(1) Various higher regional courts and some of the literature affirm a corresponding application (cf. OLG Stuttgart, wistra 2007, 279, 280, but without taking into account the law amending the law on administrative offenses and other laws of January 26, 1998, BGBl. I p. 156 [künftig: OWiG-Änderungsgesetz]; OLG Zweibrücken, decision of December 20, 2010 – 1 SsBs 29/09, juris; Rogall in Karlsruhe Commentary, OWiG, 5th edition, § 30 marginal note 239; Gürtler/Thoma in Göhler, OWiG, 18th edition, § 88 marginal number 8; Section 87 para. 27; Meyberg in BeckOK OWiG, 32nd ed. [Stand: 1. Oktober 2021], § 29a para. 108). As justification, they claim that the law in § 87 para. 2 and 3 OWiG aligns the legal status of the person involved in the confiscation with that of a person affected in the fine proceedings, it causes the applicability of the general provisions according to § 71 ff. OWiG, including the possibility of objection rejection according to § 74 para. 2 OWiG belongs. The procedural regulations of Section 46 (1) OWiG, Section 444 (2) sentence 2 StPO [bzw. § 436 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StPO in der vom 1. Januar 2000 bis zum 24. Juli 2015 geltenden Fassung] on the one hand and Section 74 (2) OWiG on the other are applicable in parallel; the trial court is given discretion in this respect. Reference is made to a decision by the Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken (OLG Zweibrücken, NStZ 1995, 293), which, however, still related to Section 74 (2) OWiG in the version before the OWiG Amendment Act came into force (cf. OLG Stuttgart, wistra 2007, 279 , 280; Rogall in Karlsruhe commentary, OWiG, 5th edition, Section 30 marginal number 239; Gürtler/Thoma in Göhler, OWiG, 18th edition 2021, Section 88 marginal number 8; Meyberg in BeckOK OWiG, 32nd ed. [Stand: 1. Oktober 2021], § 29a Rn. 108).
(2) Die counter view rejects a corresponding application of Section 74 (2) OWiG for this case constellation. If the person involved in the confiscation fails to attend without an excuse, who is in principle free to stay away from the main hearing, unless his personal appearance has been ordered, the court can negotiate in the absence of the person involved in the confiscation or, at its discretion, order his appearance to clarify the facts (§ 427 para. 2 StPO). If the party involved in the confiscation is a legal person or an association of persons, the appearance and, if necessary, the presentation of the authorized representative will be ordered. If the party involved in confiscation, whose personal appearance has been ordered, does not appear at the main hearing without a sufficient excuse, it is not possible to reject the objection under Section 74 (2) OWiG. Nothing else applies in the event of a fine being imposed on a legal person or association (cf. Cologne Higher Regional Court, decision of November 20, 2001 – Ss 448/01 (B), Ss 448/01, juris; Fad in Rebmann/Roth/Herrmann , OWiG, 27 February 2019, Section 87 marginal number 43; as well as on the comparable legal situation in the case of Mitsch, the person involved in the confiscation, in the Karlsruhe commentary, OWiG, 5th edition, Section 87 marginal number 54, 57; Köhler in Meyer-Goßner/Schmitt, StPO, 64th edition, Section 432 marginal number 8; Retemeyer in Gercke/Julius/Temming/Zöller, Code of Criminal Procedure, 6th edition, Section 432 marginal number 6; Schmidt in Karlsruhe Commentary, StPO, 8th edition, Paragraph 432 paragraph 9).
–
