The Loss of Citizenship by Revocation of Naturalization or ex lege: Overview of German Case Law and Legislative Changes of 2009

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1659-1680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Kirsch

In recent years, German nationality law was subject to changes. Several legal issues that had previously not been decided by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court—FAC) and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court—FCC) were clarified by these courts. Still, some questions had been left unanswered; the courts explicitly demanded that parliament become active. Issues were namely the time limit for revocation of naturalization, the effect of revocations on third parties (like children) that had been naturalized at the same time and the effects of the discontinuance of certain premises that had been the condition for the obtainment of citizenship by children ex lege on their naturalization. Parliament complied with this call to action; in February of 2009, the changes came into force.

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Claus Koggel

AbstractThe Mediation Committee of the Bundestag and Bundesrat – is it “one of the most felicitous innovations in our constitutional activities”, “the most positive institution in the entire Basic Law” or, as some critics assert “a substitute and superordinate parliament” or indeed the “mysterious darkroom of the legislative process”? This article seeks to provide answers to these questions. It is however clear that the Mediation Committee has become an important instrument for attaining political compromises in Germany's legislative procedure. The Committee's purpose is to find a balance between the differing opinions of the Bundestag and Bundesrat concerning the content of legislation, and, through political mediation and mutual concessions, to find solutions that are acceptable to both sides. Thanks to this approach, the Mediation Committee has helped save countless important pieces of legislation from failure since it was established over 65 years ago, thus making a vital contribution to ensure the legislative process works efficiently. The lecture will address the Mediation Committee's status and role within the German legislative process. It will explain the composition of this body as well as its most important procedural principles also against the backdrop of current case law from the Federal Constitutional Court. Finally, the lecture will consider how particular constellations of political power impact on the Mediation Committee's work.


Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-41
Author(s):  
Carsten Bäcker

Analogien sind methodologisch hoch umstritten; sie bewegen sich an der Grenze der Gesetzesinterpretation. Dem methodologischen Streit um die Analogien unterliegt die Frage nach den Grenzen der Gesetzesinterpretation. In der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts finden sich eine Reihe von Verfassungsanalogien. Diese Analogien zum Verfassungsgesetz werden zwar nur selten ausdrücklich als solche bezeichnet, sie finden sich aber in einer Vielzahl von dogmatischen Konstruktionen in der Rechtsprechung – wie etwa der Erweiterung des Grundrechtsschutzes für Deutsche auf EU-Bürger oder der Annahme von Gesetzgebungskompetenzen des Bundes als Annex zu dessen geschriebenen Kompetenzen. Die Existenz derartiger Analogien zum Verfassungsgesetz verlangt nach Antworten auf die Fragen nach den Grenzen der Kompetenz zur Verfassungsinterpretation. Der Beitrag spürt diesen Grenzen nach – und schließt mit der Aufforderung an das Bundesverfassungsgericht, die Annahme von Verfassungsanalogien zu explizieren und die sich darin spiegelnden Annahmen über die Grenzen der Kompetenz zur Verfassungsinterpretation zu reflektieren. Constitutional analogies. The Federal Constitutional Court at the limit of constitutional interpretation From a methodological point of view, the use of analogies in legal argument is highly controversial, for they reach to the limits of statutory interpretation. Underlying the methodological dispute over analogies is the question of what the limits of statutory interpretation are or ought to be. A number of analogies from constitutional law can be found in the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. Although these analogies to constitutional law are rarely explicitly designated as such, in the case law they can be found in a variety of dogmatic constructions – for example, in the extension of Germans’ fundamental rights protection to EU citizens, or the assumption of legislative powers of the federal state as an appendix to its written powers. The existence of such analogies to constitutional law calls for answers to the question of the limits of the power to interpret the Constitution. It is the aim of this article to trace these limits, and in its conclusion it calls on the Federal Constitutional Court to explicate the adoption of analogies in constitutional law and to reflect on the assumptions found therein – respecting the limits of the power to interpret the Constitution.


Author(s):  
Michael Wrase

Drawing on the socio-legal concept of legal culture, this chapter tries to explain the initial objections by many traditionalist legal scholars, politicians, and legal practitioners alike against comprehensive anti-discrimination regulation in Germany. It contrasts the rather weak culture of non-discrimination with a broadly shared appreciation for civil rights fostered by a long-established and extensive adjudication of the Federal Constitutional Court (‘FCC’). It can be shown that the missing national support for the new regulation has led to a very restricted transposition of the EU anti-discrimination directives. The Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz more or less confines itself to implementing the provisions stipulated in the directives, and even contains several shortcomings and potential breaches of EU law, especially with regard the provision of public goods and services. Consequently, mobilization of non-discrimination rights has been rather weak in practice so far. However, there is good reason to conclude that anti-discrimination law has been gaining ground in Germany in recent years, and that it will be even more relevant in future. The ECJ adjudication has exerted considerable influence on the case law of the German labour courts. This might in the longer run also impact on the adjudication of the FCC with regard to the clause on non-discrimination in Article 3 Basic Law.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1499-1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peer Zumbansen

