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.

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.

Multilevel cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Voβkuhle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Broad Concept ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court

Broad concept of constitutional jurisdiction – Triangle between Karlsruhe, Strasbourg and Luxembourg – European vocation of the German Constitutional Court and Basic Law – European Convention on Human Rights – Karlsruhe decisions can be reviewed in Strasbourg – Human rights-related constitutional court – European Court of Justice developed into constitutional court of the Union – Verbund between three courts – No simplistic hierarchy – Verbund techniques – Dialogue in Human Rights; Interplay in Integration – Federal Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights functionally comparable – Both Courts seek substantive coherence as Verbund technique – Federal Constitutional Court commits all German authorities to the Convention – Federal Constitutional Court and ECJ – Principle of openness to European Law – Sharing and assigning responsibilities in complex system – Solange, ultra vires and identity review – Responsibility for integration, due by Court and other German bodies – Federal Court contributes to common European Constitutional order – Europe-wide discursive struggle and ‘Lernverbund’

International Treaties and The German Constitution

2019 ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Stefan Kadelbach
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional

This chapter deals with the making, status, and interpretation of international treaties under the German Constitution. It describes the interrelationship of the different institutions in treaty-making and shows how a comparatively old provision of the German Basic Law has been adapted slowly to new circumstances over the past decades. Thus, even though foreign affairs has remained a domain of the executive, several developments have contributed to an enhanced role of Parliament over time. These developments are partly due to the role of special sectors of law such as EU law and the law governing the use of force and partly due to changes in constitutional practice. As for the status of treaties in German law, the Federal Constitutional Court has developed a stance according to which treaties generally share the rank of the legal act that implements them into domestic law. A notable exception is the European Convention of Human Rights, which has assumed a quasi-constitutional rank by means of consistent interpretation. Some reference is made to other continental systems to assess how far different constitutions bring about certain features; various systems appear similar in many respects at first sight, whereas features in which they differ may be a source of inspiration for future constitutional practice.

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

The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate

The Federal Republic of Germany counts among the earliest States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It ratified the ECHR on 5 December 1952, three years ahead of Italy, and hence found itself among the original members of the treaty system when the ECHR entered into force on 3 September 1953. For the new democratic Government, it was a decision of principle to affirm its willingness to cooperate peacefully within the group of European States, submitting to an international review mechanism with regard to all of its activities. Therefore, very shortly afterwards, it accepted also the individual application under Article 25 ECHR, which at that time was not yet compulsory for all States parties. For many years under the Nazi dictatorship, Germany had brought death and destruction to its neighbours. Now, organized under a democratic and liberal constitution, the Basic Law (BL), it wanted to manifest its newfound identity as a civilized State abiding by the rule of law.

Äußerung von Beamten im Konflikt mit Dienstpflichten

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-300
Author(s):  
Klaus Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Civil Servants ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Historical Developments

Summary Over the past decades, the adjudication handed down by the German administrative courts has consistently derived from the principles of the professional civil service (Grundsätze des Berufsbeamtentums) enshrined in Article 33 paragraph 5 of the Grundgesetz (GG, Basic Law) and in the blanket clauses of the Beamtenstatusgesetz (BeamtStG, Act on the Status of Civil Servants) as well as the Civil Servants Acts applicable at the Federal and the Land levels the duties of civil servants, judges, and soldiers to adhere to the German Constitution and to be loyal to it, to maintain their impartiality, and to protect the respect in which their employer is held, as well as the trust that their employer and the general public place in them, in any statements they may make as part of their service, but also outside of an official context. The present contribution sets out the historical developments and milestone decisions in this regard, such as the judgment handed down by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) of May 22nd, 1975, which refused to grant employment as civil servants to applicants seeking such employment who were involved with the Deutsche Kommunistische Partei (DKP, German Communist Party). Furthermore, the contribution addresses the various consequences, based on their severity, which violations against the duty to adhere to the German Constitution, to remain neutral, and to exercise restraint will have, along with the consequences of violations of the duty to observe secrecy in all matters pertaining to the service. Based on the circumstances of the cases adjudicated by the courts, the requirements made on civil servants’ conduct and the „red lines“ constituting a dereliction of official duties when crossed are discussed. Where the punishment under disciplinary law of violations of said duties is concerned, the administrative courts premise their decisions on the assumption that civil servants, judges, and soldiers are aware of what is expected of them. However, the articles’ main focus is on how the duty of neutrality was derived, in terms of jurisprudence, in the court rulings most recently handed down on the „Lights out!“ call by the mayor of a city in North Rhine-Westphalia. The municipal leader had instructed all city-owned buildings to turn their lights off, on the evening of an assembly that had been previously registered with the city administration, in the interests of damaging the attractiveness of the demonstration and its overall impact. While the administrative courts have relied, in dealing with that particular call to action and with other statements made in the battle of public opinion, on the general duty of the state to remain objective and to adhere to the principle of neutrality where party politics are concerned, the present contribution highlights the fact that the duty of neutrality as stipulated by the laws governing civil servants must not be disregarded when this group of people voices religious or political sentiments, nor must the official duties subject to sanctions under disciplinary law be ignored.

