Rejection request

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A rejection request , also known as a " bias application ", is an application through which a person involved in a ( court ) procedure can raise concerns that another person involved in the process ( judge , expert ) is biased . If the rejection request is declared admissible and well- founded , the rejected process participant leaves the procedure. If the rejection of the rejection request turns out to be arbitrary , this violates the applicant's fundamental right to the legal judge ( Art. 101.1 sentence 2 GG). The legal situation in the four German-speaking countries is essentially the same.

Legal situation in Germany

Individual or several specific professional and honorary judges , as well as patent examiners ( Section 27 (6) PatG) and experts ( Section 406 ZPO, Section 74 StPO) as well as clerks at the office and judicial officers can be rejected . The court as a whole cannot be rejected; the request for rejection must always be directed against specific individuals.

Legal basis

Rejection requests against civil judges are regulated in § 42 ZPO . This is referred to in Section 6 FamFG , Section 54 VwGO , Section 60 SGG , Section 51 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 FGO and Section 86 Paragraph 1 PatG . Section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply accordingly to clerks at the office ( Section 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure). For Rechtspfleger , § 10 RPflG refers to the regulations applicable to judges. Section 24 StPO regulates the rejection request against a judge in criminal proceedings, Section 31 StPO applies to lay judges as well as clerks at the office and other persons called in to take the minutes .

Reject reason for the possibility of a court person suspected of partiality, is from the rule of law to be derived of the Basic Law principle of equity (English fair trial ) and the right to the lawful judge of Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 Basic Law . According to the established case law of the Federal Constitutional Court , the constitutional norm guarantees that the person seeking justice stands before a judge in individual cases who is independent and impartial and who guarantees neutrality and distance from those involved in the proceedings. A party involved in proceedings must therefore have the opportunity to ensure that only judges who face him impartially are brought before the matter.

Concern of bias

Concern of partiality is to be assumed if there is a reason that is suitable to justify mistrust of the impartiality of a judge ( Section 42 (2) ZPO, Section 24 (2) StPO).

Such a reason is given if a party involved in the proceedings has reason to doubt the impartiality of the judge, given a reasonable assessment of all circumstances. Actual bias or bias is not required; the "bad appearance" is enough, d. H. the possible impression of a lack of objectivity. It is therefore decisive whether the behavior complained of can give rise to a reasonable person involved in the proceedings to doubt the judge's personal impartiality.

Whether the refusal considers the judge to be biased from his point of view is just as irrelevant as whether the judge considers himself biased or whether he is objectively biased. Because, contrary to the imprecise everyday language, the reason for rejection is not bias, but fear of bias. Therefore, neither a rejection request against a judge nor a decision declaring the rejection request to be well founded necessarily contains an allegation against the rejected judge (e.g. the content that he made a mistake).

If in the proceedings about the rejection of a judge because of bias the actual bases are conclusively explained but cannot be explained, the appearance speaks for the concern of bias. On the other hand, there is no room for a decision “in the case of doubt in favor of the refusal” if it is only a matter of his subjective evaluation of objectively established facts.

Case groups

Certain groups of cases can be distinguished in which impartiality is typically called into question:

  • special proximity of the judge to those involved in the proceedings
  • Participation in preliminary decisions or other preliminary work on the matter to be decided
  • Procedural error
  • Statements about the process behavior of those involved in the process
  • Philosophical attitudes
  • Interests in the outcome of the process

The justification of an application for bias is always an individual decision. In particular, the right to be heard, the requirement of fairness and the prohibition of arbitrariness are recognizable as general legal aspects. The handling by the jurisprudence tends to be restrictive, since the decision is directly on the legal judge according to Article 101, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law and an abuse of the right of refusal, particularly in criminal proceedings, is to be prevented ( Section 26a, Paragraph 1, No. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Individual cases of unfounded rejection

Personal proximity of the judge to a party or a party to the proceedings outside of the personal reasons for exclusion provided by law is recognized by the judiciary only in rare exceptional cases as a reason for rejection in order to explain the reasons for exclusion from the judge's office in accordance with § 41 No. 2 to 4 ZPO not to be expanded inadmissibly. For the same reason, the jurisprudence is very cautious if a judge has been dealt with the matter to be decided by him in advance in a way that does not already constitute a legal reason for exclusion according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO. A judge who is excluded by law from exercising the office of judge may not participate in the proceedings even if no request for rejection is made against him.

