christian brueckner, christian b, christian brückner or in short cb, 28 june and later.

for the time being it works easier to follow on in a second topic about cb. maybe later admin can merge them together, when the part between may 15 and today is worked fully out. it are still mostly notes for personal use, so that needs a bit of time.

so today 28 june 2024,

not much news, the most surpricing was that cb himself was not walking in to court, but was put in by wheelchair, with not only the usuall handcuff, but also footlockers and a band on his middle to fix him to the chair. all for his own safety.
one of the lawyers of cb his defence team explained it with cb has complained about foot pain.

the 2 days before that been taken of the agenda, have been the result of a sick schöffen.

court started today at noon, 12.00 hours, but usually court does close just one hour later.

but there is nothing out why they be in today. but this is pretty common, it can take about up to 2 days before all that is handled comes out.

on the next court day 5 july 2024 the optometrist is supposedly due to tell if blue eyes are enough to be recognised.

most who already have some words out are more about waiting for the coming days for a possible half term reaction from the judges.

So he didn't fit the shoe, at least not today.

Sounds to me more like a restraining order than a hurting foot - he doesn't need to be cuffed and strapped to a wheelchair does he?

Casey's Court.

not on order of by knowledge of the judge, who whished him a quick get better too.

but it seems that was the most interested part today, so now it is waiting until tonight or tomorrow for what it was about. the court of course, not some sore feet.

they actually have a dedicated entrance at the side that is wheelchair proof!

this is the translated official information from the court in braunschweig. the problem with the news is, that is is not kept on the website to look through later on. or so well hidden......

Proceedings before the 2nd Criminal Division in connection with five offences against sexual self-determination - file number 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22) - defence applies for warrant of arrest to be quashed

In proceedings 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22) in connection with five offences against sexual self-determination, the defence has applied for the arrest warrant to be quashed. The other parties to the proceedings will now be given the opportunity to comment. As soon as the chamber has decided on the application, the result will be announced in a press release.


usually the news from the court is covered on this website;
https://landgericht-braunschweig.niedersachsen.de/startseite/

there is another one;

Proceedings before the 2nd Criminal Chamber in connection with five offences against sexual self-determination - file number 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22) - Two further continuation dates
With regard to proceedings 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22), which began on 16 February 2024 (see separate press preview for 2 KLs 15/22), further continuation dates have been scheduled for

Friday, 06 September 2024, 09:00 a.m.

Wednesday, 25 September 2024, 09:00 a.m.

Room see notice board

The next continuation date has been scheduled for

Friday, 05 July 2024, 09:00 a.m.

probably: Room 141

Please note that the overview of dates is not binding. Any changes can be found on the notice board in the court and will also be announced by the press office in a press release.

---

you cannot reach into any conclusion, the room has to be reserved often well before, a total of 5 days are not been used that had been on the agenda, may 3 and 5, 2024 and june 25, 26 and 27, 2024. only the hour long day in court on the friday may 28, 2024 was kept, but only to handle mostly technical stuff and nothing from the cases itself.

so friday july 5 is the next, but fridays they usually only work until 13.00 hours. and after that it is holidays of the court, and august 5, 2024 it will go on, or the chamber has decided differently and follows the motion of the defence team.

What a total waste of time and money - and patience!

If they make only one conviction from this farce it will be a stitch-up in time, nothing more nothing less.

I despair.

Introduction to German Civil Procedure 1: How the German
Court System Works

February 14, 2023
AUTHORS

Matthias Schrader | Dr. Johannes Schmidt | Svenja Wachtel | Dr. Harry Nettlau
Dr. Marc Dietrich

This series of short and to-the-point chapters is intended for international legal practitioners who have a
nexus to Germany without being fully trained in German law. It is meant to provide a general overview
of the structures, functioning, and general principles of German civil procedure. A new chapter will be
published monthly.

