Concept and Significance of Suspension of the Main Hearing
The suspension of the main hearing is a significant concept in German criminal procedure law. It refers to the formal interruption of an already commenced main hearing, resulting in the proceedings being halted from that moment and requiring resumption or completion at a later date. Suspension must be distinguished from interruption (e.g., pursuant to § 229 StPO) and has far-reaching effects on the further proceedings, procedural economy, and the rights of the parties involved.
Legal Basis
Statutory Provisions
The central set of rules governing the suspension of the main hearing is found in the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). Important provisions include, in particular:
- § 229 StPO – Interruption of the main hearing
- § 230 StPO – Summons of the accused for continuation
- § 265 StPO – Subsequent amendment of the indictment
- § 246a StPO – Interruption for appointment of a new defense counsel
- § 231 StPO – Absence of the accused and continuation or suspension
Suspension constitutes a procedural stage that can have various legal consequences, particularly regarding the use of evidence already obtained and the progress of the hearing.
Distinction: Suspension, Interruption, and Termination
- Suspension means the formal termination of the ongoing main hearing with the intention of reopening it at a later date; the proceedings then generally recommence from a previous point.
- Interruption according to § 229 StPO, allows a pause within specified time limits (up to three weeks, with possible extensions under certain conditions) without the necessity of restarting the proceedings.
- Termination in contrast, means the provisional or final end of the criminal proceedings for various reasons, such as insufficient suspicion (§ 170(2) StPO).
Admissibility and Requirements
Grounds for Suspension
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides specific grounds for which suspension is mandatory or permitted at the court’s discretion. Examples include:
1. Illness of participants in the proceedings
A mandatory ground for suspension is the extended illness of a key participant in the proceedings (such as a judge, lay judge, the accused, or defense counsel), such that the statutory interruption period would be exceeded (§ 229(3) StPO).
2. Appointment or Change of Mandatory Defense Counsel
If, during the main hearing, there is a change or appointment of a mandatory defense counsel, § 246a StPO requires suspension in order to allow the new counsel adequate time for preparation.
3. Change in the procedural situation
Significant changes in the subject matter of the proceedings, particularly through subsequent extension or amendment of the indictment (§ 265 StPO), may make suspension necessary, especially to ensure a fair trial and sufficient preparation of the defense.
4. Absence of participants in the proceedings
If a participant (e.g., the accused or a defense counsel) is absent for reasons that preclude continuation, suspension may be ordered if the hearing may not proceed in their absence (§ 231 StPO).
5. Other material reasons
In practice, numerous other circumstances may arise, such as unforeseen hindrances for the court or the need for evidence gathering that takes considerable time for legal or factual reasons.
Decision on Suspension
The decision to suspend is made by the court through a formal order. According to established case law of the Federal Court of Justice, this decision is generally incontestable and can only be reviewed by means of a procedural complaint.
Legal Consequences of Suspension
Restart of the Main Hearing
After a suspension, the main hearing must generally begin anew from the start. Evidence previously taken loses its immediate evidentiary value (§ 261 StPO), witnesses must be re-examined, and the taking of evidence repeated. This ensures that the deciding court gains a complete and immediate impression from the evidence presented.
Limitation Periods and Continuation of Procedural Deadlines
Suspension does not have a suspensive effect on the statute of limitations. During a suspended hearing, there are generally no special provisions for suspension of the substantive limitation period.
Effects on Detention Decisions
If an accused is in pretrial detention, suspension of the main hearing may require further review of the continued necessity of detention. The continuation of pretrial detention must always be based on statutory maximum periods, even in suspended proceedings.
Differences from Interruption and Consequences for Taking Evidence
Interruption (§ 229 StPO) allows the court to proceed within certain time limits without having to take evidence anew. In contrast, suspension generally requires complete repetition of the main hearing and associated evidence taking.
This is particularly important in complex or protracted criminal proceedings. Repeating the proceedings can involve considerable effort and lead to disputes regarding repetition of evidence or witness testimony.
Legal Remedies against Suspension
There is no ordinary remedy against an order of suspension. An order that is deemed unlawful by a party can be challenged through a procedural complaint on appeal, for example within a revision, if the suspension violated defense rights or the right to a fair trial.
Literature and Practical Guidance
Suspending the main hearing represents a significant interruption for all parties involved and affects the further progress and conduct of the criminal proceedings. On the one hand, it safeguards the procedural rights of the parties and the involvement of all relevant persons, but on the other hand, it requires repetition of all procedural elements.