Procedural errors by judges, which in practice are more often used as a reason for requests for rejection, are only rarely recognized by the case law as grounds for rejection. Because the rejection procedure is not about the correctness of a decision, but about the partiality of the judge. The right of refusal is not intended to be an instrument for procedural or error control, since legal remedies are available for this. According to critics, judicial misconduct is tolerated almost endlessly in the case law on the right of bias.

Reasons such as nationality, gender or membership of a certain denomination are fundamentally insufficient to raise concerns about bias and accordingly - fundamentally - neither are political and religious views. However, the LG Berlin decided differently in a case in which, in a main hearing against Arab and Turkish defendants, a jury was wearing a black sweatshirt with " Pit Bull Germany " printed on the chest in white letters . The LG Dortmund granted a request for bias against a lay judge who, for ideological reasons, refused to take off her headscarf during the main hearing. Section 18 (2 ) BVerfGG also contains special regulations .

If a judge may have a personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings, a justified concern about bias "requires a clear connection with or parallelism to the disputed situation and interests in question, going beyond the area of ​​the same or similar experiences."

As a rule, there is no concern of bias if the judge has already dealt with the matter in a manner provided for by the respective procedural rules and has issued decisions, e.g. in civil proceedings according to Section 139 ZPO, or has issued a partial or interim judgment

The question of the conditions under which the involvement of a judge in criminal proceedings gives rise to concerns about bias, who was involved in the decision on the opening of the main proceedings, the continuation of pre- trial detention or the provisional withdrawal of the driver's license, is controversial . According to the case law, the concern of bias is unfounded even if a judge sits in court over a defendant whose guilt he has already formed a conviction in the context of a main hearing against a co-defendant.

Individual cases of justified rejection

After participating in a preliminary decision, the judge would have to consider his own decision not only as incorrect, but as “palpably wrong”. According to the OVG Schleswig, this requires a particularly pronounced, well above-average level of ability and willingness to self-criticize, about the existence of which a party involved in the proceedings could have doubts, given reasonable appraisal and realistic consideration. In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice , however, even an alleged or actually legally incorrect preliminary decision cannot in itself justify the concern about bias. “Rather, there must be concrete circumstances of the individual case which are able to justify the concern about bias; The applicant must present and substantiate these circumstances, which go beyond the preliminary decision, in his application. Indications for the concern of partiality can be found in the behavior of the judge or in the reasons of the previous decision. "

Judicial decisions can be seen as cases of procedural violations giving rise to concern, in which a judge exclusively adopts the arguments of one party while he clearly does not deal with those of the other or denies one party what he grants to the other (for example: one party refuses to record their request in the minutes, while conversely he records requests of the other party in the minutes), also the refusal to decide on the matter, the denial of the right to be heard or the unjustified restriction of the right to ask questions.

If a judge expresses himself about the procedural behavior of those involved in the proceedings that gives them the impression that he is biased against them, that the matter has long been established or that he does not take them seriously and that the statement in question does not allow any other interpretation A request for bias is justified, for example if a judge comments on the objection to his conduct of the negotiation with the word "Kinkerlitzchen" or comments such as "According to the files you are lying insolently".

The concern of bias within the meaning of Section 42 (2) ZPO is also justified if the rejected judge, as a member of the court of appeal, has to decide on the appeal of the rejecting party against a judgment given by his wife as a single judge.

A judge of a country's Constitutional Court , which according to the distribution to participate in the discussion and decision on a constitutional complaint is provided a self-rejection ( § 48 ZPO, § 30 made CCP) on the grounds that he had the complainant in a previous case by counsel representing, self-rejection is to be granted from this point of view.

