Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:58:24.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexual Abuse of Children Abroad – A German Perspective on the Antalya Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Stefan Kirchner

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
German Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2007 , pp. 777 - 783
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