Germany is a civil-law country that has a substantial number of quirks and features in its rules of civil
procedure distinguishing it from common-law countries and also from other civil-law countries. Foreign
practitioners who deal at times with German law should be aware of these characteristics when facing
litigation in Germany or contemplating choosing German courts as a dispute-resolution forum.
This first chapter will cover the basic structure of the German court system with a focus on the
organization and functioning of the civil courts. It will also lay a foundation for our future chapters
covering German civil litigation in greater depth.

A. General Structure of the German Court System

In contrast to many other countries, Germany does not have one single highest court that ensures a
uniform ap-plication of the laws across all areas. Rather, German courts are divided into five branches,
each having its own highest court. According to Art. 95 (1) of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz),
these branches and their respective highest courts are:

 Ordinary courts (civil and criminal law): Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof);
 Administrative courts: Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht);
 Tax courts: Federal Finance Court (Bundesfinanzhof);
 Labor courts: Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht); and
 Social courts: Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht).

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rules solely on matters of
constitutional law. Although the Federal Constitutional Court is often described as Germany’s highest
court, it does not act as ap-pellate court for the five top-of-their-branch courts. Recourse to the Federal
Constitutional Court is generally available only if the applicant can demonstrate that its fundamental
constitutional rights have been breached or that the decision of the lower court is based on an
unconstitutional law.

There is also a Federal Patent Court, which hears certain intellectual property (IP) matters. Appeals
against its decisions go before the Federal Court of Justice. Therefore, the Federal Patent Court is
considered part of the “ordinary courts” branch.

The highest courts of the five German court branches, the Federal Constitutional Court, and the Federal
Patent Court are all federal courts. Unlike, e.g., the U.S. system, Germany does not have distinct federal
and state court systems. All lower-instance courts are courts of the 16 federal German states. Like the
highest federal courts, the lower-instance state courts are divided into the five branches described above.
The distinction between federal and state courts is mainly one of organizational responsibility, including
funding, but is otherwise of no importance to the conduct of litigation in Germany. Both state and federal
courts apply the same procedural and—with certain limited exceptions—substantive law. Separately,
each German state has its own State Constitutional Court which rules on matters concerning the
respective state’s constitution.



B. The Civil Branch of the Court System

For historic reasons, there is no distinct “civil branch” among the five branches described above. Instead,
courts for civil and criminal matters form the branch of the so-called “ordinary courts” (ordentliche
Gerichtsbarkeit). The organization of the ordinary courts is governed by the Courts Constitution Act
(Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG). Civil Procedure in Germany is predominantly governed by the Code
of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). The ordinary court system in each state consists of—from
lowest to highest—Local Courts (Amtsgerichte), Regional Courts (Landgerichte), and Higher Regional
Courts (Oberlandesgerichte), with limited exceptions in name and organization in some states (e.g.,
Bavaria). The Federal Court of Justice sits at the top of the ordinary courts branch (with a limited
exception in Bavaria when only state law is concerned). There are currently 115 Regional Courts and 24
Higher Regional Courts in Germany. Each of these courts has distinct judicial bodies that decide on
criminal and civil matters; i.e., the same division, chamber or senate will not be presiding over both civil
and criminal matters but instead only hear either civil or criminal cases.

There are no jury trials in Germany. Civil cases are decided by professional judges only (with exceptions
for specialized Commercial Chambers), while in some criminal cases two laypersons decide together with
one or more professional judges.

To become a professional judge, applicants have to complete a professional legal education consisting of
full legal studies at a university followed by the first legal state exam, and a two-year practical training
(Referendariat) followed by the second legal state exam. Admission to the German bar as a lawyer
generally requires the same legal education as becoming a judge. Only applicants with good results in
both state exams will be accepted as judges. Different from other countries where becoming a judge is an
opportunity that arises only after a long and successful career in other branches of law, it is not
uncommon for good candidates to become professional judges directly after passing the second state
exam, usually in their late 20s or early 30s. Judges are hired by the individual states; there is no popular
election of judges in Germany. After an initial probationary period (Richter auf Probe), judges are
appointed for life, but generally retire at the standard retirement age (currently 67 years). To be promoted
to higher courts (Higher Regional Courts and above), tenure at lower courts is usually required and most
judges remain at the Local Court or Regional Court level throughout their career. For the federal courts,
the Federal Minister of Justice together with a special body, the judicial selection committee
(Richterwahlausschuss), appoints the judges. The judicial selection committee consists of the ministers of
justice of the German states and 16 members elected by the German Parliament (Bundestag).