On 14 October 2004, theBundesverfassungsgericht(BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) voided a decision by theOberlandesgericht(Higher Regional Court) Naumburg, finding a violation of the complainant's rights guaranteed by theGrundgesetz(German Basic Law). The Decision directly addresses both the observation and application of case law from the European Court of Human Rights under the Basic Law's “rule of law provision” in Art. 20.III. While there is a myriad of important aspects with regard to this decision, we may limit ourselves at this point to the introductoryaperçucontained in the holdings of the case. One of them reads as follows:Zur Bindung an Gesetz und Recht (Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) gehört die Berücksichtigung der Gewährleistungen der Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und der Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im Rahmen methodisch vertretbarer Gesetzesauslegung. Sowohl die fehlende Auseinandersetzung mit einer Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs als auch deren gegen vorrangiges Recht verstoßende schematische “Vollstreckung” können gegen Grundrechte in Verbindung mit dem Rechtsstaatsprinzip verstoßen


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-205
Author(s):  
Sven Simon

This article aims to provide insight into the relationship between constitutional identity and ultra vires review in Germany. First, a brief introduction is provided on the issue of the relationship between EU law and national law, then the diverging grounds for validity are presented concerning the interpretation of the CJEU and of the German Federal Constitutional Court. After the detailed analysis of the German case law, limits of a national reservation are scrutinised. In the end, a conclusion is drawn up.


Author(s):  
Bumke Christian ◽  
Voßkuhle Andreas

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kuhn

What understanding of parliamentarianism acts as the premise for the Federal Constitutional Court when it strengthens the rights of the Bundestag? This study offers a systematic review of case law on the subjects of parliamentary law, the German military’s foreign missions and voting law. It shows how the court deals with the conflicting patterns of the parliamentary system of government: individual MPs integrated into the group principle, the functionality of parliament under full representation, public resolutions under informal decision-making. The book’s theory-based political science text analysis of 25 rulings reveals the court’s remarkable ambivalence regarding the structural principles of parliamentarianism as a party democracy and points to differences and lines of development of the various topics.


Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-431
Author(s):  
Lucas Hartmann

Unionales Sekundärrecht, das ultra vires erzeugt wird oder gegen die Verfassungsidentität verstößt, ist nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in Deutschland unanwendbar und entfaltet für deutsche Verfassungsorgane, Behörden und Gerichte keine Rechtswirkungen. Was so zunächst jedenfalls im Ergebnis klar zu sein scheint – die Fehlerfolge des Ultra-vires-Fehlers bzw. Identitätsverstoßes – ist es beim Abgleich mit der herkömmlichen Fehlerfolgenlehre nicht: Ist die Sekundärrechtsnorm nichtig, unanwendbar oder zwar gültig, aber aufhebbar? Im Gegenteil: Nimmt man das bundesverfassungsgerichtliche Konzept ernst und analysiert man die Rechtswirkungen, die ihm zufolge entstehen oder nicht entstehen, so ist der Fehler in Deutschland weitgehend unbeachtlich – und zwar aus verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen. Mit anderen Worten: Paradoxerweise ist es nicht die Sekundärrechtsnorm, die in Deutschland keine Rechtswirkungen entfaltet, sondern die verfassungsgerichtliche Feststellung des Vorliegens eines Ultra-vires-Akts bzw. Identitätsverstoßes, die von den deutschen Verfassungsorganen, Behörden und Gerichten außer Acht zu lassen ist. According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, EU secondary law that is created ultra vires or violates constitutional identity cannot be applied in Germany and has no binding effect on German constitutional bodies, administrative authorities, and courts. What seems evident at first – the error effects of the ultra vires act or of the violation of constitutional identity – is not evident when considered in relation to the customary doctrine of error effects: Is the act of secondary law null and void, not to be applied, or valid but voidable? On the contrary: if one takes the Federal Constitutional Court's concept seriously and analyses the binding effects to which it does or does not give rise, the error is largely irrelevant in Germany – for constitutional reasons. In other words: Paradoxically, it is not the act of secondary law that does not produce binding effects in Germany; rather, it is the constitutional court's declaration of an ultra vires act or violation of constitutional identity that must be disregarded by the German constitutional bodies, administrative authorities, and courts.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-118
Author(s):  
Hans-Heinrich Trute

The article provides an overview of the development of case law in the field of police law over the last six years. Against the background of selected aspects such as the differentiation of the central dogmatic figure of the concept of danger and, above all, the information based interventions of the police which have been shifted further and further towards an approach of precaution, the article analyses some important decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court and critically examines some aspects of the development as well as some important clarifications. However, it cannot be overlooked that case law continues to give the legislator very detailed specifications within the framework of the principle of proportionality, which can easily end up in a petrifaction of the circumstances, especially against the background of possible technical developments and possibly increasing needs for prevention. A considered look at the advantages and disadvantages of the future use of new digital investigation tools could open up new possibilities for the legislature beyond the existing solutions.


ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-121
Author(s):  
Julia Friedrichkeit-Lebmann

Abstract One reason for the annulment of the Presidential Election was the violation of the principle of free elections enshrined in the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (cf VfGH 1.7.2016, W I 6/2016, paras 511 ff). This can be seen as a consistent further development of former case-law by the Constitutional Court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document