Casenote –– Human Dignity as a Matter of Legislative Consistency in an Ideal World: The Fundamental Right to Guarantee a Subsistence Minimum in the German Federal Constitutional Court's Judgment of 9 February 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 1941-1960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Bittner
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
National Socialism ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Subsistence Minimum ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

“Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect shall be the duty of all state authority.” It is with this proclamation in Article 1(1) Basic Law (“Grundgesetz” or “GG”) that the German Constitution starts its section on fundamental rights. When the Parliamentary Council formulated this basic right, they had in mind the denial of fundamental rights during the period of National Socialism and the atrocities of the Holocaust. The framers, however, did not envisage a constitutional right to state benefits despite Article 151(1) of the Weimar Imperial Constitution of 1919 linking the ordering of economic life with the purpose of ensuring a dignified existence for all. Utilizing a constitutional originalism approach the German Federal Constitutional Court (“FCC”) never could have arrived at what is referred to as the Hartz IV decision. This decision creates a constitutional right to guarantee by law a subsistence minimum based on Article 1(1) GG in conjunction with the social state principle in Article 20(1) GG. The decision can be read as—possibly the first—conceptualisation of a constitutional socio-economic right to statutory state benefits by a Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Developments in German Criminal Law: The Urgent Issues Regarding Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-314
Author(s):  
Sina Jung ◽  
Carolin Petrick ◽  
Eva Maria Schiller ◽  
Lukas Münster
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Personal Lives ◽  
The Past ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Constitutional Right

AbstractFreedom is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in Art. 2(2)(2) of the German Constitution. However, nearly 30,000 remand prisoners were incarcerated in pre-trial detention in Germany in 2017 pending trial. Due to the presumption of innocence, remand prisoners are subjected to a flagrant violation of their constitutional right to freedom. After outlining the legal pre-requisites of pre-trial detention under German law, this article addresses various legal areas of conflict arising from periods of prolonged pre-trial detention by examining a case brought before the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany in 2018. At the same time, the article demonstrates how severely pre-trial detention affects the personal lives of remand prisoners. The longer any such period of pre-trial detention lasts, the more important the question is whether this deprivation of liberty can be justified. Over the past few years, the number of cases involving protracted pre-trial detention has increased dramatically due to overworked courts. By emphasizing that a lack of judicial resources cannot justify lengthy terms of pre-trial detention, this article highlights the importance of the fundamental right to freedom of each and every one of us.

Judicial Review of Economic (and Monetary) Policy: The National Courts

2020 ◽  
pp. 245-285
Author(s):  
Menelaos Markakis
Keyword(s):  
European Central Bank ◽  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Social Challenges ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

This chapter examines the jurisprudence of national courts on crisis-related measures. The material presented in this chapter will be divided into two parts. First, this chapter will examine some of the most important judgments delivered by courts in lender states during the Euro crisis, the emphasis being on the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court. These cases primarily focus on the effects of financial assistance mechanisms and revised EU fiscal governance rules on the principle of democracy, parliamentary prerogatives, and national budgetary powers. A further strand of case law focuses on the measures adopted by the European Central Bank. Second, this chapter will look at review by national courts in borrower states, the principal focus being on social challenges brought by austerity-hit litigants in Greece. The comparative analysis sheds light on the different types of challenge facing courts in borrower and lender states, as well as the different starting points and the subtle differences in the reasoning provided by courts in their judgments. As regards borrower states in particular, the twin challenge is to examine to what extent litigants had any success in challenging in national courts the bailout conditions; and the extent to which arguments about civil or socio-economic rights had purchase at national level. The chapter further looks at review by national courts in other jurisdictions, as well as review by supranational and international courts or bodies. Last, it puts forward a number of ideas on fundamental rights adjudication in times of economic crisis.

The Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht of April 12, 2005 – Concerning Police Use of Global Position Systems as a Surveillance Tool

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 1085-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Jacoby
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Personality Profile ◽  
Global Positioning Systems ◽  
Positioning Systems ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Global Positioning ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

On April 12, 2005, the Bundesverfassunsgreicht (German Federal Constitutional Court) ruled that regulations in the Strafprozessordnung (StPO – Code of Criminal Procedure) concerning police use of global positioning systems (GPS) did not violate the Grundgesetz (GG – German Constitution or Basic Law) so long as the investigators did not use the technology in conjunction with other surveillance methods that could lead to the construction of a personality profile of the suspect observed. The following comment examines the facts of the case and evaluates the Court's decision in detail.

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.

scholarly journals The Constitutional Status of Karlsruhe’s Novel “Jurisdiction” in EU Fundamental Rights Matters: Self-inflicted Institutional Vulnerabilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Karsten Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

AbstractThe First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has recently introduced the express promise that where EU fundamental rights take precedence over German fundamental rights, the Court itself could directly review, on the basis of EU fundamental rights, the application of EU law by German authorities. There are, however, differences between the Basic Law as the relevant standard of review and other standards of review that are dangerous to ignore. The constitutional status of the FCC’s jurisdiction depends crucially on whether the Court relies on the constitution or on EU fundamental rights. If the constitutional status of the novel jurisdiction covered any binding-effect, and that is a big if, the FCC still would not safeguard the unity and coherence of Union law. Leaving aside the fact that the First Senate is confined to reversing and remanding (unable to enforce anything directly), no beneficial effect on legal certainty grows apparent. Any binding-effect of the novel jurisdiction only provides for consistency without finality. And to venture further into the question: Even if anyone welcomed this novel kind of consistency without finality (virtually “provisional consistency”), this oddish consistency would still be a localized consistency, i.e. in German courts only.

Human Dignity and the Downing of Aircraft: The German Federal Constitutional Court Strikes Down a Prominent Anti-terrorism Provision in the New Air-transport Security Act

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 761-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lepsius
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Air Transport ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

In a remarkable decision the Federal Constitutional Court has declared a prominent provision of a new German anti-terrorism law unconstitutional and void. The decision attracted wide attention for its treatment of constitutional questions of human life and dignity as well as the constitutional limitations of so-called “security statutes.”

Casenote–– The Fundamental Right to the Guarantee of a Subsistence Minimum in theHartz IVDecision of the German Federal Constitutional Court

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 1961-1982
Author(s):  
Stefanie Egidy
Keyword(s):  
Social Benefits ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Social Law ◽  
Hartz Iv ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Subsistence Minimum ◽  
The Social ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

In February 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) issued a ruling on the so-called “Hartz IV legislation.” The ruling dealt with the law on social benefits according to the Second Book of the German Code of Social Law and was based on the “fundamental right to the guarantee of a subsistence minimum” derived from the declaration of human dignity in Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20(1), the principle of the social welfare state.

Wohin steuern die Ultra-vires- und die Identitätskontrolle? Eine Zwischenbilanz anhand der Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts im PSPP-Verfahren

IG ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-219
Author(s):  
Christian Walter
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Eu

The article takes stock of the consequences which the decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) concerning the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Union (EU) have had on the relation between EU law and the German constitution. The interplay between the PSPP judgment of 5 May 2020 and a follow-up decision on its enforcement reveals a certain degree of back-paddling by the FCC. Irrespective of the infringement procedure, which the European Commission recently initiated against Germany, there are good chances for a respite for both the FCC and the Court of Justice of the EU. It is up to the FCC to use this period to clarify where it is headed with its jurisprudence on controlling the application of EU law in Germany.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document