“Cruelty of the Worst Kind”: Religious Slaughter, Xenophobia, and the German Greens

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Smith
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Religious Expression ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Religious Slaughter ◽  
The Right ◽  
German Court

In 1995, before the Leitkultur debate about a hegemonic German culture to which immigrants might aspire, disputes over the wearing of headscarves, and September 11, a federal German court effectively banned Muslims from slaughtering animals without prior stunning. The court ruled that the practice was not required by their religion and was thus not protected by the constitution's guarantee of freedom of religious expression. In January 2002, however, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the right to freedom of religious expression and choice of occupation did in fact ensure the entitlement of Germany's Muslims, or at least those responsible for their provision with halal meat, to resume stunningless methods for such ends without the threat of legal action. Religious slaughter has been problematic throughout Germany's history and the reemergence of opposition to it late in the twentieth century was not without precedent. The issue throws up numerous areas for possible examination. But what does it have to do with the Greens and with their positions on animals and human society?

The Right to Assisted Dying: Constitutional Jurisprudence and Its Impact in Canada, Germany and Austria

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Braun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

Abstract Many states are grappling with the regulation of assistance in suicide and ending the life of another upon their request. Initially punishable in most countries, a growing number of jurisdictions have now introduced permissive frameworks decriminalising, to varying degrees, rendering assistance in dying. Other countries, however, have proceeded with the criminal prohibition and several courts have upheld the lawfulness of the respective criminal laws during human rights and constitutional challenges. Yet, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015, the German Federal Constitutional Court in February 2020 and the Austrian Constitutional Court in December 2020 have respectively declared unconstitutional and void national criminal laws prohibiting rendering assistance in dying. This article first outlines the criminal law framework relating to assisted dying in Canada, Germany and Austria. It subsequently analyses the judgments before pondering their impact on the legal landscape in the three countries. The article concludes that while the Canadian Supreme Court decision appears to have had a significant impact on the introduction of subsequent legislation in Canada, the effects of the Constitutional Courts’ judgments seem much more subdued in Germany and are yet to unfold in Austria.

The Secularized State

2020 ◽  
pp. 220-236
Author(s):  
Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde ◽  
Mirjam Künkler ◽  
Tine Stein
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Faith ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Freedom Of Belief ◽  
The Right

In this article Böckenförde contrasts his concept of open encompassing neutrality (found in most Scandinavian countries and in Germany) with that of distancing neutrality, as practised in France. While the latter champions negative religious freedom, open encompassing neutrality aims for a balancing of negative and positive religious freedom. Religious freedom for Böckenförde is multidimensional and includes the right to have (or not) a religious faith (freedom of belief), to affirm (or not) this faith privately and openly (freedom to profess), to exercise (or not) one’s religion publicly (freedom of worship), and to join together (or not) in religious communities (religious freedom of association). The correlate to these individual and group rights is the open and overarching principle of the state’s neutrality towards religion and other worldviews, entailing a prohibition on the state justifying law on religious grounds. Furthermore, it requires the state not to privilege religion over non-religion and one religious faith over another. Siding with the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (at a time when he was not a sitting judge), Böckenförde underlines that even religious communities who reject the democratic state have the right to be recognized and legally protected. What matters is not whether communities accept or reject the state, but whether they obey or violate its laws. This was the court’s view on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it must also be applied, Böckenförde writes, to religious fundamentalists who do not accept the secular order, as long as they do not violate any laws.

Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 869-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Hartwig
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Court

On October 14, 2004 the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a judgment which gave rise to vivid reactions in the mass media and to a dispute between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In interviews, members of the Strasbourg court spoke about their disappointment in the German Court's unwillingness to implement decisions of the ECtHR while members of the German court referred to the necessity to respect national particularities. Whereas, normally, the ECtHR and the constitutional courts of the Member States of the Council of Europe are fighting side by side for human rights and, therefore, consider themselves as natural allies, this time their decisions, which seem to be incompatible, led to a dispute which attracted as much public interest as a film or theatre premiere.

scholarly journals La prohibición de partidos políticos en Alemania. Del nuevo criterio de la potencialidad y la reciente reforma constitucional para la no financiación de formaciones antidemocráticas pero constitucionales // The prohibition on political parties in Germany. The new criterion of potentiality and the recent constitutional reform for not funding anti-democratic but constitutional formations