Procedure

The reason for rejection must be made credible . If this does not happen or if the reason given is not suitable to justify a successful rejection request, the rejection request will be rejected as inadmissible by the court with the cooperation of the rejected judge. A request for bias is therefore already inadmissible without further substantive examination if it is made in an obviously abusive manner. This is particularly the case if the rejection request is used to pursue purposes that are not related to the process or if the request contains grossly irrelevant and offensive content without any further factual reference.

Otherwise, the refused judge has to make an official statement about the reason for refusal; the parties involved in the proceedings must be given a legal hearing . Thereafter, the court decides by decision without the involvement of the rejected judge . The resolution declaring the rejection request to be justified cannot be challenged. If it is declared to be unfounded, the decision can be contested in civil proceedings pursuant to Section 46 (2) ZPO through an immediate appeal . In criminal proceedings, a decision in which the request for rejection against a judge who has made the decision (i.e. a request for rejection against a judge involved in the main hearing ) can only be appealed together with the judgment ( Section 28 StPO). In the administrative , social , financial and labor courts , decisions on the rejection of court persons cannot be appealed against ( Section 146 (2) VwGO, Section 172 (2) SGG, Section 128 (2) FGO, Section 49 Paragraph 3 ArbGG).

Between the application for rejection and the decision, the rejected judge may only undertake actions that cannot be postponed ( Section 47 (1) ZPO, Section 29 (1) StPO). In civil proceedings, the judge who is refused during the hearing may continue the appointment if an adjournment would otherwise be necessary; If the rejection is declared to be justified, the part of the hearing that lies after the rejection request must be repeated ( Section 47 (2) ZPO). In criminal proceedings, a main hearing can be continued until a decision on the rejection is possible without delaying the main hearing , but at the latest until the beginning of the next but one meeting day or until the start of the final speeches ( Section 29 (2) sentence 1 StPO). In criminal proceedings, if the rejection is declared well-founded, the part of the main hearing that lies after the rejection request must be repeated if the main hearing does not have to be suspended anyway ( Section 29 (2) sentence 2 StPO).

If there is a relationship that could justify a refusal, or if there are doubts for other reasons as to whether a judge is excluded by law, the judge concerned must report this in accordance with Section 48 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to which a decision of the court is also entitled so-called self-rejection, whereby the designation is misleading: the judge neither has his own right of rejection, nor does his point of view matter.

In civil proceedings, a request for rejection is not inadmissible if a party continues to negotiate on the matter after the request for rejection has been submitted. A new rejection request can also be submitted, provided this can be based on new facts.

The law for the modernization of criminal proceedings of December 10, 2019, Federal Law Gazette I 2121, changed Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, the right of refusal in the area of ​​criminal proceedings was curtailed in favor of a more expeditious procedure.

Legal consequences of successful rejection

The successful rejection means that the rejected judge is no longer allowed to participate in the proceedings. In criminal proceedings, a successful rejection usually means that a main hearing has to be suspended, i.e. broken off and restarted. This only does not apply if supplementary judges were called in and a supplementary judge can take the place of the judge who was successfully rejected.

Bias of officials

Bias requests can also be asserted against employees of the authorities . They must not be involved in any form (affected, related or employed by the person concerned), Section 20 VwVfG . Even if a participant claims that there is a reason for distrust of an authority, he should report this accordingly, § 21 VwVfG.

Other case groups

In many committees made up of elected people, a member is not allowed to take part in deliberations and votes on a topic if it is judged to be "biased", that is, the personal interests of the member with the interests of those of him Body to be represented, the general public, i.e. the electorate or the common good could collide. If a biased member nevertheless takes part in a corresponding vote, this can lead to its invalidity and the need for a new resolution. An example are rules of bias for community or local councils in community ordinances , z. B. § 18 GemO for Baden-Württemberg. Other examples of bias are about

Legal situation in Austria

Legal situation in Switzerland

The legal situation in Switzerland is essentially the same as in Germany and Austria, only the terminology is different. Thus, the challenging petition calls in Switzerland recusal request , the Grant called approval . For the area of ​​proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court, requests for recusal are regulated in Art. 34 ff BGG , for civil proceedings in Art. 47 ff of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure and for criminal proceedings in Art. 56 ff of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure . The administrative process in Switzerland is also familiar with the recession request.