European Court of Human Rights: State and Religion, Schools and Scarves. An Analysis of the Margin of Appreciation as Used in the Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, Decision of 29 June 2004, Application Number 44774/98.

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aernout Nieuwenhuis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
German States ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The University ◽  
State Schools

In the case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey of 29 June 2004, the European Court of Human Rights decided in favour of Turkey. The banning of headscarves at the University of Istanbul did not violate Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some years before the European Court already declared inadmissible a complaint by a Swiss teacher of younger children who was fired because she was not willing to leave off her headscarf while teaching. The complaint was manifestly ill founded. In other European countries the wearing of headscarves by teachers and pupils has lead to political and legal discussions and actions as well. In France, new legislation based on the so-called Stasi-report forbids pupils in primary and secondary state schools to wear clearly visible religious symbols. The reasons behind this act of parliament were problems allegedly caused by the wearing of headscarves. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that a ban on headscarves for teachers needs a basis in an act of parliament of the German states. It is up to the legislatures of the Länder to decide if such a ban should be issued. In the Netherlands, existing equal treatment law has been interpreted in such a way that teachers and pupils in state schools are allowed to wear headscarves.

scholarly journals On the rule of law and the quality of the law: reflections of the constitutional-turned-international judge

2019 ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Egidijus Küris
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

Western legal tradition gave the birth to the concept of the rule of law. Legal theory and constitutional justice significantly contributed to the crystallisation of its standards and to moving into the direction of the common concept of the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights uses this concept as an interpretative tool, the extension of which is the quality of the law doctrine, which encompasses concrete requirements for the law under examination in this Court, such as prospectivity of law, its foreseeability, clarity etc. The author of the article, former judge of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court and currently the judge of the European Court of Human Rights, examines how the latter court has gradually intensified (not always consistently) its reliance on the rule of law as a general principle, inherent in all the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, to the extent that in some of its judgments it concentrates not anymore on the factual situation of an individual applicant, but, first and foremost, on the examination of the quality of the law. The trend is that, having found the quality of the applicable law to be insufficient, the Court considers that the mere existence of contested legislation amounts to an unjustifiable interference into a respective right and finds a violation of respective provisions of the Convention. This is an indication of the Court’s progressing self-approximation to constitutional courts, which are called to exercise abstract norm-control.La tradición occidental alumbró la noción del Estado de Derecho. La teoría del Derecho y la Justicia Constitucional han contribuido decisivamente a la cristalización de sus estándares, ayudando a conformar un acervo común en torno al mismo. El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos emplea la noción de Estado de Derecho como una herramienta interpretativa, fundamentalmente centrada en la doctrina de la calidad de la ley, que implica requisitos concretos que exige el Tribunal tales como la claridad, la previsibilidad, y la certeza en la redacción y aplicación de la norma. El autor, en la actualidad Juez del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y anterior Magistrado del Tribunal Constitucional de Lituania, examina cómo el primero ha intensificado gradualmente (no siempre de forma igual de consistente) su confianza en el Estado de Derecho como principio general, inherente a todos los preceptos que forman el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, hasta el punto de que en algunas de sus resoluciones se concentra no tanto en la situación de hecho del demandante individual sino, sobre todo y ante todo, en el examen de esa calidad de la ley. La tendencia del Tribunal es a considerar que, si observa que la ley no goza de calidad suficiente, la mera existencia de la legislación discutida supone una interferencia injustificable dentro del derecho en cuestión y declara la violación del precepto correspondiente del Convenio. Esto implica el acercamiento progresivo del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos a los Tribunales Constitucionales, quienes tienen encargado el control en abstracto de la norma legal.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document