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (102) ◽  
pp. 235
Author(s):  
Pablo Fernández de Casadevante Mayordomo
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
State Funding ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
New Criterion

Resumen:El año 2017 fue testigo de importantes acontecimientos en relación con el fenómeno de la ideología de ultra derecha en Alemania. Si en enero, el Tribunal Constitucional Federal fallaba en contra de la prohibición del  NPD pese a reconocer el carácter antidemocrático de sus objetivos, en julio entraba en vigor una reforma constitucional para excluir de la financiación estatal a formaciones políticas que, siendo contrarias al orden democrático, no sean objeto de prohibición al carecer del potencial necesario para alcanzar sus objetivos. A modo de colofón, septiembre finalizaba con la celebración de elecciones federales y la entrada de la AfD en el Bundestag como tercera fuerza política. A la luz de todo ello, en el presente trabajo se apuesta por el análisis de las principales implicaciones jurídicas derivadas de dichos hechos, ello con el ánimo de ofrecer al lector una visión actualizada sobre el control jurídico aplicable a la ideología de los partidos políticos en Alemania.Summary1. Introduction. 2. The right of every democratic system to its self-defence. 2.1. Theoretical approach. 2.2. Express intangibility clauses and ideological control. 3. The defense of democracy and political parties in the German legal system. 3.1. The German concept of militant democracy. 3.2. Legal regime applicable to anti-democratic political parties. 3.2.1. Constitutional framework. 3.2.2. Basic legislative framework. 4. The German jurisprudential adaptation to the ECHR conventionality control: the NPD case. 4.1. The necessity test according to the ECHR jurisprudence. 4.2. Potentiality as a substitute for the principle of proportionality. 4.3. Anti-democratic but constitutional. 5. Main observations after the recent constitutional reform. 6. Conclusions. Bibliography.Abstract:2017 witnessed important events in relation to the phenomenon of the right-wing ideology in Germany. First, in January, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled against the prohibition of the NPD, despite recognizing the anti-democratic nature of its objectives; then, in July, a constitutional reform came into effect to exclude from the state funding those political formations that, contravening the democratic order, are not prohibited as they lack the necessary potential to achieve their objectives. To conclude, September ended with the holding of federal elections and the entry of the AfD into the Bundestag, as the country’s third largest force. In light of all this, the present work is committed to the analysis of the main legal implications derived from these events, this with the aim to offer the reader an updated view on the legal control applicable to theideology of political parties in Germany.

scholarly journals Some Kind of Right

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Jud Mathews
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
Specific Reason

AbstractThe Right to Be Forgotten II crystallizes one lesson from Europe’s rights revolution: persons should be able to call on some kind of right to protect their important interests whenever those interests are threatened under the law. Which rights instrument should be deployed, and by what court, become secondary concerns. The decision doubtless involves some self-aggrandizement by the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC), which asserts for itself a new role in protecting European fundamental rights, but it is no criticism of the Right to Be Forgotten II to say that it advances the GFCC’s role in European governance, so long as the decision also makes sense in the context of the European and German law. I argue that it does, for a specific reason. The Right to Be Forgotten II represents a sensible approach to managing the complex pluralism of the legal environment in which Germany and other EU member states find themselves.

Federal Constitutional Court Defines the Power of Parliamentary Minorities in the Constitutionally Established, Parliamentary Investigative Committees

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Röben
Keyword(s):  
Max Weber ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Central Function ◽  
German State ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Parliamentary Committee ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right

The Untersuchungsausschuss-Fall (Parliamentary Committee Case) 2 BvE 2/01, decided by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) on 8 April 2002, concerns the so-called right of enquête, a central function of Parliament under the parliamentary system designed by the German Basic Law. The right of enquête, the investigation by Parliament by taking evidence complete with the subpoena powers normally reserved to criminal investigations, has been an integral part of both the Weimar and the Bonn Constitutions. Max Weber, in the era of the Bismarck-Constitution for the German state founded in 1871, made a forceful pitch for the equality of the Parliament and Executive. He argued that members of Parliament needed to be professionals and to have full access to the information that, traditionally, was the source of power of the executive. Instituting committees of investigation with the power to take evidence was the means to do so. In fact, Weber went further, arguing that the right to call for an investigative parliamentary committee needed to be vested in a (qualified) minority of the members of Parliament. There is no equivalent of this specific aspect in the other European parliamentary systems. Article 34 of the Weimar Constitution provided that one fifth of the members of Parliament could ask for the institution of a committee of investigation. The same quorum had the right to move for the hearing of specific evidence by the committee.

