In a statement to MailOnline Mr Fulscher said: 'In its decision of April 19, 2023, the Regional Court of Braunschweig declared that it had no jurisdiction over the charge against Christian B. and revoked the arrest warrant against him.
'The defense already pointed out during the preliminary proceedings that the Braunschweig judiciary should not have local jurisdiction.
'For reasons that are not understandable here, the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig clung to its jurisdiction and thus risked being overturned by the Federal Court of Justice if it were opened. This is very questionable, in particular given the fact that a large number of witnesses would have had to appear in court again (on very incriminating issues) in the event of an annulment.
EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner may not face charges in Germany after a court there ruled prosecutors had no jurisdiction to pursue a case against him.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Thankyou for going to the trouble of sourcing that information which I presume is in response to my query (post #389 this thread). I am however already familiar with that source (see #380 this thread) and it doesn't give the answer to what is a very relevant question regarding a timescale which may factual but has not been proved to be so but is cited as fact.
Quote
In relation to German procedure, please clarify when the
pre-indictment phase to which you refer took place in relation to the five sexually motivated crimes with which CB was charged on 11 October 2022.
end quote
The jurisdiction of criminal cases in Germany is a very complex issue without inbuilt error inadvertently being added to the mix.
Snip
Section 8
Venue at domicile or habitual residence
(1) Venue is also deemed to be established in the court in whose district the indicted accused has his or her domicile at the time the charges are preferred.
(2) If the indicted accused has no domicile within the territorial scope of this federal statute, venue is also determined by his or her habitual residence and, if such place of residence is not known, by his or her last domicile.
Section 9
Venue at place of apprehension
Venue is also deemed to be established in the court in whose district the accused was apprehended.
Section 12
Concurrence of more than one venue
(1) If more than one court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of sections 7 to 11a and 13a, the court which first opened the investigation takes precedence.
(2) The investigation and decision may, however, be transferred to one of the other competent courts by the common upper court.
Section 13
Venue for connected criminal cases
(1) Venue for connected criminal cases each of which, pursuant to the provisions of sections 7 to 11, would be subject to the jurisdiction of different courts, is deemed to be established in each court having jurisdiction over one of the criminal cases.
(2) If several connected criminal cases are pending before different courts, they may be joined, in whole or in part, before one of the courts where such courts so agree, upon application by the public prosecution office. If no such agreement is reached, then upon application by the public prosecution office or an indicted accused, the common upper court is required to decide whether and in which court the cases are to be joined.
(3) Cases which have been joined may be severed in the same manner.
Section 13a
Determination of jurisdiction by Federal Court of Justice
If venue cannot be established in any court within the territorial scope of this federal statute, or if such court cannot be ascertained, then the Federal Court of Justice decides which court is competent.
Section 16
Review of local jurisdiction; objection of lack of jurisdiction
(1) Prior to the opening of the main proceedings, the court is required to review its local jurisdiction ex officio. Thereafter, it may declare its lack of jurisdiction only upon an objection being filed by the defendant. The defendant may only file such an objection up until the commencement of his or her examination on the charges in the main hearing.
(2) Where charges have been preferred by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the court also conducts a review, based on an objection filed by the defendant, to establish whether the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is authorised, pursuant to Article 36 (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of the Council of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (ʻthe EPPOʼ) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1), to prefer charges before a court within the territorial scope of this statute. Subsection (1) sentence 3 applies accordingly.
:::: :::: :::: :::: :::: ::::
Every contingency appears to have been covered so eventually it seems someone will bring CB to trial somewhere. It will just take time to cover all the bases
