違反訴訟迅速原則之法律效果

Legal Effects Against the Speedy Trial Principle

德國學者有主張「國家刑罰權失權」應有實體法之法律效果，在實體刑法上成立「刑罰解除事由」而應宣告無罪判決。多數學者主張「國家刑罰權失權」為「訴訟障礙事由」，但為聯邦最高法院所拒絕。聯邦憲法法院主張在極端情形，法院得「依憲法」直接從法治國原則導出「訴訟終止」法律效果。另有德國學說依證據法則考量法律效果。如因可歸責國家之事由，導致對被告有利之證據滅失或證據價值減損時，法官應將該證據滅失等事實以自由心證方式予以評價；另基於「有疑利於被告」理念，法官得暫時假設該有利被告事實為真（「假設真實」），而依自由心證方式予以評價。二○○八年聯邦最高法院變更「量刑減輕」之一貫見解，改採「執行模式」，即將訴訟遲延視為已經執行完畢之刑罰，法官須在判決主文諭知因訴訟遲延而視為已經執行完畢之刑期為多少，其後檢察官只要再執行剩餘之刑期即可。德國議會於二○一一年十二月二日通過新修之法院組織法，規定對於超越合理期間之程序，受有不利益之程序參與人得向法院或檢察機關請求金錢補償。

German scholars have advocated the legal effects against the speedy trial principle should be substantive, acquittal verdict. But most German scholars advocate the procedural effect that terminates the litigation. This is rejected by the German Supreme Court, but is held in extreme cases by the Federal German Constitutional Court. Another German legal doctrine considers the effect according to the rules of evidence, as a result leading to the evidence favorable to the defendant in free proof manner. In 2008 the German Supreme Court changes the consistent view of the mitigation of sentencing mode and shifts to the execution mode. In 2011 the German parliament hat enforced some newly built provisions of the Court Organization Law entitling the procedure participants to request monetary compensation. The Speedy Trial Code in Taiwan rules that the legal effect against the speedy trial principle is exclusively the mitigated sentence.