Each German court has a schedule to internally allocate cases and other court functions
(Geschäftsverteilungsplan). The court administration establishes the schedule for each year in advance.
The schedule specifies which judge will sit with which judicial body (i.e., which chamber or senate), and
how cases are distributed among the different judicial bodies, e.g., by the nature of the matter, in
alphabetical order, etc. German law requires that the criteria for distribution of cases be abstract in nature
and allow the advance determination of which judicial body will hear which case. Accordingly, a claimant
has little to no influence over which judge or judges will ultimately decide the dispute and doing pre-
litigation diligence on a particular judge or group of judges is highly uncommon.



1. Cases With Amounts in Dispute Above EUR 5,000

For civil cases, the court of first instance, in general, is the Regional Court for matters with an amount in
dispute of more than EUR 5,000. Each civil division of a Regional Court is divided into chambers with
three judges each. However, in most cases a sole judge from the chamber will handle the matter.
Decisions by all three judges are reserved for cases with particular complexity, or those concerning legal
matters of fundamental significance, or certain specialty law matters, or when both parties so request and
the chamber agrees.

Appeals against decisions of the Regional Courts go before a Higher Regional Court for questions of law
and fact. The civil divisions of the Higher Regional Courts are divided into so-called senates with three
judges each.

The decisions of the Higher Regional Court are appealable to the Federal Court of Justice solely on
questions of law and only if certain further requirements are met. We will cover the requirements of such
an appeal and the relevant procedure in more detail in a future chapter of this series. The civil division of
the Federal Court of Justice currently comprises panels nos. I to XIII, each called a senate, as well as a
number of panels with special jurisdiction, e.g., over antitrust matters. The senates each consist of seven
to nine judges. In general, only five judges of a senate decide an individual case. Each senate has its
own area of specialization; e.g., the 2nd senate specializes in corporate law, and the 10th senate
specializes in IP matters.

2. Cases With Amounts in Dispute of EUR 5,000 or Less

For civil cases with amounts in dispute of EUR 5,000 or less, the court of first instance is the Local Court.
In addition, Local Courts have a number of special jurisdictions irrespective of the amount in dispute, inter
alia, landlord-tenant disputes over residential leases. At the Local Court, a single judge rules on civil
cases.

Regarding decisions of Local Courts, the Regional Courts function as courts of appeal. A subsequent
appeal on questions of law to the Federal Court of Justice is available if certain requirements are met.
Despite the low ceiling of amounts in dispute, Local Courts play a significant role in disputes involving
consumer-facing sectors, and landlord-tenant and traffic law disputes.

3. Specialized Chambers and Senates

To accommodate particularities of commercial disputes and disputes between merchants, Regional
Courts as courts of first instance have specialized Commercial Chambers (Kammer für Handelssachen).
These Commercial Chambers consist of a professional Regional Court judge and lay judges with a
commercial background. These lay judges are appointed upon recommendation of the local chamber of
commerce and industry. Their involvement is meant to ensure that decisions in commercial and merchant
disputes consider trade practices and commercial rationale.

