Federal Constitutional Court To Review NPD Party Ban Motion

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Hanschmann
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Party ◽  
German Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Extreme Right ◽  
German Government ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Short Survey ◽  
Federal Constitutional

As already reported by German Law Journal, the German Government, the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) as well as the Bundesrat (Federal Legislative Chamber of the Länder) filed motions with the Bundesverfassungsgericht (FCC; Federal Constitutional Court) seeking a constitutional ban of the extreme right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD). Now, some eight, respectively six months, after filing the motions for a constitutional order of the NPD's dissolution, the banning of all of party activities and the confiscation of the party's property, the FCC decided on October 1st, 2001, that the motions were admissible. The following annotation discusses the meaning of the Court's decision to admit the motions, provoding a brief account of what the decision says and what — just as interesting — it does not say. It will also report on the course of events and developments that have taken place during the stretch of time between the filing of the applications and the Court's ruling of October 1. Finally this report will provide, leaving aside speculations as to possible results of the process, a short survey of the legal possibilities that are open to the NPD, once the FCC in Karlsruhe grants the motions and declares the party unconstitutional.

Federal Constitutional Court Issues Temporary Injunction in the NPD Party Ban Case

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (13) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
German Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Political Sector ◽  
Temporary Injunction

German Law Journal reported last November on the German Government's plans to take the extraordinary move of seeking a constitutional ban of the extreme right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany. At the end of January, 2001, the Federal Government filed its motion for a ban of the NPD with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. At the end of March, 2001, the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the Bundesrat (Federal Legislative Chamber of the States) followed with separate motions. The Federal Constitutional Court now has before it three separate actions, raising distinct claims and presenting distinct evidence, seeking the constitutional excommunication of the NPD. The motions present a unified front from every political sector of the German constitutional order: the executive, the legislature and the Länder (federal states). This lock-step approach to the effort to ban the NPD was part of the master-scheme of Federal Interior Minister Otto Schily, who pressed hard to gain support for the move to seek a ban from all mainstream political parties and all the Länder, at least in part to limit the political fall-out in the case that the Constitutional Court finds against the motions.

FCC suspends hearing in NPD Party Ban Case

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Hanebeck
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Party ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Subject ◽  
High Ranking Official ◽  
Senior Civil Servant ◽  
Basic Order

In a unanimous, surprising decision the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) announced last Tuesday, 22 January 2002, that the hearing in the NPD Party Ban Case - scheduled for five days in early and late February - was suspended. The Court did not yet set a new date. The Court explained that facts had now become known to the Court that raised serious legal questions which can not be resolved in the two weeks before the scheduled hearings. Even the decision from October 1st, 2001, in which the motions by the Bundesregierung (German Federal Government), the Bundestag (Federal Par-liament) and the Bundesrat (Federal Legislative Chamber of the Länder) seeking a ban of the extremist right wing National Democratic Party (NPD) were ruled to be admissible and not evidently unfounded is called into question by the Court. The FCC had been told by a senior civil servant from the Federal Ministry of the Interior that there would be one so-called “V-Mann” among the 14 people to appear as witnesses before the FCC at the scheduled hearing. The motions to ban the NPD build upon numerous sources in order to show that the NPD seeks to undermine or abolish the “freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung” (free democratic basic order) and therefore must be banned under Art. 21 (2) of the German Basic Law (“Grundgesetz. Among those quoted is the V-Mann, Wolfgang Frenz, a former high-ranking official of the NPD. The rather drastic reaction by the FCC to these news is explained by the significance of the information about the V-Mann, an often dubious source (infra I.) and the way this information made its way to the Court, which is a scandal in itself (infra II.). The fallout from the decision will be the subject of the closing remarks (infra III.).

Calibrating Liberty and Security: Federal Constitutional Court Rules on Freedom of Speech in PKK Case

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Wielsch
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
September 11Th ◽  
The Core ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The One

In a recently published decision the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) was concerned with the basic right of free speech of PKK sympathizers. The decision draws a fine line between, on the one hand, preventative measures which aim to inhibit radical associations and, on the other hand, the protection of free speech which lies at the core of democracy. The Court's decision touches upon the debate about security triggered by the events of September 11th and Germany's proactive stance towards right-wing radicalism, characterized by the Court's present consideration of an application to ban the extreme right-wing National demokratischen Partei Deutschlands (NPD – National Democratic Party of Germany).

