No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sexual Abuse of Children Abroad – A German Perspective on the Antalya Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
In recent months a criminal law case has strained relations between Germany and Turkey. A 17 year-old German citizen, who had been vacationing in a Turkish seaside resort town of Antalya with his parents was arrested there in Spring 2007 for allegedly having sexually abused a 13 year- old girl, also a tourist on holiday in Turkey with her parents. Presently, court proceedings are still underway in Antalya. Although the suspect has admitted to having had a sexual encounter with the girl, tests indicated that the intercourse was consensual. Initially both politicians and parts of the media expressed their shock at the arrest and detention of the suspect rather than the alleged crime itself. At the present time of writing there is insufficient information to adequately assess the facts of the case and it is important to note that the young man has not yet been convicted of any crime. Yet, based on media reports concerning statements made by the suspect himself, the case presents a number of interesting questions from the perspective of German law. These questions require a closer look, particularly in the light of the criticism directed at Turkish authorities from German politicians and media and since the Staatsanwaltschaft (Office of the Prosecutor) in Lüneburg (the suspect's hometown) is now investigating as well. This article considers, as a revealing comparative exercise, how the alleged crime would be addressed under German law.
- Type
- Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2007 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Marco W. weiter in Haft: Türkei lehnt Freilassung ab, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 26 June 2007, available online at http://www.faz.net.Google Scholar
2 On the victim's and suspect's different claims see Marco Dettweiler, Der Fall Marco W.: Auch in Deutschland droht Strafe, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 28 June 2007, available online at http://www.faz.net.Google Scholar
3 Schüler droht Haftstrafe: Gutachten bestätigt angeblich sexuellen Kontakt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 June 2007, available online at http://www.faz.net.Google Scholar
4 Dettweiler (note 2).Google Scholar
5 See Hermann, Rainer, Marco W.: Vom Strand in die Zelle, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 June 2007, available online at http://www.faz.net.Google Scholar
6 Dettweiler (note 2).Google Scholar
7 Para. 103 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which forms the basis for the prosecution's case in Turkey, is modeled on § 176 StGB, Prozess gegen Marco W. vertagt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 July 2007, 11.Google Scholar
8 Herbert Tröndle & Thomas Fischer, Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze (2006), 1062, § 176, margin number 3.Google Scholar
9 For more detailed information on different combinations of §§ 176 and 177 StGB see also Id. 1062, § 176, margin number 3a.Google Scholar
10 See Tröndle, Herbert & Fischer, Thomas (note 9), 1063, § 176, margin number 6.Google Scholar
11 38 BGHSt 68, 69; 45 BGHSt 131, 132.Google Scholar
12 Fritjof Haft, Strafrecht: Besonderer Teil (1998) 57.Google Scholar
13 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 4.Google Scholar
14 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 5.Google Scholar
15 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1195, § 184f, margin number 5.Google Scholar
16 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 5.Google Scholar
17 18 BGHSt 169, 169.Google Scholar
18 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 6.Google Scholar
19 38 BGHSt 68, 68.Google Scholar
20 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 30.Google Scholar
21 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 30.; Theodor Lenckner & Walter Perron, § 176, in Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar (Adolf Schönke & Horst Schröder eds., 2001), margin number 10.Google Scholar
22 Wolfgang, Frisch, Vorsatz, und Risiko, (1983) 496; see also Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Vol. I: Grundlagen: Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre (1997), footnote 27 on page 373.Google Scholar
23 Drawing the line between dolus eventualis and negligence is one of the most difficult problems of German Criminal law. See Roxin (note 24) 372. On the differences between dolus eventualis and negligence see Stratenwerth, Günter, Dolus eventualis und bewußte Fahrlässigkeit, 71 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (1959) 51; Herzberg, Rolf Dietrich, Die Abgrenzung von Vorsatz und bewußter Fahrlässigkeit – ein Problem des objektiven Tatbestandes, Juristische Schulung (1986) 249; Mylonopoulos, Christos, Das Verhältnis von Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit und der Grundsatz in dubio pro reo, 99 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (1987), 685; Herzberg, Rolf Dietrich, Das Wollen beim Vorsatzdelikt und dessen Unterscheidung vom bewußten fahrlässigen Verhalten, 43 Juristen Zeitung (1988), 573 (Part 1) and 635 (Part 2).Google Scholar
24 RG, 40 Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung (HRR) No. 1327.Google Scholar
25 Lenckner & Perron (note 21), margin number 10.Google Scholar
26 Lenckner & Perron (note 21), margin number 10.Google Scholar
27 Hermann (note 5).Google Scholar
28 Heribert Ostendorf in an interview with Dettweiler, Marco, Der Fall Marco W. – “Jedes Tabu hat seine Härte”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 July 2007, available online at http://www.faz.net; See also Johannes Wessels & Werner Beulke, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil: Die Straftat und ihr Aufbau (2002) 145.Google Scholar
29 Tröndle & Fischer (note 8), 1063, § 176, margin number 30.Google Scholar
30 For a detailed discussion see Wessels & Beulke (note 28), 115.Google Scholar
31 Wessels & Beulke (note 28), 118.Google Scholar
32 Wessels & Beulke (note 28), 118.Google Scholar
33 Wessels & Beulke (note 28), 118.Google Scholar
34 12 BGHSt 379, 379.Google Scholar
35 Wessels & Beulke (note 28), 118.Google Scholar
36 Wolters & Horn, Systematischer Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Vol. II, Besonderer Teil (§§ 80-358) (Hans-Joachim Rudolphi & Jürgen Wolter, eds.) (2006), § 176, margin number 2 (translation by the author).Google Scholar
37 Prozess gegen Marco W. vertagt (note 7).Google Scholar
38 Prozess gegen Marco W. vertagt (note 7).Google Scholar
39 Lutz MEYER-GOßNER, Strafprozessordnung: Mit GVG und Nebengesetzen (2006), 446, § 112, margin number 19; Werner Beulke, STRAFPROZEßRECHT (2000) 101.Google Scholar
40 Heiko Hartmut Lesch, Strafprozessrecht (2001) 170.Google Scholar
41 MEYER-GOßNER (note 39) 446, § 112, margin number 17a.Google Scholar
42 See Dettweiler (note 2).Google Scholar
43 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 1062, § 176, margin number 2.Google Scholar
44 Tröndle, & Fischer, (note 8), 40, § 5, margin number 8.Google Scholar
45 Prozess gegen Marco W. vertagt (note 7).Google Scholar
46 Prozess gegen Marco W. vertagt (note 7).Google Scholar
You have
Access