Abstract

Instigation in criminal law means making someone, who does not yet have an idea about committing a certain crime, decide to commit the crime. In order to hold the instigator responsible for participation, there must be an act that was committed intentionally and unlawfully and re ached at least the stage of attempt. If the perpetrator does not begin the execution of the act directly, he/she cannot be held responsible for the participation since the quantitative element of the accessoriness rule is not yet fulfilled. In that case, where the main act was not committed and the instigation was attempted, a general provision regarding the pu nishment of the instigator has been regulated in the German Criminal Code (GCC). The first paragraph of Art. 30 of the GCC stipulates that a person who attempts to instigate someone else to commit a crime or to instigate a crime shall be liable according to provision regulating crimi nal attempts. The principles of criminal attempt are applied and the pe nalty of the instigator is determined by making a reduction under Ger man Law. However, attempted instigation is punishable in crimes that require at least one year's imprisonment. In this translation study, the decision of the The Hamm Higher Re gional Court (OLG Hamm) dated 22.10.1991 and numbered L WS 249/91 is analyzed and the principles and limits of the criminal liability of the instigator in cases of unsuccessful (successive) instigation in cri minal law are discussed. First of all, the place of the aforementioned provision of the GCC within the general systematics of the code is add ressed. Under this title, the concepts of “attempted instigation” and “failed/unsuccessful instigation” are discussed in terms of terminology in terms of the doctrine of complicity. Bloy argues that although the concept of attempted instigation is technically incorrect, it is more pre ferred in doctrine and case law, that since the attempt and completion of the act are associated with participation and the rules concerning attempted instigation are applied, the concept of versuchte Anstiftung, meaning “attempted instigation”, should not be preferred and thus, the concept of mißlungene Anstiftung, meaning “unsuccessful/failed insti gation” is preferred in the study. However, in our opinion, it is clear that attempted instigation is inconclusive/resultless/unsuccessful ins tigation and it can be justified to use the concept “failed instigation” to express that the instigation was not completed for any reason. However, the concept of attempted instigation best explains the mini mum criminal liability of the instigate both conceptually and in terms of the technique of criminal law. Moreover, attempted instigation is a mo re general concept that includes all types of attempted instigation. Inaddition, it has been concluded that the aforementioned provision is neither in the field of participation nor in the field of attempt doctrine, on the contrary, it is a provision concerning the criminal liability of the instigator preliminary to participation. Attempted instigation has been considered as a sub-title of Art. 30 of the GCC and explained as a situation in which the instigator fails to make the perpetrator decide to commit the act, and it has been stated that there is a failed case of chain instigation in the present case regarding the decision. It should be noted that in German law, both in practice and doctrine, the punishability of attempted successi ve instigation, which is considered worthy of punishment as a parti cular form of attempted instigation, has also been accepted at the normative scale. In this context, the difference between attempted chain instigation and instigation of attempted instigation is mentio ned and the difference between the reference points of failure in both is indicated. In attempted chain instigation, this failure depends on whether the perpetrator (the main instigator) attempted to provide another instigator for his/her plan...continued in the article

Keywords

• Wrongdoing
• Failed (chain) instigation
• Attempted ins tigation
• Accessoriness rule
• Loss of dominance

Grund und Grenzen der Strafbarkeit der mißlungenen Anstiftung - Zugleich eine Besprechung des Beschlusses des OLG Hamm v. 22.10.1991 - l Ws 249/91-

Abstract

AKİM KALMIŞ AZMETTİRMEDE CEZAİ SORUMLULUĞUN İLKE VE SINIRLARI -AYNI ZAMANDA HAMM EYALET YÜKSEK MAHKEMESİNİN KARARININ TARTIŞILMASI (OLG HAMM V. 22.10.1991 - L WS 249/91)-

Abstract

Suça şerikliğin bir türü olan azmettirmenin cezalandırılabilmesi için kasten ve hukuka aykırı olarak işlenen fiilin en azından teşebbüs aşama- sına varmış olması gerekir. Diğer bir ifadeyle, teşebbüs aşamasında kal- mış bir asıl fiilin varlığı şarttır. Aksi halde azmettirenin, sorumlu tutula- bilmesi mümkün değildir. Asıl fiilin işlenmediği, yani azmettirmenin kendisinin teşebbüs aşamasında kaldığı durum doktrinde akim kalmış azmettirme (azmettirmeye teşebbüs) olarak ifade edilmektedir. Azmetti- renin akim kalmış (zincirleme) azmettirmeden dolayı sorumlu tutulma- sına ilişkin Alman Ceza Kanunu’nun 30. maddesinin 1. fıkrasında genel bir düzenleme yapılmıştır. Alman hukukunda akim kalmış azmettirme- nin cezalandırılmasının gerekçesi, hukuksal değerlerin tehlikeye girme- sine yol açmak suretiyle olay üzerinde hâkimiyet kaybının tehlikeliliğine (Kontrollverlust über das Geschehen) dayandırılmaktadır. Buna göre bir kimseyi azmettirmekle; olay üzerinde hâkimiyet kaybı gerçekleşmekte, azmettiren ikna konusunda elinden geleni yaparak kriminal olayı elinden çıkarmakta ve artık hakimiyetini kuramayacağı nedensel bir süreci baş- latmaktadır. Türk hukukunda ise bu fiilin cezalandırılmasına ilişkin ka- nunda genel bir düzenleme yapılmamıştır. Ancak doktrinde azmettirme- nin başlı başına bir haksızlık teşkil ettiğinden hareketle bu fiilin cezalan- dırılması gerektiği artık kabul edilmektedir. Çevirisi yapılan bu çalışma- da mezkûr hükmün bir alt vakası olarak akim kalmış azmettirmede cezai sorumluluğun prensipleri ve sınırları; Hamm Eyalet Yüksek Mahkeme- si’nin 22.10.1991 tarih ve L WS 249/91 sayılı kararı çerçevesinde bu fiilin objektif ve sübjektif unsurları ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