To become more attractive as a forum for international commercial disputes, there has been a push to
allow for so-called “International Commercial Courts” in Germany. The 2021 Coalition Agreement of the
three parties that currently govern Germany aims to establish English-speaking special chambers for
international commercial dis-putes. In order to implement this goal, the German Ministry of Justice in
January 2023 published a paper with cornerstones for a corresponding reform of German civil procedure.
This reform in particular envisions conducting civil litigation completely in the English language (including
the language of the judgment) before the Region-al Courts and—on appeal—before the Higher Regional
Courts. In addition, the Ministry’s paper contemplates the establishment of special senates at Higher
Regional Courts which will act as first-instance Commercial Courts for large-scale commercial disputes.
Provided that there is a high amount in dispute (the paper considers a thresh-old of EUR 1 million),
parties can agree to directly call on these special Commercial Courts, i.e., skip the level of Regional
Courts.

Since previous pushes for such reform did not progress at the federal level, some German states took
action and established specialized “Commercial Courts” or “Chambers for International Commercial
Disputes” at the Regional Courts of several bigger cities, e.g., in Frankfurt, Hamburg, Stuttgart, and
Mannheim. The most significant feature of these already-established court divisions is that they can
conduct hearings in English. Further-more, they place a focus on enhanced case management. Some of
these court divisions allow verbatim hearing transcripts as well as recordings at the parties’ request,
which is otherwise uncommon in German civil litigation. With regard to decisions of the Commercial
Courts in Stuttgart and Mannheim, appeals are available to similarly specialized senates of the Higher
Regional Courts of Stuttgart and Karlsruhe. However, these court divisions are not identical to the
International Commercial Courts as envisioned by the federal reform initiatives. Instead, they have to
operate within the confines of German civil procedure as it currently stands. In particular, significant
elements of the proceedings must remain in the German language, including written briefs and the
judgment. Moreover, in most cases both parties need to consent to referring their dispute to one of these
special divisions. In many cases, it will be challenging to reach such consent after the dispute has already
arisen. So far, parties have been reluctant to employ these special divisions to resolve their disputes. As
of 2022, parties have referred only a double-digit number of disputes per year to these special divisions.

C. Are German Courts Bound by Case Law?

Germany as a civil-law country does not apply the principle of stare decisis. Accordingly, German courts
are not bound by precedents in the same way as, e.g., courts in the U.S. are. As an exception to this
principle, the decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all other German courts.
However, previous decisions of higher courts hold persuasive, yet not always decisive, authority for the
lower courts. This is especially true for rulings of the Federal Court of Justice. The lower courts will
usually follow on-point decisions by the Federal Court of Justice. Regional Courts also consider rulings of
Higher Regional Courts for guidance, in particular the Higher Regional Court in their circuit, which will
hear potential appeals against their decisions. Thus, existing case law allows for a more reliable
assessment of a case’s chances of success.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Federal Court of Justice is willing to overrule its previous
decisions if it considers them outdated and no longer appropriate in light of changed statutes or
circumstances, and has done so in the past. In some cases different senates of the Federal Court of
Justice are even following different approaches to the same legal issue. (There is a statutory mechanism
for resolving such disagreements, which is, however, only very rarely used.) The different Higher
Regional Courts frequently disagree on how a particular legal issue should be resolved, resulting in
inconsistent case law, not unlike a “circuit split” in the U.S. In such a situation, it is more likely that a
Regional Court will follow the opinion of “its” Higher Regional Court, i.e., the Higher Regional Court that
would hear the appeal. However, in contrast to lower courts in the U.S., German lower courts are not
bound to do so and may follow the opinion of another Higher Regional Court or solve the case in a
completely different way, although this does not happen often. After all, article 97 of the German
Constitution ensures that every judge is independent and bound only by statute (and not by the decisions
of the next higher court).
***

https://www.willkie.com/-/media/files/publications/2023/german-law-series----february-2023-g.pdf

I'm guessing the general principle here is to make it complicated enough to allow room for manoeuvre - much like any court proceedings in the civilised world.

