Verfassungspatriotismus und Integration

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-506
Author(s):  
Erhard Denninger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Integration ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Pluralistic Society ◽  
Constitutional Patriotism ◽  
Nationale Identität ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Sufficient Degree ◽  
Constitutional Identity

Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung steht die Frage, inwieweit der Gedanke des Verfassungspatriotismus in der von Jürgen Habermas vorgeschlagenen Fassung geeignet sein kann, in einer kulturell-religiös pluralen Gesellschaft ein ausreichendes Maß an „Bürgersolidarität“ zu gewährleisten. Habermas setzt dabei entscheidend auf eine Entkoppelung der Ebene der allgemeinen und gleichen politischen Integration von der Ebene der ethisch-kulturellen Integration. Dies stößt jedoch immer dann auf Schwierigkeiten, wenn es um die Auslegung und Anwendung zentraler Rechtsbegriffe wie Menschenwürde oder der Menschenrechte geht. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht könnte bei den zwischen Mehrheit und Minderheit wechselseitig notwendigen „Perspektivenübernahmen“ ausgleichend wirken. Begriffe wie „nationale Identität“ oder „Verfassungsidentität“ können zwar gerichtlich praktiziert werden, sind aber als analytische Kategorien unbrauchbar. Entscheidungen in verfassungspatriotisch korrekt angeleiteten Verfahren müssen auch in „Parallelgesellschaften“ als legitim akzeptiert werden. The essay is focused on the question whether the idea of ‚constitutional patriotism‘ may ensure a sufficient degree of ‚civic solidarity‘ in a cultural-religious pluralistic society. The main argument of Habermas lies in the separating of the two levels: the sphere of general and equal political integration and the sphere of ethical-cultural integration. But this always produces particular difficulties when interpretation and application of basic juridical concepts, like human dignity or human rights at all, are at stake. In the reciprocally necessary adoption of perspectives between majority and minorities the Federal Constitutional Court could operate in an equalizing manner. Concepts like „national identity“ or „constitutional identity“ may be practised judicially, but taken as analytic categories they are worthless. Decisions, taken in procedures conducted correctly by constitutional patriotism, must be accepted as legitimate also by ‚parallel societies‘ (Parallelgesellschaften).

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals Constitutional Identity and Ultra Vires Review in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-205
Author(s):  
Sven Simon
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
Insight Into

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.

scholarly journals The Ban on Strike Action by Career Civil Servants under the German Basic Law: How the Federal Constitutional Court Constitutionally Immunized the German Legal Order Against the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-239
Author(s):  
Matthias Jacobs ◽  
Mehrdad Payandeh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedom ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional

AbstractThe Federal Constitutional Court has decided that the prohibition to strike for career civil servants, as it has traditionally been part of the German legal order, is in compliance with the German Constitution. The Court thereby put a (provisional) end to a long-lasting debate on how to solve the tension between the fundamental freedom to form associations under Article 9(3) of the Basic Law, which arguably encompasses a right to strike, and Article 33(5) of the Basic Law, which protects the traditional principles of the career civil servants, which arguably encompasses the prohibition to strike. Through recognizing that the ban on strike action by career civil servants is not only allowed but required under the German Constitution, the Constitutional Court navigates the German legal order on a potential collision course with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. In this context, the Constitutional Court on the one hand reaffirms the openness of the German constitutional order towards international law in general and human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights in particular. On the other hand, the Court somehow marginalizes the role of the European Court of Human Rights and threatens to not follow the Court should it hold that the European Convention on Human Rights demands a right to strike also for career civil servants.

Fehlerfolgen: Ist die verfassungsgerichtliche Ultra-vires- und Identitätskontrolle aus verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen rechtlich wirkungslos?

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-431
Author(s):  
Lucas Hartmann
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Oder Nicht ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Constitutional Identity

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.

scholarly journals Exceeding Judicial Competence in the Name of Democracy: The German Federal Constitutional Court's OMT Reference

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Wendel
Keyword(s):  
Monetary Policy ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

First preliminary reference of the German Federal Constitutional Court – ECB Outright Monetary Transaction Programme (OMT) – Financial crisis – Ultra vires review – Principle of democracy – Judicial dialogue – Separation of powers – National constitutional identity – Mandate of the ECB – Article 123 TFEU – Article 18.1 ESCB-Statute – Economic and monetary policy – Honeywell test partially abandoned – Pringle judgment inverted – No margin of discretion for the ECB – Necessity, and prohibition of functional misuse, under Article 267 TFEU – Comparative reasoning

scholarly journals The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide: a template for pluralistic states?

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107233
Author(s):  
Urban Wiesing
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

The article presents the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court from 26 February 2020 on assisted suicide. The statements regarding human dignity, human rights and the relationship between citizens and the state are examined. Furthermore, the consequences resulting from this interpretation of human dignity for states that are pluralistic and based on human rights will be laid out. The court’s judgment limits the power of parliaments and poses a challenge to many laws in states that see themselves as pluralistic, human rights-based states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document