The court’s duty of cognition: What you should know

In the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 17 July 2024 (ref. 5 StR 6/24), the Federal Court of Justice clarified how the court’s duty of cognition is to be understood in the case of an acquittal in a criminal case.

Key statements on the duty of cognition

1. Scope of the duty of cognition: The BGH made it clear that the court is obliged to examine the entire facts of the case and to decide on them. This also includes the parts of the crime that only become known during the main hearing. The court must take into account all relevant evidence and may not improperly change the facts described in the indictment or replace them with other facts.
2. Limits of the restructuring of criminal prosecution: The BGH emphasized that the court’s duty of cognition is limited by the individual characteristics of the crime described in the indictment. These characteristics serve to delimit the accusation and ensure that the court only decides on the facts described in the indictment. A complete restructuring of the criminal complaint in which the original facts are replaced by another is inadmissible.
3. Fulfillment of the duty of cognition in case of acquittal: The court must explain in the reasons for the judgment which facts it considers to be proven and why it nevertheless has doubts about the guilt of the accused. This explanation enables the appeal court to review the decision for legal errors. In the present case, the Federal Court of Justice considered the duty of cognition to have been fulfilled because the regional court had sufficiently demonstrated that sexual abuse had taken place, but that no specific acts could be attributed to the accused.

Conclusion

The BGH emphasizes that the court’s duty of cognition requires a comprehensive and careful examination of the entire facts of the case, with the indictment forming the limit of this examination. In the case of acquittals, the court must explain in a comprehensible manner why, despite the examination, it came to the conclusion that the crime could not be proven with sufficient certainty.

Latest articles by Attorney Jens Ferner (Specialist in IT & Criminal Law) (Show all)