Common practical scenarios include illness, non-appearance of essential participants, and major changes to the proceedings. Courts weigh the necessity and proportionality carefully on a case-by-case basis. In addition to the Code of Criminal Procedure, decisions by the Federal Court of Justice and Higher Regional Courts can be significant for interpreting and applying the relevant provisions.
Summary
The suspension of the main hearing is a core institution of German criminal procedure law. Its implementation requires specific formal and substantive prerequisites and entails a comprehensive repetition of the proceedings starting from the first day of trial. This ensures that the deciding court obtains direct knowledge of the facts; at the same time, significant procedural, organizational, and legal consequences arise for all participants. A precise understanding of the legal framework and practical implications of suspension is essential for the conduct and safeguarding of rights in criminal proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can a main hearing be suspended?
Suspension of a main hearing is permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure (particularly § 229 StPO) under certain circumstances, such as when an unavoidable procedural obstacle occurs. This is the case, for example, if a judge or lay judge is unable to continue and cannot be replaced at short notice, or if the accused or another indispensable party is unable to attend due to significant reasons such as serious illness. Suspension may also be considered if essential evidence is temporarily unavailable. However, suspension is always a last resort; the court must examine whether continuation, such as through interruption, is possible. The decision to suspend is at the discretion of the court but must be justified and must not be arbitrary or improper.
What are the legal consequences of suspending the main hearing?
Suspension of the main hearing means that the proceedings at their current state are concluded and must be resumed at a later date, usually by scheduling a new main hearing date. In particular, this means that any evidence taken or procedural steps performed prior to suspension may become invalid so that the entire section of the proceedings must be repeated from the earlier point. The suspension decision also interrupts certain procedural deadlines, such as those affecting the suspension of limitations. In case of serious reasons, the composition of the court may also change, for example, if a judge is unable to serve in the long term.
Who decides on the suspension of the main hearing?
The decision on suspension of the main hearing is made by the trial court, typically in the composition as it existed at the time the obstacle occurred, usually the full panel including lay judges. The decision is made by order and must be justified. Both the public prosecutor and defense have the right to comment on the issue, but the final decision rests solely with the court. In certain situations, particularly with motions to suspend, an immediate decision may be made without hearing all parties, for example when the grounds for suspension are obvious.
What are the differences between suspension and interruption of the main hearing?
The interruption of a main hearing—also regulated in § 229 StPO—allows the court to suspend proceedings for a certain, legally limited period (usually a maximum of 3 weeks, in certain cases up to one month) without having to repeat the taking of evidence or the procedural acts already performed. Suspension, by contrast, is a formal procedural act after which the entire main hearing must recommence; this usually also entails repetition of the evidence and essential procedural steps. Suspension is therefore more far-reaching than mere interruption and is generally only permissible in the presence of significant impeding reasons.
How does suspension of the main hearing affect deadlines (e.g., limitation periods)?
Suspension of the main hearing interrupts certain procedural deadlines, such as the deadline for interruption of the main hearing pursuant to § 229(3) StPO. Suspension can also affect limitation periods, since depending on the stage of the proceedings—for example, after the opening of the main proceedings—the procedural limitation period pursuant to § 78c StGB is interrupted. This suspension remains in effect during the period of suspension. With the resumption of the main hearing, calculation of the relevant deadlines recommences. Deadlines for motions for evidence or legal remedies can also be affected by the suspension.
Is the decision to suspend the main hearing subject to appeal?
A court order suspending the main hearing cannot be challenged by immediate complaint, since it does not constitute an autonomous grievance within the meaning of §§ 304 et seq. StPO (exception: search, detention, or seizure). Review of the legality of a suspension order is only possible by way of revision after conclusion of the main proceedings. If, upon revision, it is found that suspension was unjustified and resulted in a disadvantage for the accused, this can lead to the annulment of the judgment and a remittal of the matter.
What duties and rights of cooperation do participants in the proceedings have regarding suspension?
All participants in the proceedings—especially the accused, defense counsel, joint plaintiffs, and the public prosecutor—have the right to be heard before a decision to suspend is taken, provided the circumstances of the proceedings allow. They may also themselves request suspension, but must substantiate their reasons and provide supporting evidence, e.g., in case of illness. Their duty to cooperate includes immediately informing the court of any obstacles or reasons for absence that may lead to suspension. The court is obliged to promptly investigate such notifications and make a decision that respects both the principle of expedited proceedings and the right to a fair trial.