I use the word civilised very loosely.

that is only about civil law, what is person to another person, or a company or the state.
we have such dual courts too, but it is very different from the courts that handle criminal cases, also known as punishment law.

both have specific rules and procedures, but civil courts do not have things like a prosecution, just two parties with their own representation wo conquer a dispute.

i think the defence team has good reasons to ask for an acquittal of the arrest and charges in these 5 cases;

for the 2 cases with not known victims, only supposed, even helge b. told before he first had the idea to see a porn movie downloaded from the internet. there are many discrepancies between helge b and manfred s. still the only witnesses who have seen a video, not others wanted to say the did too, one is still to be heard, but told the defence and the rest of the world through the media, as is the common approach in cases around cb.

both seems to have discrepancies in their latest version in this court, and in the former of the 2005 rape case and testimony to the bka. manfred s. also was found out to be telling at least some porkies to the judge.

and going by what they told this time, the video with the older woman only seems to rest on only helge b, only the young woman, aged at least 14 years old is supposedly seen by both.
manfred s. his earlier description on video in a documentary also gives it a more ‘playful character’ so it is already hard to call it clearly against the sexual self-determination. also both seems to have changes in how they recognised cb in the videos.

2 witnesses who are told by helge b. to have stored his old van or caravan, did not testify even to knew of helge b.
other peers of the pair in court did not state to have seen videos, but heard about them at best.

so it all still rest on the words of the pair that been also the ones who stole them.

the spoken of video material from a raid in 2016 on the box factory is not used as assisting material, of like wise videos too. and without the correct procedures that would not count even that much.

it does not reach into an impression anything in these two charges has reached an outcome in the court. it still is as feeble as before the court took it on.

the playground case of 2017 in portugal is also quite feeble, it seems the way the portuguese handled the hearing of the witnesses over a live video feed, was not up to the standards as the german courts are used too.
also only one victim, what was very young at the time, the media speaks of 10 or 11 years, no others seem to have testified about what exactly took place, 2 adult male witnesses came only after the facts already had ended.

this is the only one cb was at least the one who was part of the scene, but only his role, that of the drunken guy who wanted to pie, or a drunken guy who showed his male parts for sexual reasons are still opposite opinions.

the 2007 beach case, also in portugal, seems to rest on only the then young witness herself, that at that time had no idea what really happened, but only later on learned in her life, what the guy supposedly did. no sign of a brother and parents that have been in the media that knew for sure it must have been cb.

this witness remembers the then naked man, who only whore shoes from a lot of birthmarks on his body and his grinning.

also in a photo line up, this witness was before not able to agree more than on chance it could have been cb, given as 50%. only later on by doing a search on the internet she changed that into being 99% sure.

by what is known about recognition of others, this is not a way that can be called a valid way to recognise someone.

the 2004 rape case of the holiday rep, hazel b. how horrible her story is, the recognition also only rest on her ability of recognising cb only on his blue eyes, and it was unknown if she in court also told again that was a recognition from a picture in the media.

the infamous scar on a right leg, that got overly attention in the media, from both sides, the defence cb has no such spots on his right leg. the media used spots or birthmarks that must have been surgical removed on his right and left leg at times.
still by words of the witness it was a clump of something she did still not knew what it was.
if we accept both the prosecution and defence have done their part, pointing a finger on cb, now only rest of his blue eyes. so friday an optometrist will get in to lecture about that possibility, and feed the parties in court with an expert opinion.

what i found harmful too, was the notion that there are at least 3 cases with a known perpetrator in portugal with a similar enough modus operandi, and that the 2004 rape case did not meat the criteria the bka had asked for.

by not even looking into the at least 3 solved cases that by the pj are classified as similar to the criteria the bka asked information about unsolved cases, irt means the prosecution is at flaw here, in germany the prosecution not only has the duty to look into have you done something against the law, but also for information that you could or are not likely to have done it. by stepping away from solved cases with a similar mo you surpassed that.

we as the public onlookers cannot look into that, the uk media simply would not. they are simply ridden in full blinkers, they had no problem to find a listing of missing children and suggest cb into that, but that there are others who worked through a similar mo must be not in their restricted field of work.