Trials before the federal court

The relevant provisions for proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court are:

Section 3: Absence of court officials

Art. 34 Reasons for recusal

1 Judges, court clerks (court officials) step out if they:

a. have a personal interest in the matter;

b. were active in another position, in particular as a member of an authority, as legal advisor to a party, as an expert or as a witness, in the same matter;

c. are married to a party, their representative or a person who was active as a member of the lower court in the same matter, or who live in a registered partnership or permanent cohabitation;

d. are related or related by marriage to a party, their representative or a person who was active as a member of the lower court in the same matter, in a straight line or on the sidelines up to and including the third degree;

e. could be biased for other reasons, in particular because of special friendship or personal enmity with a party or its representative.

2 Participation in earlier proceedings by the Federal Supreme Court does not in itself constitute a reason for recusal.

Art. 35 Notification obligation

If a court person has a reason for recusal, he or she must inform the department president in good time.

Art. 36 Request for recusal

1 If a party wishes to request the recusal of a court person, it must submit a written request to the court as soon as it becomes aware of the reason for recusal. The facts justifying the recusal must be made credible.

2 The court person concerned must comment on the reasons for recusal.

Art. 37 Decision

1 If the court person whose recusal is requested or a judge of the department disputes the reason for recusal, the department shall decide on the recusal to the exclusion of the court person concerned.

2 The question of recusal can be decided without hearing the other party.

3 If so many judges are required to stand out that no valid hearing can take place, the President of the Federal Supreme Court shall designate so many extraordinary cantons from the number of presidents of the higher courts from the cantons not involved in the matter part-time judges, as are necessary in order to be able to judge the recusal question and, if necessary, the main matter oneself.

Art. 38 Violation of the recusal regulations

1 Official acts in which a person obliged to withdraw from the contract has participated must be rescinded if a party so requests within five days of becoming aware of the reason for the withdrawal.

2 Non-repeatable evidence measures may be taken into account by the deciding authority.

3 If the reason for the recusal is only discovered after the proceedings have been concluded, the provisions on the revision apply.

Civil procedural law

The relevant provisions in Swiss civil procedure law are:

Chapter 3: Strike

Art. 47 Reasons for recusal

1 A court person resigns if they:

a. has a personal interest in the matter;

b. was active in another position, in particular as a member of an authority, as a legal advisor, as an expert, as a witness, as a mediator in the same matter;

c. with a party, their representative or a person who was or was married as a member of the lower court in the same matter, lives or lived in a registered partnership or has a de facto civil partnership;

d. is related or related by marriage to a party in a straight line or on the sidelines up to and including the third degree;

e. is related or related by marriage to the representative of a party or to a person who was active as a member of the lower court in the same matter in a straight line or to a second degree on the side line;

f. could be biased for other reasons, in particular because of friendship or enmity with a party or its representation.

2 In particular, participation:

a. in the decision on the free administration of justice;

b. in the arbitration procedure;

c. in the case of legal opening under Articles 80–84 DEBA1 ;

d. when ordering precautionary measures;

e. in the marriage protection proceedings.

Art. 48 Obligation to notify

The court person concerned shall disclose a possible reason for recusal in good time and voluntarily withdraw if he considers the reason to be given.

Art. 49 Request for recusal

1 A party who wishes to reject a court person must immediately submit a corresponding request to the court as soon as it becomes aware of the reason for recusal. The facts justifying the recusal must be made credible.

2 The court person concerned comments on the application.

Art. 50 Decision

1 If the alleged reason for recusal is disputed, the court decides.

2 The decision can be appealed against.

Art. 51 Consequences of violating the recession regulations

1 Official acts in which a court person obliged to withdraw from the contract has participated are to be rescinded and repeated if a party so requests within ten days after becoming aware of the reason for the withdrawal.

2 The deciding court may consider non-repeatable measures of evidence.

3 If the reason for the recusal is only discovered after the proceedings have been concluded, the provisions on the revision apply.

