The Supreme Court (2 BvR 473/06) already took a clear position in 2006 on the question of when a precautionary arrest warrant should be issued. At the same time, the BVerfG made it clear that waiting 10 days or more between imprisonment and hearing regularly raises concerns.
The BVerfG states that the interference with personal freedom can only be accepted if and to the extent that the legitimate claim of the state community to a full investigation of the offense and to prompt punishment of the perpetrator cannot be secured otherwise. This principle then also applies expressly to the arrest warrant Section 230 (2) StPO:
The provision serves to ensure the continuation and termination of criminal proceedings that have begun. One measure after Section 230 (2) StPO does not require an urgent suspicion and a risk of flight or blackout, but only the determination that the accused did not appear at the main hearing and that his absence was not sufficiently excused.
Sees as a means of ensuring the presence of the accused at a new hearing Section 230 (2) StPO primarily the arrangement of the demonstration. The arrest warrant, which interferes more strongly with personal freedom, can only come into question in the second place. This is the only way to do justice to the constitutional requirement that in a measure that is detrimental to the citizen, the means and ends must be in an appropriate relationship to one another. An arrest of the accused can no longer be reconciled with the principle of proportionality if, with reasonable assessment of all circumstances, the expectation that the accused will appear at the appointment would be justified (cf. BVerfGE 32, 87 ).
Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 473/06
–
–
– –
–