also the master burglar of the century is outside his youth offence in a group aged 14 years and the arrest in the diesel theft in portugal in 2006 never arrested for that, not in portugal, but when the press walked another former friend in their story lines, we most likely have to put that out to germany too.

so as an halfway point there is not really something proven or reaching into a standard most courts would ask.

so on june 24, 2024 the defence motion to end the arrest and charges, what means also ending this trial, depends now on the words of the prosecution and it will up to the chamber of the court to decide about this.

the rumour about the raid on the boxfactory is not exactly a compliment to the bka and stendal police force, but seems also have implicated the braunschweig parties, by delivering the stolen trailer story and tells something else, the dated document that no legal means are available to get access to the terrain of the boxfactory places c under attention during the summer of 2015, so the access by the neighbour who was accidentally also an police officer must been most likely also from around that time. the dog sniffing a scent, i know not the most popular aspects in the media in the uk, but this time welcomed of course, was given as mid winter, it must have been before february 23, 2016, because at that date there is a mentioning in a news outlet in germany.

only the angry judge could make the police officer also partner of the dog owner to tell she had taken access before on her own with the intention to look around for possible signs of criminal offences, it it less clear if this was truly in connection to looking for inga, a missing girl in germany. she made pictures on the site and send them to the commanding officer of the inga case, called operation wood, or in the original german ‘eg wald’. the impression is this happened all well before the rottweiler dog followed his/her nose and her partner steve followed the dog in. after which steve sniffed a scent of decomposition and saw a piece of cloth in the dirt.

surprising was that in one of the raids on the box factory, because it seems there been multiple raids spoken of, scotland yard also took part. it is unclear if this truly was already in 2016, or a mix up with a later raid in 2018. if it was already in february 2016, that means cb was already in the picture in the madeleine case in germany well before helge b could find the time to give them a ring. well that phone call has some contradictions to helge b his own words out of court, but on video enough.

there already was the late in 2013 event where cb was asked as a witness to answer questions to the police in relation to the madeleine case.

so we can have that cb was already under suspicion in criminal cases from late 2013, that means 10,5 years of time to get him. or from februari 2016, if scotland yard took then already part in the raid on the box factory, that makes it over 8 years, or after helge b. walked in by phone and somewhere in april 2017 and talked later that summer to him, and later on the story was redirected to the german bka and the braunschweig prosecution. what brings it to about 7 years to investigate the same guy.

for the raid on the boxfactory in february 2016, they had a warrant, only a very smelly one because how to get the cause together to base it on. what would tell that not only kripo stendal, but also eg wald in sachsen-anhalt, but also bka and prosecution braunschweig and scotland yard all looked just looked at the sky and prayed it would still be alright.

such approaches are indeed not unknown, i am not even much against the coconotion of a story to base a legally sound warrant on, most popular and easy are the traffic control, the dutch courts broke that one some years back, no longer allowed to makes use of to accidentally and with intent finding what you needed. at least not in that way and concept of traffic control. the dog walker or bird watching in your family works very well.
and many more accidental set up situation, what usually is easy because you know you have a fair chance to actually find incriminating stuff.

but this is even beyond that approach, here there is already done a search by an officer of the law, before the set up was done. i myself am okay with looking for any reason you could use, if you expect to find stuff, but not okay if you first illegally search grounds and already know you will find stuff. getting illegal access first is much more harmful. you simply hand over to the defence the it must be planted evidence card.

and traffic and environment laws and regulations are easy to make fit to get to criminal activity. and they are quite often used not so much to get the criminal, but more to protect a witness. a lot of witnesses can only reach out in secrecy, because of how near they are to criminal activity, or through a relayed witness, which would make it simply unusable hearsay. but if there is a way to go around that by looking for a way of entry, i would still not have much against it to fix that. all you need is to be able to spot something as an officer of the law from the public road. it simply can be done by keeping it fully legal.

but this was just a very stupid way to handle this part of the case. not needed too. just a first class and very true kind of bungling police work. if you do not prepare it in a legally sound way, but just do it on your own cannot be repaired later on.