Criminal procedural law

The relevant provisions in Swiss criminal procedure law are:

Art. 56 Reasons for recusal

A person working in a criminal authority resigns if they:

a. has a personal interest in the matter;

b. was active in another position, in particular as a member of an authority, as legal advisor to a party, as an expert, as a witness, in the same matter;

c. is married, has a registered partnership or has a de facto civil partnership with a party, their legal advisor or a person who was active as a member of the lower court in the same matter;

d. is related or related by marriage to a party in a straight line or on the sidelines up to and including the third degree;

e. is related or related by marriage to the legal counsel of a party or a person who was active as a member of the lower court in the same matter, in a straight line or on the side line up to and including the second degree;

f. could be biased for other reasons, in particular because of friendship or enmity with a party or their legal counsel.

Art. 57 Notification obligation

If a person working in a criminal authority has a reason for recusal, the person shall inform the head of the proceedings in good time.

Art. 58 Request for recusal by a party

1 If a party wishes to request a person working in a criminal authority to withdraw from the contract, it must submit a corresponding request to the director of proceedings without delay as soon as it becomes aware of the reason for the withdrawal; the facts justifying the recusal must be made credible.

2 The person concerned comments on the application.

Art. 59 Decision

1 If a reason for recusal pursuant to Article 56 letters a or f is asserted or a person working in a criminal authority objects to a request for recusal by a party based on Article 56 letters be, the following decision is made without further evidence proceedings and finally:

a. the public prosecutor's office if the police are concerned;

b. the complaints authority if the public prosecutor, the criminal offense authorities or the courts of first instance are concerned;

c. the court of appeal, if the appellate authority or individual members of the court of appeal are concerned;

d.1 the Federal Criminal Court if the entire court of appeal in a canton is affected.

2 The decision is made in writing and the reasons are given.

3 The person concerned continues to exercise their office until the decision is made.

4 If the application is approved, the procedural costs are borne by the Confederation or the canton. If it is rejected or if it was obviously delayed or willful, the costs will be borne by the applicant.

Art. 60 Consequences of the violation of recital regulations

1 Official acts in which a person obliged to withdraw has participated are to be rescinded and repeated if a party requests this within 5 days after it has received knowledge of the decision on the withdrawal.

2 Evidence that cannot be recovered may be taken into account by the criminal authority.

3 If the reason for the recusal is only discovered after the proceedings have been concluded, the provisions on the revision apply.

Legal situation in Liechtenstein

According to the legal situation in Liechtenstein , the judges of the Liechtenstein Administrative Court can not be judges of the lower court at the same time (Art 1 Para. 3 and Art 6 LVG).

According to Art 6 LVG, a member of the Administrative Court is excluded from performing an official act in an administrative matter in the event of any other nullity (Art 106 LV):

  • in matters in which they themselves are a party or in respect of which they are in the relationship of a jointly entitled, jointly obliged or subject to recourse to one of the parties;
  • in matters of their fiancés, their wives or such persons who are directly related to them or by marriage to them or with whom they are related up to the fourth degree on the sidelines or by marriage to the second degree; * in matters of their adopted and foster parents, their adopted or foster children, their ward or foster family members;
  • in matters in which you were or are still appointed as an agent, administrator or manager of a party or in a similar manner;
  • in matters in which they participated in the issuing of the contested ruling or decision at a subordinate municipal or state administrative authority or acted as witness or expert. According to Art 7 ff LVG there are further incompatibility regulations.

The election to the board of directors of the Liechtenstein Bar Association is incompatible with membership of the Administrative Court (§ 14 Rules of Procedure of the Liechtenstein Bar Association of April 21, 1993, LGBl. 72/1993).

Legal situation in other legal systems

According to Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , everyone has the right to a fair and public trial before an independent and impartial court in full equality when determining their rights and obligations, as well as in the event of a criminal charge brought against them.

In order to avoid one-sidedness due to prior information, it is customary in Anglo-American law to select a jury for a court case that should not have obtained any prior information on the case in question, for example through media reports.

