4. The consequences of dependent Judges

Section 135 Courts Constitution Act

(1) In criminal matters, the Federal Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction for hearing and ruling on the legal remedy of appeal on points of law only (Revision) against judgments of the higher regional courts at first instance and against judgments of the regional courts at first instance, unless the jurisdiction of the higher regional courts has been established.

In first instance proceedings at the Regional Court, only appeals are possible.

In contrast to processes that begin at the District Court, only appeals are possible, especially in the more serious cases.

This leads to the downright grotesque situation that in small disputes and criminal cases, a second instance takes place at the Regional Court on appeal, in which witnesses are of course summoned again and the whole process is repeated. Then an appeal can be lodged with the Higher Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court then decides whether a third hearing will take place at the Regional Court - in other words, even three instances. After that an appeal is possible at the Federal Supreme Court.

In the appeal before the Federal Supreme Court in first instance Regional Court proceedings, only the judgment is considered. A review of evidence by a court of the next instance cannot take place, as it is not recorded whether testimony was given in favour of the defendant or against him. Thus, such a trial is a one-step procedure and thus a violation of Art. 14 (5) ICCPR: "Everyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence has the right to have the sentence reviewed by a higher court in accordance with the law".

With this, the FRG also violates EU law, which also prescribes two courses of law: Article 6 ECHR as well as the general legal principles of the EU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Arrest warrants are executed from abroad by deception in legal relations. This extends arbitrariness and liability to the contracting states of the FRG. Not only the European member states with the Convention on the European Arrest Warrant are affected, but also, for example, the USA.

Evidence:

In the Case No. 1 KLs 123 Js 4652/14 = 1 KLs 123 Js 3979/11 an European Arrest Warrant was issued. The issuing Judge Franke acted as Public Prosecutor at least twice in the Case No. 1 KLs 123 Js 3979/11 and is therefore excluded as judge under German law § 22 StPO.

Nevertheless, Belgium enforces the European Arrest Warrant and extradites Mr Beowulf von Prince.

Evidence:

In Case 1 KLs 123 Js 3979/11, the Senior Public Prosecutor Lohneis of the Coburg Regional Court, responsible for the violation of European Convention on Extradition (ECE) Art. 14 principle of speciality, was for years until 2019 the President of the Coburg Regional Court and thus the disciplinary superior of the judges who judged the case and issued arrest warrants exhibited. According to this, Public Prosecutor Ursula Haderlein is now President of the Coburg Regional Court, who was already active in 2007 in the proceedings against Mr von Prince and subsequently in proceedings 1 KLs 123 Js 3979/11.