and after so many years already and their coming out of the closet in june 2020, itr simply means they have a lot of dirt, but nothing to connect it together. and even much less to the madeleine case.

and all witnesses spoke about a connection, or at least the name madeleine mccann, most to say they did not know anything. so the second motion of the defence that there only is one single investigation into cb, instead of into multiple cases by a possibly the same perp is grounded. with how the words are spoken by the witnesses you can reach the strong impression all have been asked about a possible connecting factor between madeleine mccann and cb, it was not a question through the court at the witness. no questions would be accepted in these cases, because it has no meaning in them. also it has no place in court to hear an opinion of a witness, that has no foundation in court law at all.

in the background there lies the story of the listening in installation in the hearing room, cb used to talk to his lawyer too. it is only information wandering in to an former officer of the law by emails to the defence team.

but we cannot say this trial tells the story of a police force and prosecution that respects the law well at all.

Arrest warrant lifted for Maddie McCann suspect, but he will stay in prison for other conviction

The Associated Press
July 3, 2024

BERLIN (AP) — An arrest warrant for a man who is also a suspect in the disappearance of British toddler Madeleine McCann was lifted Wednesday by a German court in an ongoing trial over several unrelated sexual offenses he is alleged to have committed in Portugal between 2000 and 2017.

However, the 47-year-old German, who has been identified by media as Christian Bruckner, will remain jailed because he is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence in Germany for a rape he committed in Portugal in 2005.

The Braunschweig state court said it lifted the arrest warrant in the current case — in which Bruckner has been accused of three counts of rape and two of sexual abuse of children — because there is no urgent suspicion, German news agency dpa reported.

The suspect hasn’t been charged in the Madeleine McCann case, in which he is under investigation on suspicion of murder. He spent many years in Portugal, including in the resort of Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine’s disappearance there in 2007. He has denied any involvement in her disappearance.

In the current trial, prosecutors had claimed that, at an unspecified time between 2000 and 2006, the suspect allegedly tied up and raped an elderly woman in her vacation apartment in Portugal. He allegedly beat the victim several times with a whip and recorded the incident on video.

During the same time period, he is alleged to have tied a German-speaking girl aged at least 14 to a wooden post in the living room of his residence in Praia da Luz, allegedly beating her with a whip and forcing her to perform oral sex.

However, Bruckner’s attorneys filed a motion during the trial to quash the arrest warrant because they no longer saw any reason for one after evidence in the alleged crimes had been taken in court. The court ruled that there was no “strong suspicion” with regard to all charges, dpa reported.

A verdict in the ongoing trial is expected in the fall.

The case of Madeleine McCann stirred worldwide interest for several years, with reports of sightings of her stretching as far away as Australia, along with a slew of books and television documentaries about the case.

https://apnews.com/article/germany-maddie-mccann-suspect-trial-e346c197ba3624b9f0ba8cb9303143f3

it is not the same as get out of jail cards, and indeed he has to stay in for the 2005 rape case, but they maybe can ask for a revision for that one too, because that was until now always taken down, because of the 3 'similar'cases in this trial and he certainly would walk out of the jurisdiction.

and officially it will now up to the prosecution to find stuff to get him back on for these 5 cases.

or they can choose to bring charges against cb in any other case, and ask for holding him in jail for flight risk. this how they handled it before the verdict for the 2005 rape case came together.

but i have no concrete idea how this will get on, if there still be court days going through, the braunschweiger zeitung suggest that, because the trial only will ended with a verdict in the end of october 2024, they only say that there are maybe not all days now still on the agenda are needed to reach the most likely verdict of not guilty.

but no worries all german papers have it out and about and the uk ones will follow quickly.

this is on the official page of the landesgericht braunschweig;

Proceedings before the 2nd Criminal Chamber in connection with five offences against sexual self-determination - file number 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22) - Chamber cancels arrest warrant
In the proceedings 2 KLs 213 Js 52790/18 (15/22) in connection with five offences against sexual self-determination, the chamber has cancelled the arrest warrant at the request of the defence because the chamber denies an urgent suspicion of all charges.madeleine mccann

this is from behind the paywall of the braunschweiger zeitung, about what further could happen;

Arrest warrant for Maddie suspect cancelled - will the public prosecutor's office now follow up?