See also

Web links

literature

  • Rolf Geiser: On the judge's default in Swiss civil procedure law , Winterthur 1957 (dissertation)
  • Rainer Hamm : The legal judge and the rejection due to concern of bias , Berlin 1972 (dissertation)
  • Christian Stemmler: Bias in the judicial office: an asystematic presentation of the reasons for exclusion and rejection taking into account the legal judge as a material principle , 1975 (dissertation)
  • Tanja Maier: Bias in administrative proceedings: the regulations of the EU member states in a legal comparison . 1st edition. Duncker & Humblot , Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-428-10181-2 .
  • Gregor Vollkommer: The rejectable judge The enforcement of the constitutional requirement of judicial impartiality in the process , Verlag Moor Siebeck, 2001, ISBN 978-3-16-1-4762-97
  • Andreas Gerhartl: " Range of bias in administrative proceedings ", ecolex 2013, p. 477.
  • Volker Meinert: Bias in litigation. Erich Schmidt Verlag , 2015. ISBN 978-3503158669
  • Uwe Grohmann and Nancy Grohmann: The current case law on the bias of the judge. DRiZ 2017, pp. 60–63
  • Egon Schneider and Stephan Gronemann: Rejection of partiality in civil proceedings , 4th edition 2017, ZAP-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-89655-864-0 .
  • Florestan Goedings, The Bias of the Public Prosecutor , Hamburg 2018 (Dissertation), ISBN 978-3-339-10284-3 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Rejection of partiality by a court-appointed expert
  2. ↑ Constitutional Tribunal North Rhine-Westphalia , decision of 11/02/2020 - Constitutional Tribunal 32 / 19.VB-3
  3. ↑ Hüßtege in: Heinz Thomas and Hans Putzo (eds.), Civil Procedure Code, Commentary, 32nd edition 2011, preliminary. § 41 Rn. 1
  4. ^ BGH, decision of November 15, 2018, Az. V ZB 71/18, rejection of a judicial officer
  5. ^ Johannes Holzer: Exclusion and rejection of court persons in proceedings of voluntary jurisdiction. Journal for Notar Practice 2018, pp. 94–98
  6. ↑ § 60 SGG - rejection of judges due to bias. jurisPK – SGG, last updated on August 4, 2017
  7. ↑ Lutz Meyer-Goßner and Bertram Schmitt , Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 61st edition 2018, Rn. 1 before § 22 StPO
  8. ↑ BVerfGE 10, 200 (213 f.) ; 21, 139 (145 f.) ; 30, 149 (153) ; 40, 268 (271) ; 82, 286 (298) ; 89, 28 (36)
  9. ↑ BGH, decision of May 9, 2012 - 2 StR 25/12, no. 4th
  10. ↑ BVerfG, decision of July 25, 2012 - 2 BvR 615/11 marginal no. 13
  11. ↑ OLG Braunschweig , decision of January 24, 2000, Az. 1 W 3/00 , OLGR Braunschweig 2000, 122.123
  12. ↑ Alexander Ignor: Bias in the ZIS process 2012, pp. 228–237
  13. ↑ LSG Munich , decision of January 9, 2017 - L 3 SF 290/16 AB / L 3 SF 291/16 AB
  14. ↑ Marcus Creutz: Suspicion of bias due to judicial behavior December 11, 2012
  15. ↑ BGH, decision of June 26, 2007 - 5 StR 138/07
  16. ↑ BGH , decision of October 20, 2003 - II ZB 31/02, NJW 2004, 163
  17. ^ Because his wife sued VW: LG declares Stuttgart diesel judge biased LTO , April 30, 2019
  18. ^ The plaintiff's petition for bias: The dispute over the Stuttgart "Diesel judge" is going into the next round SWR , May 2, 2019
  19. ↑ BVerwG , decision of October 2nd, 1997, Az. 11 B 30.97, NVwZ-RR 1998, 268
  20. ↑ Karlsruhe Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, author Scheuten, 7th edition 2013, Rn. 7 to § 22 StPO
  21. ↑ KG MDR 2005, 703
