22.

    For the situation in France, see Sect. 8.1.3.

  23. 23.

    On the situation in Switzerland, see Sects. 6.1.1.4 and 6.1.2.3.

  24. 24.

    Counterfeiting, terrorism, internationally organized crime (see Section 4 of the Law on the Bundeskriminalamt and the Cooperation between Federal and State Authorities in Criminal Police Matters of July 7, 1997); Bundesgesetz über das Bundeskriminalamt und die Zusammenarbeit des Bundes und der Länder in kriminalpolizeilichen Angelegenheiten vom 7. Juli 1997.

  25. 25.

    Article 30 Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, as last amended by the Act of July 21, 2010; Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 21. Juli 2010 geändert worden ist.

  26. 26.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 102; Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 9, Margin No. 16.

  27. 27.

    Code of Criminal Procedure in the version published on April 7, 1987, as most recently amended by Article 2 of the Act of July 21, 2012; Strafprozessordnung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 7. April 1987, die zuletzt durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 21. Juli 2012 geändert worden ist.

  28. 28.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 103.

  29. 29.

    See also Section 152 subs. 2 COA.

  30. 30.

    Elsner and Peters (2006), p. 227; Weigend (2005), pp. 209–210.

  31. 31.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 239, n 95; Beulke (2008), Margin Nos. 107–108; Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 42, Margin Nos. 17–18.

  32. 32.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 240.

  33. 33.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 240; Elsner and Peters (2006), p. 227; Weigend (2005), pp. 207–208; Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 9, Margin No. 19.

  34. 34.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), pp. 240–241; Elsner and Peters (2006), pp. 227–228; Weigend (2005), p. 208; Beulke (2008), Margin No. 106; Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 9, Margin No. 21.

  35. 35.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 241.

  36. 36.

    Offenses being dealt with by private prosecution are, e.g. the insult to a person, the damage to property, and the bodily injury.

  37. 37.

    For more information about this procedure, see Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 63.

  38. 38.

    See Sections 77–77e of the German Criminal Code (DCC) in the version promulgated on November 13, 1998, last amended by Article 1 of the Act of June 25, 2012; Strafgesetzbuch in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 13. November 1998, das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 25. Juni 2012 geändert worden ist.

  39. 39.

    For more details, see Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 297–298.

  40. 40.

    For more details about the principle of legality and opportunity in the German criminal procedure, see Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 305–310.

  41. 41.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 21; Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 299–304.

  42. 42.

    Sections 33 subs. 1 and 3, 136 subs. 1, 201 subs. 1, 243 subs. 4, 257 subs. 1, 258 subs. 1 and 2, 265 D-CCP.

  43. 43.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 25.

  44. 44.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 596; Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 255–257.1; Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 64, Margin No. 2.

  45. 45.

    See Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 65, Margin Nos. 1–8 for more information.

  46. 46.

    Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 258–259.3.

  47. 47.

    See Sect. 7.4.2, para 3 for more information.

  48. 48.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 349.

  49. 49.

    Albrecht (2000), p. 246.

  50. 50.

    For details, see Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 585–588.

  51. 51.

    For custodial sentences: 1 month (Section 38 DCC); for day fines: 5 day fines (Section 40 DCC).

  52. 52.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 334; Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 153, Margin No. 13.

  53. 53.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 334; Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 153, Margin No. 13; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153, Margin No. 36. Whether a hearing of the victim is required is a matter of debate (see Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153, Margin No. 36 with further references).

  54. 54.

    Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 153, Margin No. 11.

  55. 55.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 334; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153, Margin No. 44.

  56. 56.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 334; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153, Margin No. 32.

  57. 57.

    Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 153, Margin No. 10; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153, Margin No. 30.

  58. 58.

    Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153, Margin No. 3.

  59. 59.

    Elsner and Peters (2006), pp. 220–221.

  60. 60.

    See Sect. 6.3.4.2.

  61. 61.

    On conditional dismissals, see Sect. 7.3.3.2.

  62. 62.

    See Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 589–591 for details.

  63. 63.

    Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153a, Margin No. 17.

