Search

Copyright of Kriminologisches Journal is the property of Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG Beltz Juventa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article reports that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is only out of the question if the presiding judge considers the suspicion of professional misconduct to be unfounded or the proceedings to be inadmissible. Topics include considered that in the present case, the proceedings are inadmissible due to a procedural obstacle.

The article discusses the trial and execution of a group of Communist anti-Nazi resisters in Berlin, Germany, in 1937, which included Josef Steidle, Artur Göritz, and Liselotte Herrmann. The author is primarily concerned with reconstructing the alleged treasonous activities of the group, which revolved around industrial espionage and aiding the enemy, and with determining whether Steidle's or Göritz's testimony was truthful. He evaluates several aspects of the case, including criminal law and criminal procedure at the time, the Communist resistance movement, and the Nazis' subversion of due process.

Copyright of Kriminologisches Journal is the property of Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG Beltz Juventa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article presents a reprint of a lecture given at the "Bitburger Gespräche" in March, 1973, in Bitburg, West Germany. The author discusses the rights of property, and the constitutional history and the foundations of the constitutional right to property. The author also notes that the fourteenth article, first paragraph, second sentence of the Grundgesetz lays out the stress ration between the constitutional principles of due process and welfare statism.

The article discusses judicial power in Germany in light of a call for the reorganization of jurisdictions by the "Deutsche Richterbund" (German Federation of Judges). The basic facts underlying all jurisdictions and the idea of a due process of law is discussed. Various traits of jurisprudence and areas in which it can be unified are examined.

The article discusses a constitutional law case before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfG) of Germany, decided on October 10, 2012, which considered under which circumstances retroactive tax laws conform to article 20, section 3 of the German Grundgesetz (Basic Law). The court addressed several issues, including until when in the legislative process legitimate expectations must be protected, how dividends and other investment yields of minority shareholders are taxed, and due process.

The article presents a summary and analysis of a case before the European Court of Justice (EuGH/ECJ), decided on November 27, 2012, concerning the compatibility of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) with the European Union (EU) treaty and EU law. The court also considered the compatibility of the ESM with the equal protection and due process provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU-GrCh).