In order to overturn the impending acquittal, the public prosecutor's office could try to appeal against the regional court's decision. However, the chances of success during ongoing proceedings are likely to be slim. Or they could present new, previously unknown evidence. Based on the course of the trial so far, however, this is unlikely

It is more likely that a decision will be made soon on whether to bring charges in the Madeleine "Maddie" McCann case. A new arrest warrant for Christian B. would then have to be applied for and, in turn, a strong suspicion of the offence would have to be established. The public prosecutor has not yet been able to do this.

bits and pieces from the german media;

der spiegel;

Friedrich Fülscher, Christian B.'s defence lawyer, had applied for the arrest warrant to be revoked. The defence suspected that the Federal Criminal Police Office had conducted a one-sided investigation, according to the motion of 21 June: "Obvious investigations were not carried out, witnesses were not questioned critically in order to avoid further contradictions or to avoid calling their credibility into question."

Fülscher dissects each individual accusation in detail in the application. He commented on the court's decision: "I feel that the statements and announcements made on the first day of the trial have been confirmed."

For years, Christian B. has been under "constant worldwide media fire" for allegedly abducting and murdering Madeleine, known as Maddie, said Fülscher after the indictment was read out. The public prosecutor's office repeats this theory "like a prayer wheel" without presenting the results of the investigation.

Fülscher spoke of a "media campaign of prejudgement" that was unrivalled. The greatest challenge for the court was "to free itself from this ulterior motive when investigating the procedural truth and assessing the evidence with regard to the charges".

According to Fülscher, this trial is not about "the most famous missing persons case of the post-war period", but about five other serious allegations. However, the court's decision to revoke the arrest warrant in this context should be seen as a signal. The public prosecutor's office still considers Christian B. to be the suspect in the "Maddie" case.

==================

on most picture shot before during entering court days, cb has in germany the pixels back already.

uk media;

Christian Brueckner 'could be RELEASED from prison by Christmas' after order keeping him behind bars is dramatically overturned - in huge blow for Madeleine McCann investigators
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13597211/Christian-Brueckner-RELEASED-prison-order-keeping-bars-dramatically-overturned-huge-blow-Madeleine-McCann-investigators.html

-In a text message to MailOnline Mr Fulscher said:'I am the best,' adding a sunglasses emoji.

BRUECKNER SHOCK Madeleine McCann suspect Christian Brueckner could walk FREE next year after bombshell court ruling
The convicted paedophile is on trial for a string of rapes and sex assaults unconnected to Maddie's disappearance
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28942970/mccann-suspect-christian-brueckner-could-walk-free/

it seems the full story will be out only tomorrow during court.

the french had a bit better write up;

At the start of the trial, the defense had questioned the credibility of the witnesses and certain elements retained by the prosecution, such as witness accounts based on video footage that is now unavailable. The trial will continue as planned, a court spokesperson told AFP , with at least a dozen hearings to come, between now and the verdict, which will be delivered in October. In 2020, Christian Brückner was named by the German justice system as the main suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, known as Maddie, a criminal enigma with worldwide repercussions and its share of twists and turns, false leads and hypotheses.

autotranslate by google from;

https://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/story/proces-en-allemagne-christian-brueckner-a-t-il-viole-des-enfants-au-portugal-entre-2000-et-2017-103142166
==============================================================
quite a strange way to work like this, i am more used that such motions would end in a direct verdict that would end the case, but it seems we still have some more months on the agenda of court days.

great chance there are no holidays at the prosecution and the bka braunschweig this summer.

i looked just after noon, and had not expected anything today after that. i had not even checked my email for a press release.