  64. 64.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 337c; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153a, Margin No. 17.

  65. 65.

    Federal Statistical Office (2012b), Table 2.2.

  66. 66.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 337d; Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 153a, Margin Nos. 8–9; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153a, Margin Nos. 26–29. See Sect. 7.3.3.1.1, para 1.

  67. 67.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 337d; Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 153a, Margin No. 38; Schoreit. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 153a, Margin No. 42.

  68. 68.

    Elsner and Peters (2006), p. 222.

  69. 69.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 311.

  70. 70.

    See Sect. 7.3.3 for further information.

  71. 71.

    See Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 581–582 and Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 41 for more details.

  72. 72.

    Section 205 D-CCP, which regulates provisional termination by the court is applicable by analogy in all other phases of the procedure (Beulke 2008, Margin No. 364).

  73. 73.

    For more details, see Kühne (2010), Margin Nos. 578–579.

  74. 74.

    The main hearing should take place within 1–2 weeks (Beulke 2008, Margin No. 530).

  75. 75.

    For details, see e.g. Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 61; Beulke (2008), Margin Nos. 530–531; Meyer-Gossner (2011), Vor Section 417 et seq.; Tolksdorf. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 417 et seq.

  76. 76.

    Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 417, Margin No. 1; Tolksdorf. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 417 et seq.

  77. 77.

    Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 408, Margin No. 24; Fischer. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 407, Margin No. 20. Pursuant to Section 163a subs. 1 D-CCP, the accused is to be examined at the very latest before the investigation is closed, so that the accused would have received a hearing beforehand either by the police or the prosecution. Only in simple matters it is sufficient to give him the opportunity to respond in writing.

  78. 78.

    The imposition of custodial sanction by penal order is criticized: the imposition of short custodial sentences (i.e. below 6 months) should be the exception (Section 47 DCC). Without main trial, it is difficult to evaluate whether there is such an exception. Furthermore, it is hard to justify that the evaluation competencies of the prosecutor should be so large in a written proceedings since, according to Section 56 subs. 1 DCC, the decision to suspend the sentence for a probationary period requires the prosecutor to make a prognosis (see Fischer. In Hannich (2008) KK StPO, Section 407, Margin No. 8a).

  79. 79.

    See also Elsner and Peters (2006), p. 218.

  80. 80.

    On the Swiss penal order, see Sect. 6.5.1.

  81. 81.

    Federal Statistical Office (2012b), Table 2.2.

  82. 82.

    For critical considerations, see Weigend (1978), pp. 49–58.

  83. 83.

    Peters (2011), p. 7.

  84. 84.

    See Peters (2011), pp. 9–24 which summarizes six studies on informal agreements conducted in Germany in order to identify the extent and the reasons for such agreements.

  85. 85.

    For an overview and discussion of these decisions, see Peters (2011), pp. 32–42.

  86. 86.

    BGHSt 50, 40–64; See Peters (2011), pp. 48–49.

  87. 87.

    On the necessity of a legal basis, see Peters (2011), pp. 51–58.

  88. 88.

    Law regulating formal agreements of July 29, 2009, Gesetz zur Regelung der Verständigung im Strafverfahren vom 29. Juli 2009.

  89. 89.

    This provision contains the principle of inquisition by stating that, in order to establish the truth, the court shall extend the taking of evidence to all facts and means of proof relevant to the decision. The fact that this provision must also be considered in the case of agreements contradicts to a certain extent the purpose of agreements, which is economizing. See also Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 257c, Margin No. 3.

  90. 90.

    Meyer-Gossner (2011), Section 257c, Margin Nos. 32–34.

  91. 91.

    Peters (2011), pp. 59–60.

  92. 92.

    See Koller (1997).

  93. 93.

    On the hybrid judicial-executive role played by German public prosecutors, see Beulke (2008), Margin No. 88; Roxin and Schünemann (2012), Section 9, Margin No. 10; Kühne (2010), Margin No. 133.

  94. 94.

    See Sect. 7.1.1 for more details about the structure.

  95. 95.