  22. ↑ OLG Naumburg , decision of August 9, 2001, Az. 10 W 31/01, NJW-RR 2002, 502
  23. ^ Egon Schneider , Unsuccessful Judge Rejections in Civil Procedure , NJW 1996, 2285; ders., The dead end of rejection of partiality in civil proceedings , NJW 1997, 832
  24. ^ LG Berlin , decision of November 26, 2001 - (501) 68 Js 693/00 KLs (24/01), StV 2002, 132
  25. ^ LG Dortmund , decision of November 7, 2006, Az. 14 (VIII) Gen.Str.K., NJW 2007, 3013
  26. ↑ Rejection requests against Vice President Kirchhof rejected press release of the Federal Constitutional Court No. 30/2018 of May 3, 2018
  27. ^ OVG Münster NVwZ-RR 2004, 457
  28. ↑ Werner Beulke , Criminal Procedure Law, 11th edition 2010, Rn. 73 f .; Meyer-Goßner Code of Criminal Procedure, Commentary, 54th edition 2011, § 23 Rn. 2
  29. ↑ Alexander Ignor : Bias in the ZIS process 2012, pp. 228, 233
  30. ^ OVG Schleswig , decision of September 3, 2003, Az. 3 LB 38/03, NVwZ-RR 2004, 457
  31. ↑ European Patent Office : Interim decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of April 25, 2014, R 0019/12
  32. ↑ BGH, decision of April 19, 2018 - 3 StR 23/18 para. 5
  33. ↑ OLG Schleswig , decision of August 23, 2006, Az. 15 WF 226/06, FamRZ 2007, 401
  34. ↑ OLG Cologne , decision of June 22nd, 1998, Az. 14 WF 69/98, NJW-RR 1999, 288
  35. ↑ Higher Regional Court Rostock , decision of October 14, 1998, Az. 4 W 64/98, NJW-RR 1999, 1507
  36. ↑ Siolek, in: Volker Erb u. a. (Eds.), Ewald Löwe and Werner Rosenberg , The Criminal Procedure Code and the Courts Constitution Act, Vol. 1, 26th edition 2006, § 24 marginal no. 54 with further references
  37. ↑ BGH order of 04.10.1984, Az. 4 StR 429/84, StV 1985 2
  38. ↑ OLG Hamburg , decision of March 23, 1992, Az. 7 W 10/92, NJW 1992, 2036
  39. ↑ BayObLG , decision of 04.08.1993, Az. 5St RR 80/93, NJW 1993, 2948
  40. ↑ BGH, decision of February 27, 2020 - III ZB 61/19
  41. ↑ Self-rejection of a judge
  42. ↑ The self-rejection in three proceedings before the BayVerfGH was due to previous representation in the " Freisler Settlement " case (NJW 2016, 2759), see BayVerfGH , decision of November 7th, 2019, decision 47-VI-18 , BayVerfGH, decision of November 8th. 2019, Vf. 50-VI-18 and BayVerfGH, decision of 07.11.2019, Vf. 31-VI-19
  43. ^ Right of appeal - self-rejection of a judge
  44. ↑ BGH, decision of April 26, 2016, Az. VIII ZB 47/15
  45. ↑ BGH on the right to refuse judges. Negotiating further does not make a bias application inadmissible
  46. ↑ Lia-Madeline Kampmann, Defense Rights in the Light of the StPO Reform , HRRS 2020, 182
  47. ↑ "He's got something against me": Bias in the administrative procedure
  48. ↑ Municipal Code for Baden-Württemberg (Municipal Code - GemO) § 18 Exclusion due to bias
  49. ↑ Rules of conduct on the basis of Section 44b of the Act on the Legal Relationships of Members of the German Bundestag (Deputies Act - AbgG)
  50. ^ Federal Supreme Court , judgment of August 29, 2016, 5A 153/2016
  51. ↑ Approval request for recusal against a district judge due to the objective appearance of bias in accordance with Art. 47 Para. 1 lit. f ZPO
  52. ↑ Federal Supreme Court, judgment of May 21, 2014, 5A 194/2014
  53. ^ Federal Supreme Court, judgment of September 26, 2016, 1B 272/2016
  54. ↑ Federal Supreme Court, judgment of January 8, 2019, 1C 388/2018
  55. ↑ Several times in the past, one or more legally qualified members of the VGH are and are also lawyers admitted in Liechtenstein at the same time.