International Treaties and The German Constitution

2019 ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Stefan Kadelbach
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional

This chapter deals with the making, status, and interpretation of international treaties under the German Constitution. It describes the interrelationship of the different institutions in treaty-making and shows how a comparatively old provision of the German Basic Law has been adapted slowly to new circumstances over the past decades. Thus, even though foreign affairs has remained a domain of the executive, several developments have contributed to an enhanced role of Parliament over time. These developments are partly due to the role of special sectors of law such as EU law and the law governing the use of force and partly due to changes in constitutional practice. As for the status of treaties in German law, the Federal Constitutional Court has developed a stance according to which treaties generally share the rank of the legal act that implements them into domestic law. A notable exception is the European Convention of Human Rights, which has assumed a quasi-constitutional rank by means of consistent interpretation. Some reference is made to other continental systems to assess how far different constitutions bring about certain features; various systems appear similar in many respects at first sight, whereas features in which they differ may be a source of inspiration for future constitutional practice.

Celebrating the Milk Maid: What Federal Constitutional Court President Limbach Doesn't Tell Us About the Court Says It All

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Winkler
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Limited Size ◽  
Small Stature ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Law Student

It's a small book. Actually, it is a very small book. Only one hundred and twenty-eight pages, it's a format so thin it could fit into a pocket. As a matter of fact, it is smaller than a copy of the Grundgesetz (German Basic Law) that a German law student would carry along to class. The book's title, however, is considerably more intrepid than the book's small stature. At the same time breathtakingly pithy and slightly immodest, the book is simply called Das Bundesverfassungsgericht (The Federal Constitutional Court). And at the top of the cover, just to make sure, the word “WISSEN” (KNOWLEDGE) appears in big letters. While one wonders how a publication of such limited size could deign to comprehensively present the important “knowledge” of the Federal Constitutional Court, the other words on the cover provide some assurance. Those words are the name of the book's author who obviously could not be more adequate for the task. The author, Jutta Limbach, is the current President of the Federal Constitutional Court presiding in her seventh year.

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.

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.

Another Test in Proceduralizing Democracy: The Oral Proceedings in the NPD Party Ban Case before the Federal Constitutional Court

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Hanschmann
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Party ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
History Of

After recognizing that the motions in the party-ban proceedings against the “National Democratic Party of Germany” were partly based on evidence provided by so-called V-Männer informants (members of the party who were supervised and paid by the secret-services) and after suspending the decision to hold the substantive hearing because of this information, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) last Tuesday, 8 October 2002, resumed the party-ban proceedings with an extraordinary and – in the history of the Court - unique session.

scholarly journals Pardon in german law

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
D. V. Belling ◽  
G. Kulyamina
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
German Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Negative Experience ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Modern Germany ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In modern Germany, a secular state with a republican form of government, there is still the institution of pardon, known in the pre-Christian era. Under the current Constitution of Germany pardon is carried out by the President of Germany, the decision is not subject to judicial review. The relationship of mercy and justice has been controversial for centuries. Opinions differ in literature and court practice, up to the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. A retrospective of the historical development of the practice of pardon, the analysis of the goals and consequences of this measure convincingly prove the need for the possibility of judicial review of clemency decisions enshrined in the legislation. This is the only effective way to prevent arbitrariness, abuse of power and violation of human rights. The modern legal state should not allow the negative experience of past dictatorships and monarchies.

scholarly journals The Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany

SEEU Review ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-155
Author(s):  
Emir Kurtishi
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Law System ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Style Of Writing ◽  
High Level

Abstract Decisions made so far by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have always been characterized by their writing and content, even down to details, precision, accuracy, professional legal style of writing, always clear in the elaboration and adjudication of cases from its competence, but surprisingly, in our country, only a few have paid attention to the German Court in a scientific context, which can be seen from the only few materials we possess in the Albanian language. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of this Court, so that the comparative aspects can be made, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages, in case of dictating the state need for reform of the Constitutional Courts. Those who have institutionalized this constitutional institution know its value in the system of constitutional justice, which performs it in terms of protection of constitutions, its principles and value, and most importantly in the protection of freedoms and rights of human beings and citizens. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, to this date, has conveyed the efficiency of the protection of the German legal order, the serious approach and law interpretation, for the protection of freedoms and human rights, which ranks this court into a high level among all other powers in the German law system. The author, in the following paper, gives an overview of this Court starting with its history, organization and functioning, which today undoubtedly constitutes one of the most important constitutional courts in the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document