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.

scholarly journals Human dignity as a universal legal value

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (31) ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
Sergiy Maksymov ◽  
Natalia Satokhina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
A Value ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional

The purpose of the article is to substantiate the thesis about human dignity as the initial and universal legal value. The investigation belongs to philosophical and legal anthropology and axiology. In the process of research, phenomenological and analytical methods in their unity and complementarity were used. The article draws attention to the tendency of increasing interest to the value component of law in contemporary legal philosophy and doctrine. Traditionally, justice is recognized as the main legal value embodying the high purpose of law. It is a complex value and embodies a certain ratio of no less universal legal values based on human experience, such as human dignity, freedom and equality. Since the mid-twentieth century, human dignity has become the “new key concept” for law. This was due to the desire to prevent a recurrence of the state of barbarism – massive and large-scale humiliation of it during the Second World War. As an expression of a person’s intrinsic value, his subjectivity, human dignity is considered as a value basis of human rights as a whole, as well as an independent right, the inviolability of which is enshrined in the fundamental international documents and constitutions of developed countries. It finds protection in the practice of national Constitutional Courts (primarily the German Federal Constitutional Court), the European Court of Human Rights and other legal institutions. The ethical priority of dignity in the system of legal values emphasizes the universality of human rights, which are based on the initial and unconditional recognition of the other in his uniqueness, regardless of his belonging to a particular community.

Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht on the status of the European Convention of Human Rights and ECHR decisions in the German legal order. Decision of 14 October 2004.

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saša Beljin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
First Time ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

On 14 October 2004 the German Federal Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, delivered a decision of principal character regarding the status of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the German legal order. It is the first time the Bundesverfassungsgericht has so fundamentally dealt with this topic, moreover in the composition of the complete (second) Senate (not just a chamber of the court). That the constitutional court itself attaches high importance to its decision and expected international interest is witnessed by the fact that the court has made an English translation of the decision available. This is something that does not happen very often, at least until now.

The applicability decision of the ECHR in legal proceedings

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 211-218
Author(s):  
Полина Виноградова ◽  
Polina Vinogradova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Russian Federation

In modern conditions, changing approaches to the implementation of international law there is both the need and opportunity. The article considers some issues of the relation of national and international law. The legal position about resolution of conflicts of constitutional and conventional interpretations are based on the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the so-called request for the applicability of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Since 2014 there is a new version of Article 101 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, which establishes opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court against the decision of the ECHR. This provision contains an important mechanism for harmonization the constitutional and conventional interpretation.

The Italian Constitutional Court and the constitutionality of the criminalisation of assisted suicide of patients suffering from serious and incurable diseases

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 376-388
Author(s):  
Javier Escobar Veas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Present Note ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
European Court ◽  
First Time

On 16 November 2018, the Italian Constitutional Court addressed for the first time the controversial issue of the constitutionality of the criminalisation of assisted suicide of patients suffering from serious and incurable diseases. In its judgment, the Court held that the criminalisation of assisted suicide is not contrary to the Constitution, rejecting the existence of a right to die, in line with the European Court of Human Rights case law. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court recognised that in cases of patients suffering from serious and incurable diseases, an absolute prohibition on assisted suicide could run contrary to the freedom of self-determination and the constitutional principles of human dignity and equality. The present note describes and analyses the facts of the case and the reasoning of the Constitutional Court, especially the structure of the argument and the new ‘decision technique’ adopted.

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.

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.

The First Preliminary Reference of the French Constitutional Court to the CJEU:Révolution de Palaisor Revolution in French Constitutional Law?

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1471-1490
Author(s):  
François-Xavier Millet ◽  
Nicoletta Perlo
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
First Time

A preliminary reference on the part of the Constitutional Council was, in several respects, not to be expected. It was debatable whether it would consider itself as a “court or tribunal” within the meaning of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and, therefore, whether it would refer a case to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) at all. The French constitutional court could also have resorted to theacte clairdoctrine so as to escape from their obligation to ask for the interpretive guidance of the CJEU. However, the main reason why a reference was not awaited by legal actors lies in the limited jurisdiction of the Constitutional Council. Until the introduction in 2008 of the so-called QPC, that is,question prioritaire de constitutionnalité(the Priority Preliminary Reference mechanism on issues of constitutionality), theConseil constitutionnelhad a very limited jurisdiction compared to its European counterparts. Its main mission was to assess the conformity of parliamentary bills and treaties with the Constitution and only with the Constitution. Its review could only take placeex ante, between the adoption and the promulgation of a text. By opening the way to anex postreview of statutes with regard to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the QPC brought about a major change in the French adjudication system: statutes are no longer immune from constitutional challenge once they are in force. However, treaties and other international or European commitments are no parameters of constitutional review. TheConseil constitutionnelmade this clear in 1975 and never seriously changed track, despite minor qualifications to the rule. In their seminalIVGruling on the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Act, they held that it was not up to them to review the compatibility of bills with treaties, in spite of Article 55 of the Constitution. Consequently, the task of the constitutional judges does not go beyond the assessment of laws with regard to the Constitution. This is the main reason that explains why, on the face of it, theConseil constitutionnelwas unlikely to refer a case to the CJEU. Why would it seek the interpretation or ask for the review of a European text if this text is immaterial for it and if the yardstick of its examination is the Constitution and only the Constitution? Yet, it happened. For the first time, theConseilreferred a case to the CJEU on 4 April 2013. Although this is undoubtedly a major legal breakthrough, we will see in due course that this is probably more arévolution de palaisthan a true revolution in French constitutional law.

Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 869-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Hartwig
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Court

On October 14, 2004 the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a judgment which gave rise to vivid reactions in the mass media and to a dispute between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In interviews, members of the Strasbourg court spoke about their disappointment in the German Court's unwillingness to implement decisions of the ECtHR while members of the German court referred to the necessity to respect national particularities. Whereas, normally, the ECtHR and the constitutional courts of the Member States of the Council of Europe are fighting side by side for human rights and, therefore, consider themselves as natural allies, this time their decisions, which seem to be incompatible, led to a dispute which attracted as much public interest as a film or theatre premiere.

scholarly journals Globalization and the Law: Deciphering the Message of Transnational Human Rights Litigation

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1499-1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peer Zumbansen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Law ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document