Specialized Law Firm for Constitutional Complaints in Criminal Law
(The Last Legal Remedy)
The constitutional complaint is the last resort when all attempts to overturn unfavorable decisions or judgments in criminal law have failed. Every criminal law case is also a potential constitutional law case, as no other area of law is as influenced by constitutional law as criminal procedural law. The right to freedom, the presumption of innocence, protection against judicial arbitrariness, and the right to a fair trial are constitutionally protected fundamental rights, which are frequently disregarded in criminal proceedings. As a result, the vast majority of constitutional complaints are filed in criminal law matters, making criminal law a key driver in the practice of constitutional complaints.
However, the fact remains that less than 3% of constitutional complaints are successful—for complainants without legal representation, the success rate is even lower, at less than half a percent. This is largely due to the fact that most constitutional complaints are filed by laypersons or by lawyers who have neither prior experience with this legal instrument nor with the Federal Constitutional Court.
Even experienced criminal defense lawyers and revision specialists often fail due to the complex particularities of constitutional law, sometimes already at the stage of fulfilling the procedural requirements, which are partly written and partly established through judicial practice. A common mistake is simply repeating the objections raised in the criminal revision process and appending a constitutional assessment—this is insufficient. Instead, it is crucial to substantiate the violation of the complainant’s rights explicitly from the perspective of specific constitutional violations.
Given these complexities, the last and often desperate legal remedy should only be pursued with the assistance of one of the few recognized specialists in constitutional law. Only then are there realistic chances of success.
When is a Constitutional Complaint in Criminal Cases Possible?
The principle of exhaustion of legal remedies and subsidiarity applies: Before filing a constitutional complaint, all available legal remedies must have been exhausted; otherwise, the complaint is inadmissible.
In criminal cases, constitutional complaints are typically filed in the following situations:
– The (further) detention appeal of the imprisoned person was unsuccessful
– The defendant’s revision was rejected
– The retrial request of a convicted person was denied
However, in all these cases, a constitutional complaint is only admissible within one month of receiving the negative court decision. The complete justification must also be submitted within this period—extensions are not allowed! In complex criminal cases, where judgments can exceed 1,000 pages, this is an extremely short period that requires significantly more effort than any other legal remedy.
The Federal Constitutional Court is not a court of appeal and therefore not a “super-revision instance.” It does not examine compliance with ordinary procedural law or the correct interpretation or application of laws in individual cases. Instead, it only reviews whether the lower court violated specific constitutional law. Constitutional complaints against judicial decisions do not lead to a full review but only to an examination of constitutional violations. Even if there are errors in the conduct of the proceedings, the establishment and evaluation of facts, or the interpretation of a law, this alone does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights. The Federal Constitutional Court does not assess whether a decision is legally correct; it only determines whether it violates specific constitutional rights. “Simple” legal errors can only be addressed through appeals, revisions, or other procedural remedies.
The constitutional complaint’s justification must provide the highest German court with a reliable basis for evaluating whether the complainant’s fundamental rights were violated in the specific case.
In criminal proceedings, the most severe governmental infringements on fundamental rights can occur, including life imprisonment. Typical constitutional rights that are often violated in criminal cases include:
– The right to a fair trial
– The prohibition of arbitrariness
– The presumption of innocence
– The right to freedom (General Freedom of Action)
– The right to a lawful judge
– The prohibition of double jeopardy (Ne bis in idem)
– Protection against self-incrimination (Nemo tenetur)
The complainant must ensure that the court can assess the prospects of success of the constitutional complaint based solely on the complaint document itself, without additional investigations. This requires, in addition to exceptional knowledge, extensive experience in constitutional law.
Many complaints fail simply because key documents from the criminal proceedings are not provided. A common mistake is overlooking formal legal hurdles, such as insufficient documentation of the exhaustion of legal remedies or the principle of subsidiarity. The Federal Constitutional Court only accepts complaints if the complainant has exhausted all possible legal options to correct or prevent the alleged constitutional violation. If other avenues exist or existed to eliminate the constitutional violation, the complaint is inadmissible.
Thus, it is crucial to seek representation from a specialized and qualified attorney who not only considers the immediate procedural situation but also anticipates all future options to correct potential miscarriages of justice. A lawyer specializing in appeals should be consulted at the latest after the first conviction to ensure that all available legal remedies—from appeal and revision to the constitutional complaint—are fully utilized.
Chances and Risks of a Constitutional Complaint
A constitutional complaint is often the last opportunity to overturn a wrongful conviction. There is no risk involved: The complaint itself is free of charge, and no court or procedural fees apply. Since the Federal Constitutional Court only examines whether the complainant’s fundamental rights were violated, the challenged decision cannot be worsened.
However, the statistical success rate of constitutional complaints is below 3%. This is mainly due to the limited scope of review by the court, which can decline to accept complaints altogether. The court only annuls judicial decisions in cases where it is genuinely convinced of a serious miscarriage of justice.
Drafting a successful constitutional complaint requires significant time and financial investment. Therefore, a professional legal assessment of the complaint’s chances—particularly in light of specific constitutional law—should be obtained first. Given the strict one-month deadline, urgency is paramount!
