The Judgment of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht concerning Reparations for the Victims of the Varvarin Bombing

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigrid Mehring

In August 2013, the German Federal Constitutional Court affirmed its stance against claims by individuals for reparations for violations of international humanitarian law that it had developed in previous case law. It denied reparation and compensation to be paid by the Federal Republic of Germany to the relatives of killed civilians and to civilians wounded as a consequence of the destruction of a bridge in the Serbian city of Varvarin. The bridge had been destroyed on 30 May 1999 in the course of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (nato) aerial action “Allied Force” against the Federal Yugoslav Republic. The case concerned claims by survivors and family members of persons killed in the attacks. The Court rendered a joint decision on both constitutional claims and found no violation of constitutional rights.

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-173
Author(s):  
Niels Petersen

AbstractRobert Alexy is one of the most prominent proponents of proportionality in international legal scholarship. His theory has two dimensions. On the one hand, it is a normative defense of balancing. On the other hand, it seeks to provide a reconstruction of the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court. This Article focuses on the reconstructive part of his theory. It argues that his reconstruction of the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court is only partly accurate. In particular, it does not provide a suitable reconstruction of the decisions in which the Court finds a statute to be inconsistent with the constitution. For this reason, the normative critique of Alexy’s theory does not necessarily translate into a critique of the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court’s application of proportionality or even the proportionality doctrine itself. Instead, it targets only one specific interpretation of proportionality.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 2071-2075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Recker

In its Aid Measures for Greece and Euro Rescue Package case, the German Federal Constitutional Court affirmed the Parliament's budget authority to provide financial aid measures to the European Monetary Union. The judgment conforms to the German Federal Constitutional Court's case law concerning the transfer of sovereign power to international organizations and reaffirms that German participation in international organizations is linked to constitutive pillars of the German Basic Law. One of these pillars is the Principle of Parliamentary Budget. This principle provides that any financial aid package has to be approved by the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundestag) before guarantees can be given to other states by the Federal Government. In its holding, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the aid measures for Greece and the euro rescue package were consistent with the Principle of Parliamentary Budget and German 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


Author(s):  
Shu-Perng Hwang

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.


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 191-201
Author(s):  
Axel Tschentscher

This chapter argues that apex courts should not take the place of the legislative or the executive branch. It takes a critical stance towards the notion of optimization that legal principles entail. Optimization results in judicial activism that, in turn, shifts the power from politics to courts. The chapter then looks at some decisions by the German Federal Constitutional Court considered 'activist decisions' in the realm of socio-economic rights, and compares their follow-up with the Colombian experience. It suggests that judges must play a rather modest role and limit themselves to a case-by-case rationale even if social rights are systematically under-enforced. The chapter also calls the courts' attention to be aware of the financial restrictions of their countries. Finally, it asks courts to create incentives for the legislatures and executive branch to commit with social and economic rights, and insists that follow-up measures should not be taken by apex courts, but rather by the political branches.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-215
Author(s):  
R. Alexy ◽  

The article sets out the author’s concept of proportionality, on the basis of which the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany is able to make rational and reasoned decisions on the revision of legislation relating to violations of constitutional rights, which the author qualifies as constitutional principles. The concepts of proportionality and rationality are built on the conceptual and categorical apparatus formulated in other works by the author, which includes such concepts as norms, rules, principles, optimization, the Law of Balancing and others. The Law of Balancing is a specific form of applying the principles of law. The paper uses a broad analytical approach to the issues under study, and therefore its content is abundant in formulas. Using the formulas, the author analyses court cases on various issues that relate to violations of constitutional rights. The author’s opinions and conclusions are of interest to Russian legal science and court practice.


Author(s):  
Leonardo Álvarez Álvarez

Este trabajo se ha propuesto analizar la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán sobre al proceso de integración europeo. Las categorías de soberanía y democracia, los dos pilares en los que se ha apoyado tradicionalmente su argumentación, se han concebido como cualidades de un ordenamiento nacional. Por ello, la naturaleza, las funciones y límites de la UE se han definido por el Tribunal Constitucional Federal a partir de categorías de derecho interno. Este trabajo ha tratado de demostrar cómo desde la Sentencia sobre el Tratado de Lisboa (2009), se han parecido sentar las bases para definir los conceptos soberanía y democracia, a partir de la tradición constitucional común de los Estados miembros. En definitiva, de lo que modernas escuelas de pensamiento científico denominan un iuspublicum europaeum. Esta transformación metodológica se lleva cabo por el Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán retornando a la concepción material de democracia presente en su jurisprudencia de los años 50 y 60. Si esta sirvió entonces para construir una democracia militante ad intra frente a los enemigos de la democracia, es posible que pueda servir también ahora para la defensa militante ad extra de la democracia. El respeto de la identidad política alemana impuesta a la UE en la Sentencia Lisboa puede hablar a favor de ello.This paper analyzes the German Federal Constitutional Court case-law about the European integration process. Both concepts of sovereignty and democracy, base of its reasoning, have been constructed as related to a national legal system. Therefore, the nature, functions and limits of the EU has been determined by the BVerfG in relation to state categories. This paper tries to show how since Lisbon’s ruling (2009), the bases for a definition of sovereignty and democracy from the point of view of the common constitutional tradition of Member States may have been established. That’s to say, what modern Schools for Scientific Thought call iuspublicum europaeum. The German Federal Constitutional Court makes this methodological transformation returning to the material concept of democracy established during the 50’s and 60’s. If it was then used in order to construct a militant democracy ad intra against the enemies of democracy, it may be now used to the militant defense ad extra of democracy. The respect for German political identity imposed by Lisbon’s ruling supports this idea.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document