scholarly journals Social and Economic Rights in the German Basic Law? An Analysis with Respect to Jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 190
Author(s):  
Christoph Enders
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Right To Participation ◽  
The Right

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany did originally not provide for social or economic rights understood as claims to benefits. The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) did, indeed, recognise the states obligation to protect individuals against assault by others (right to security) and further ruled that everyone has the right to use facilities provided by the state under equal conditions (right to participation). These rights, however, aim to ensure that the state uses existing means as intended. In addition, the FCC by now has recognised a “right to the guarantee of a dignified minimum subsistence”. It is an original entitlement as the state is obliged to create and provide benefits for individuals in need. This new legal construction, however, misconceives the division of responsibilities between the FCC and the legislator and collides with the principle of the separation of powers

German Constitutional Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bumke Christian ◽  
Voßkuhle Andreas
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Book Covers ◽  
The Right ◽  
German Constitutional Law

This book provides a comprehensive summary of German constitutional law, in particular the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court. It provides first-hand insight into the complex principles of the Basic Law, or Grundgesetz (GG), and an authoritative introduction to the history of the German constitution, the Basic Law, and the methodology of the Federal Constitutional Court. As well as an analysis of the general principles of German constitutional law, the book covers the salient articles of the German constitution and offers relevant extracts of the Court's most important decisions on the provisions of the Basic Law. It provides notes and discussions of landmark cases to illustrate their legal and historical context and give the reader a clear understanding of the principles governing German constitutional law. The book covers the fundamental rights catalogue of the Basic Law and offers a comprehensive account of its intellectual moorings. It includes landmark jurisprudence on the equal treatment of same-sex couples, life imprisonment, the legal structure of property, the right to assembly, and the right to informational self-presentation. The book also covers the provisions and respective case law governing the state structure of Germany, for instance the recent decisions on the prohibition of the far-right German nationalist party, and the Court's jurisprudence on European integration, including the most recent decisions on the OMT program of the European Central Bank.

The Principle of Democracy: Watered Down by the Federal Constitutional Court

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 759-769
Author(s):  
Florian Becker
Keyword(s):  
Boards Of Directors ◽  
Water Distribution ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Supply And Distribution ◽  
Supervisory Boards ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right

For historic reasons, the parliamentary legislator of North-Rhine-Westphalia assigned important public responsibilities concerning water supply and distribution in the areas of the rivers Lippe and Emscher to the public-law bodies Lippeverband and Emschergenossenschaft. By law the compulsory members of theses bodies are the Land (federal state) North-Rhine-Westphalia, the municipalities situated in the respective territories, as well as private companies involved with water distribution or usage as well as companies profiting from the bodies’ work or making it more difficult. In 1990 the organizational structure of the two bodies was reformed and participation rights of the respective work forces were introduced. They were granted the right to name representatives to the bodies’ supervisory boards (councils) and the boards of directors, but not for the most powerful organs, the assemblies of the bodies’ members.

Compulsory Portion in Germany

2020 ◽  
pp. 268-318
Author(s):  
Reinhard Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Family Member ◽  
German Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Family Solidarity ◽  
Close Family Member ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Of Succession ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Close Family

The compulsory portion of the German law of succession is a personal claim by a close family member of the deceased against the deceased’s heir, or heirs, to receive the value of one-half of his or her intestate share. The range of persons entitled to a compulsory portion is limited to the deceased’s descendants, his parents, and his surviving spouse. The right to a compulsory portion can be lost as a result of having been deprived of it by the deceased (which is possible in a limited number of situations), as a result of being ‘unworthy’ to receive a benefit from the deceased’s estate, or as a result of having waived the right. All in all, the system enacted in the German Civil Code (BGB) in 1900 has proved to be comparatively stable; even the amendments of 2010 as a result of the Act on the Reform of the Law of Succession and Prescription were rather modest and have shifted the balance between freedom of testation and family solidarity only very slightly in the direction of freedom of testation. This is often seen as confirmation that, essentially, the rules of the BGB provide a solution that is both pragmatic and reasonable. The Federal Constitutional Court has even, in 2005, ruled that a certain minimum participation for children in a deceased’s estate not only does not contravene the constitutional guarantee of ‘property and the right of inheritance’ in Article 14(1) GG, but is itself protected by that provision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document