    Kühne (2010), Margin No. 141.

  96. 96.

    Kühne (2010), Margin No. 141.

  97. 97.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 220.

  98. 98.

    Section 63 subs. 2 of the Federal Civil Service Act.

  99. 99.

    Beulke (2008), Margin No. 85.

  100. 100.

    Article 331 et seq. DCC enumerates the offenses committed in public office.

  101. 101.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 225.

  102. 102.

    Trendafilova and Róth (2008), p. 225.

  103. 103.

    See Section 122 subs. 4 Judiciary Act.

  104. 104.

    There are no uniform statistics available at the national level. Thus, the given numbers are only estimates (Heger and Schön 2007, Section 5.2.2).

  105. 105.

    Council of Europe (2008), Table 101.

  106. 106.

    Council of Europe (2012), Table 11.54.

  107. 107.

    Council of Europe (2012), Table 11.58.

References

  • Albrecht H (2000) Criminal prosecution: developments, trends and open questions in the Federal Republic of Germany. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 8:245–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Beulke W (2008) Strafprozessrecht, 10th edn. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2008) European judicial systems. Efficiency and quality of justice (data 2006). Council of Europe Pub., Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2012) European judicial systems. Efficiency and quality of justice (data 2010). Council of Europe Pub., Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsner B, Peters J (2006) The Prosecution service function within the German criminal justice system. In: Jehle J, Wade M (eds) Coping with overloaded criminal justice systems. The rise of prosecutorial power across Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–236

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2009a) Court statistics 2008 [Strafgerichtsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2008]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2009b) Prosecution statistics 2008 [Staatsanwaltschaftsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2008]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2010a) Court statistics 2009 [Strafgerichtsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2009]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2010b) Prosecution statistics 2009 [Staatsanwaltschaftsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2009]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2011a) Court statistics 2010 [Strafgerichtsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2010]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2011b) Prosecution statistics 2010 [Staatsanwaltschaftsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2010]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2012a) Court statistics 2011 [Strafgerichtsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2011]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office (2012b) Prosecution statistics 2011 [Staatsanwaltschaftsstatistik des Statistischen Bundesamtes 2011]. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannich R (ed) (2008) Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz mit Einführungsgesetz, Rechtsstand: Mai 2008 (KK StPO), 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Heger M, Schön H (2007) Evaluation of European judicial systems. Replies to the 2008 questionnaire by Germany. Council of Europe Pub., Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller C (1997) Die Staatsanwaltschaft – Organ der Judikative oder Exekutivbehörde? Die Stellung der Anklagebehörde und die Gewaltenteilung des Grundgesetzes. P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne H (2010) Strafprozessrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts, 8th edn. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Gossner L (2011) Strafprozessordnung. Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Nebengesetze und ergänzende Bestimmungen (Beck’scher Kurzkommentar StPO), 54th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters J (2011) Urteilsabsprachen im Strafprozess. Die deutsche Regelung im Vergleich mit Entwicklungen in England & Wales, Frankreich und Polen. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C, Schünemann B (2012) Strafverfahrensrecht. Ein Studienbuch, 27th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Trendafilova E, Róth W (2008) Report on the public prosecution service in Germany. In: Open Society Institute Sofia (ed) Promoting prosecutorial accountability, independence and effectiveness. Comparative research. Open Society Institute Sofia, Sofia, pp 211–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend T (1978) Anklagepflicht und Ermessen. Die Stellung der Staatsanwalts zwischen Legalitäts- u. Opportunitätsprinzip nach deutschem und amerikanischem Recht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend T (2005) The prosecution service in the German administration of criminal justice. In: Tak PJP (ed) Tasks and powers of the prosecution services in the EU member states, vol 1. Wolf Legal Publisher, Nijmegen, pp 203–222

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universitäre Fernstudien Schweiz, Brig, Switzerland

    Gwladys Gilliéron

Authors
  1. Gwladys Gilliéron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gilliéron, G. (2014). Overview of Public Prosecutors in Germany: Position, Powers, and Accountability. In: Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04504-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation