Grundfragen des deutschen Religionsverfassungsrechts in Theorie und Praxis Ein kritischer Überblick

2011 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-363
Author(s):  
Gerhard Czermak
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Christian Churches ◽  
The Social ◽  
Religious Associations ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Theorie Und Praxis

AbstractThe article outlines the development and most important features of the religious constitutional law of the Federal Republic of Germany, as constituted in the Grundgesetz (the German Costitution) and the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court. Under the basic principle of neutrality, it constitutes a system of separation with single aspects of cooperation of the state and religious communities. It is also a system of wide freedom and of kindness to religion. Non-religious worldviews are explicitly equated for individuals as well as for religious and non-religious associations. This system is in theory exemplary, but holed by contradictory laws, church-state-treaties and one-sided financial subventions in a huge dimension. The indirect influence of the large Christian churches is remarkable. Christian institutions dominate the social services – with unpleasing consequences for over 1 million employees, who are subject to a special employment law. Meanwhile, low-level discrimination of small religious communities continues.

David Currie and German Constitutional Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 2081-2094
Author(s):  
Peter E. Quint
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Major Work ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
German Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

Without much doubt, the two great pillars of American scholarship on the German Basic Law and the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court are (in the order of first appearance) Donald Kommers's monumental casebook, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany and David Currie's magisterial treatise, The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. Professor Kommers's comprehensive work was a milestone in a long career that has been very substantially devoted to the study of German constitutional law. In the late 1960s, Kommers spent a research year at the German Constitutional Court and, drawing in part on personal interviews with the justices, he published the first major work in English on that court. Since then, Kommers has produced a steady stream of significant works on German constitutional law.

Finanzfolgen höchstrichterlicher Entscheidungen

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Wiechmann
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
German State ◽  
Tax State ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Federal Constitutional

The German state is a tax state and relies on current revenues. If a tax is declared incompatible with the constitutional law, the Federal Constitutional Court regularly orders its continued application until a new regulation is adopted. The taxpayer must then pay an unconstitutional tax without receiving any compensation for it. The order for continued application does not eliminate the constitutional infringement, but maintains it. The ECJ takes a much stricter approach to violations of EU law, since in its view the financial interests of a state are never suitable for maintaining an unconstitutional state. The work attempts to strike an appropriate balance between these two positions.

scholarly journals The Mediation Committee of the Bundestag and Bundesrat: A Special Institution of German Constitutional Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Claus Koggel
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
German Constitutional Law

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.

scholarly journals “OBJEKTFORMEL” – EVENTUAL ACTS OF DAMAGE TO HUMAN DIGNITY

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Izabela Bratiloveanu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Categorical Imperative ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Law ◽  
First Time

 The Object formula („Objecktformel”) has been designed and developed in the mid century XX by Günter Dürig, starting from the second formula of Kant's categorical imperative. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany took the formula and applied it for the first time in the case of the telephone conversations of December 15, 1970. The Object formula („Objecktformel”) was taken from the German constitutional law and applied in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Sozio-ökonomische Ungleichheit: Verfassungstheoretische Bedeutung, verfassungsrechtliche Reaktionen

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-210
Author(s):  
Konstantin Chatziathanasiou
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Economic Inequality ◽  
Wealth Inequality ◽  
Social Dimension ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Federal Constitutional

Der Beitrag behandelt sozio-ökonomische Ungleichheit als verfassungsrelevante Herausforderung unter dem Grundgesetz. Theoretisch sind unterschiedliche Wirkzusammenhänge zwischen Verfassung und sozio-ökonomischer Ungleichheit möglich. Insbesondere kann sozio-ökonomische Gleichheit als faktische Legitimitätsressource und als demokratische Funktionsbedingung wirken. Empirisch deutet die ökonomische Ungleichheitsforschung auf eine wachsende Vermögensungleichheit in Deutschland hin. Verfassungstheorie und empirische Zustandsbeschreibung treffen sich in der Auslegung des geltenden Verfassungsrechts, das im Hinblick auf das Soziale nur schwach determiniert ist. Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts formuliert Mindestanforderungen, überlässt die Konkretisierung des Sozialen aber weitgehend der Politik. Die Verfassungsrechtswissenschaft sollte diesen Prozess konstruktiv begleiten, dabei aber zwischen Recht und Theorie unterscheiden. The article addresses socio-economic inequality as a constitutional challenge under the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz). Theoretically, several causal relationships between the constitution and socio-economic inequality are possible and plausible. In particular, socio-economic equality can be a resource of de facto legitimacy and a condition of democracy. Empirically, current economic research indicates growing wealth inequality in Germany. Constitutional theory and empirical description meet in the interpretation and application of actual constitutional law, whose social dimension is only weakly determined. The Federal Constitutional Court formulates minimum requirements, but leaves the concretization of the social dimension essentially to the political branches of government. Constitutional law scholarship should analyse this process constructively, while distinguishing between law and theory.

Verfassungsanalogien – Das Bundesverfassungsgericht an der Grenze der Verfassungsinterpretation

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-41
Author(s):  
Carsten Bäcker
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Sich Eine ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Federal Constitutional

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.

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.

The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law (Part II)

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Brugger
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Specific Determination ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Law

As pointed out by the Federal Constitutional Court, a specific determination of the appropriateness of hate speech prohibitions can be based only on the circumstances of individual cases. Some particularly prominent cases are now reviewed.

Streikverbot für Beamte – sowohl verfassungs- als auch konventionsgemäß? Kritische Anmerkungen zum Urteil des BVerfG vom 12.6.2018

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (4) ◽  
pp. 376-394
Author(s):  
Shu-Perng Hwang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

This article critically approaches the recent decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding the ban on strikes for civil servants. It shows that the judgment cannot be seen as a decision committed to international public law, as some scholars suggest. By once more adopting a material understanding of Art. 33 para. 5 Basic Law and thereby not only confirming the constitutionality, but in particular the constitutional status of the ban on strikes for civil servants, the court holds on to the absolute primacy of the Basic Law that is not to be undermined by the ECHR or the jurisprudence of the ECtHR as a means of interpretation. The reference to the need to contextualize the jurisprudence of the ECtHR as well as the emphasis on the national particularity of the Federal Republic of Germany clearly indicate that, by developing a state-centred principle of commitment to public international law, the court does not seek to align and harmonize the requirements of the ECHR and the Basic Law by developing a state-centred principle of commitment to public international law but rather to achieve a delimitation of competences between the spheres of the ECtHR and the Federal Constitutional Court.

Law and Politics in Germany

1978 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Blair
Keyword(s):  
Easy Access ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
The Social ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Post War

German politics are still influenced by the tradition of legalism. Constitutional provisions often serve as criteria of political argument, and constitutional principles (e.g. the ‘social state’) and basic rights may be portrayed as programmatic ‘commandments' justifying specific political demands. The corollary is a propensity towards judicial, and thus ‘authoritative’, solutions to political disputes. The post-war establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court with comprehensive constitutional jurisdiction and easy access for the political actors has subjected major political issues to legal adjudication. Increasingly appeal to the Court has become a weapon of opposition, resorted to by the Christian Democrats to challenge such measures as the Basic Treaty with East Germany and the Abortion Reform. Despite general self-restraint vis-à-vis the political authorities, the Court has sometimes construed basic rights expansively as ‘participatory’ rights to positive government action. Recently it has been criticised for ‘conservatism’ and a tendency to restrict future legislative discretion. The ‘politicization of justice’, emerging from the judicialization of politics, could affect respect for the Court as authoritative arbiter. But it may foster a healthier relationship between politics and the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document