Rapporteur's note

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In German courts, the reporter's note refers to the handwritten note of the testimony of a witness by the reporter , i.e. the responsible judge , instead of the formal recording of witness statements.

A rapporteur's note can make a large amount of evidence easier to deal with. In addition, rapporteur notes are usually more detailed and detailed than formally recorded testimony. It is still imperative to record the personal details of the witness and the other requirements for his testimony .

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has drawn up various principles for the reporter's note and its handling. No distinction is made here between whether the reporter's note was made in a process that is subject to revision or in a non-revisable process . It therefore has no influence whether the judgment is capable of appeal or not. What the reporter notes of the testimony of a witness or an expert and in what form this happens (keywords, shorthand , etc.) is basically up to him. Verbatim reproduction is essential when swearing a witness, expert or a party.

However, the BGH attaches decisive importance to what happens to the reporter's note after the date, namely how and when it is made available to the parties. The reporter's note must be communicated in any case, as otherwise the right to be heard would be violated. A distinction must be made between whether a judgment is announced immediately after the taking of evidence or whether the announcement is made at a separate date after the last oral hearing.

The rapporteur's note has the same evidential effect as a record, but since it is not part of the minutes of the meeting, it is not covered by the right to inspect files in criminal matters . The quality of informal records in the form of reporters' notes or notes also influences the individual judicial perception and memory of the negotiation process and thus the judicial assessment of evidence. Insofar as the court bases its judgment on circumstances that are contained in a reporter's note, the note must be included in the factual report of the judgment.

literature

  • Baumbach / Lauterbach / Hartmann, 57th edition 1999, § 160 margin no. 6 and 11.
  • MünchKomm / ZPO, 1992, § 161 margin no. 8th.
  • Reichold in Thomas / Putzo, 22nd edition 1999, § 160 margin no. 6th

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 29, 1988 , Az. VI ZR 231/87, full text = VersR 1989, 189. BGH, judgment of September 18, 1986 , Az. I ZR 179/84, full text = MDR 1987, 209 = NJW 1987, 1200. BGH, judgment of July 5, 1972 , Az. VIII ZR 157/71, full text = MDR 1973, 132 = NJW 1972, 1673. BGH, judgment of March 1, 1957 , Az. VIII ZR 286/56, Full text = ZZP, 71, 104, 105. BGH, judgment of October 24, 1990 , Az. XII ZR 101/89, full text = MDR 1991, 343 = FamRZ 1991, 43, 45. BGH LM § 554 ZPO, No. 23
  2. ↑ Zöller, 20th edition 1997, § 160 margin no. 8th
  3. ↑ BGH, judgment of October 1, 2010 - V ZR 173/09 [9] a)
  4. ^ BGH judgment of October 11, 1956 - II ZR 153/55, NJW 1956, 1878; Judgment of July 5, 1972 - VIII ZR 157/71, NJW 1972, 1673; Judgment of February 24, 1987 - VI ZR 295/85, NJW-RR 1987, 1197, 1198; Judgment of July 11, 2001 - VIII ZR 215/00, WM 2001, 2024, 2026; Judgment of May 26, 2004 - VIII ZR 310/03, real estate 2004, 1168
  5. ↑ BGH, judgment of June 18, 2009 - 3 StR 89/09
  6. ↑ Detlef Burhoff: The defense attorney's right to inspect files according to § 147 StPO HRR-Strafrecht 2003, 182, 184
  7. ↑ Ralf Eschelbach : § 261 Principle of Free Judicial Evidence Assessment 2016, 7.1
  8. ↑ Example: OLG Hamm, judgment of June 16, 2009 - 28 U 1/09 marginal no. 25th