Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
4 StR 380/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:201222B4STR380.22.0 AI generated

Admissibility of revision challenging EncroChat data usage due to failure to specify foreign authorities and translate evidence

Case Number 4 StR 380/22
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Court Costs Borne by appellant
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The German Federal Court of Criminal Fourth Senate dismissed the defendant's revision as unfounded, upholding the judgment of the Essen Regional Court dated May 10, 2022, and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the legal remedy. The dispute centered on a criminal appeal challenging the admissibility of evidence, specifically the utilization of data obtained from the "EncroChat" communication service, which the appellant argued was tainted by procedural irregularities involving foreign authorities. The Court determined that the procedural objection was inadmissible under § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO because the appellant failed to specifically identify the involved foreign authorities and presented a critical communication in English without the required German translation, rendering the appeal insufficiently reasoned.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO, § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO; Admissibility of revision challenging EncroChat data usage due to failure to specify foreign authorities and translate evidence: The dispute centered on a criminal appeal challenging the admissibility of evidence, specifically the utilization of data obtained from the "EncroChat" communication service, which the appellant argued was tainted by procedural irregularities involving foreign authorities. The Court determined that the procedural objection was inadmissible under § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO because the appellant failed to specifically identify the involved foreign authorities and presented a critical communication in English without the required German translation, rendering the appeal insufficiently reasoned.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal revision procedural objections e-justice seizure of electronic data illegally obtained evidence serious defect in foreign proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO
Cited in the dispositive as the legal basis for dismissing the revision as unfounded after finding no legal error to the defendant's detriment.
§ 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO

Cited Case Law

AI generated
4 StR 410/20
Forfeiture recalculation due to unauthorized trial absence and statutory substitution of criminal proceeds
5 StR 455/17
Timeliness of a foreign-language appeal in securing measures proceedings and the scope of the EU Directive on interpretation services
AI generated
3 StR 583/24
Admissibility of EncroChat data evidence and sufficiency of factual submissions for procedural defects in criminal revision
5 StR 572/23
Unlawful Verwertung of EncroChat Data: Admissibility of Revision Relying on Non-Compliant Procedural Allegations under § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO
5 StR 595/23
Inadmissibility of revision challenging EncroChat evidence due to failure to specify participation in trial objection under § 344 Abs. 2 StPO
5 StR 29/24
Admissibility of procedural challenge to EncroChat data valuation for failure to specify self-reading and transfer protocols.
4 StR 93/22
Admissibility and admissibility requirements for challenging foreign EncroChat data and double confiscation of criminal proceeds

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO

Cited in the dispositive as the legal basis for dismissing the revision as unfounded after finding no legal error to the defendant's detriment.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Essen vom 10. Mai 2022 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).

Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.

Ergänzend zur Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts bemerkt der Senat:

Die Verfahrensrüge, mit der die Verwertung von Daten des Kommunikationsdienstes „EncroChat“ beanstandet wird, ist auch deshalb bereits unzulässig, weil die Revision entgegen § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO Verfahrenstatsachen wie etwa die Ende März 2020 in verschiedenen Staaten mit dem Ermittlungskomplex befassten Behörden nicht bestimmt benennt (vgl. zu diesem Erfordernis allgemein Meyer-Goßner/Schmitt, 65. Aufl., § 344 Rn. 24 mwN) und zudem den Inhalt einer „an die deutschen Behörden“ versandten Nachricht nur in englischer Sprache, nicht aber übersetzt in die deutsche Sprache vorträgt (vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 19. August 2021 – 4 StR 410/20 Rn. 14; Beschluss vom 30. November 2017 – 5 StR 455/17 Rn. 3 ff.; jew. mwN).

Quentin

Rommel

Scheuß

Messing

Momsen-Pflanz