• Haksızlık
• Akim kalmış (zincirleme) azmet- tirme
• Azmettirmeye teşebbüs
• Bağlılık Kuralı
• Kontrol kaybı

References

1. Baumann, Jürgen. JuS, 1963.
2. Baumann, Jürgen, ve Ulrich Weber. Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil. 9. Aufl. Bielefeld: Gieseking, 1985.
3. Bloy, René. Die Beteiligungsform als Zurechnungstypus im Strafrecht, 1985.
4. ———. “Grund und Grenzen der Strafbarkeit der misslungenen Anstiftung”. JR/Heft 12, 1992, 493-97.
5. Brose, Rolf. “Die versuchte Verbrechensbeteiligung (§49 a StGB)”. Diss., 1970.
6. Busch, Jost-Dietrich. “Die Strafbarkeit der Erfolglosen Teilnahme und die Gesischte des 49a StGB”. Rechts und Staatswissenschaftlichen Fakultät zu Marburg, 1964. Busch, Richard. “Zur Teilnahme an den Handlungen des §49a StGB”. İçinde Festschrift für Reinhart Maurach, editör Friedrich-Christian Schröder ve Heinz Zipf. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1972.
7. Dreher, Eduard. “Grundsätze und Probleme des §49a StGB”. GA, 1954, 11-22.
8. Dreher, Eduard, ve Herbert Tröndle. StGB. 45. Baskı., 1991.

9. Eberhard, Schmidhäuser. AT. 2. Aufl., 1975.
10. Eser. Strafrecht II. 3. Aufl. München: C. H. Beck, 1980.
11. Geppert, Klaus. “Die versuchte Anstiftung (§30 Abs 1 StGB)”. JU-RA/Heft 10, 1997, 546-53. Herzberg, Rolf Dietrich. GA, 1971.
12. ———. JuS, 1985.
13. ———. ZStW 99, 1987.
14. Jakobs, Günther. Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil. 2. Aufl. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991.
15. Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich. AT. 4. Baskı., 1988.
16. Kadel. GA, 1983.
17. Kühl, Kristian. “Grundfälle zu Vorbereitung, Versuch, Vollendung und Beendigung”. JuS/Heft 12, 1979, 874-77. ———. JuS, 1983.
18. Küper, Wilfried. JZ, 1983.
19. Küpper, Georg. GA, 1986.
20. Lackner, Karl. StGB. 19. Baskı., 1991.
21. Letzgus, Klaus. Vorstufen der Beteiligung. 1. Aufl. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1972.
22. Luden, Heinrich. Handbuch des teutschen gemeinen und particu-laren Strafrechtes I, 1847.
23. Lüderssen, Klaus. Zum Strafgrund der Teilnahme, 1967.
24. Lüthke, Albrecht. Wesen und Bedeutung des §49a StGB im Rah-men der Teilnahmelehre (Dissertation). Hamburg, 1963.
25. Maiwald, Manfred. ZStW 88, 1976.
26. Maurach, ve Karl Heinz Gössel. AT 2. 7. Baskı., 1989.
27. Meyer, M.-K. GA, 1979.
28. Puppe, Ingeborg. JuS, 1980.
29. Roxin, Claus. “Die Strafbarkeit von Vorstufen der Beteiligung (§30 StGB)”. JA/Heft 4, 1979, 169-75.
30. ———. LK. 10. Baskı., 1985.
31. ———. Maurach-Festschrift, 1972.
32. Rudolphi, Hans Joachim. SK StGB, t.y.
33. Samson, Erich. SK StGB. 5. Baskı., t.y.
34. Sax, Walter. ZStW 90, 1978.
35. Schilling, Georg. Der Verbrechensversuch des Mittäters und des mittelbaren Täters, 1975.
36. Schönke, Adolf, Horst Schröder, ve Peter Cramer. StGB. 24. Baskı., 1991.
37. Schröder, Horst. “Grundprobleme des §49a StGB”. JuS/Heft 7, 1967, 289-95.
38. Stratenwerth, Günter. AT I. 3. Baskı., 1981.
39. Tokdemir, Sercan, çev. “22.10.1991 Tarihli Ve 1 Ws 249/91 Sayılı Hamm Eyalet Yüksek Mahkemesi Kararı (Zincirleme Azmettirmeye Teşebbüste Azmettirilen Fiilin Yeterince Somutlaştırılması)”. İçinde YBHD- (Prof. Dr. M. Fatih Uşan’a Dekanlıkta 10. Yıl Anısına Teşekkür Armağanı), 7:1777-85, 2022.
40. Tokdemir, Sercan. Ceza Hukukunda Akim Kalmış Azmettirme. 1. bs. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2022.
41. Weber, Rolf. ZStW (Beiheft), 1987.
42. Wessels, Johannes. AT. 21. Baskı., 1991.