Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:47:20.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Law and Necessity: The Federal Constitutional Court Confirms the Right of the Federal Government to Warn the Public (In Reply to Marion Albers)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Reinhard Ruge

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) recently issued two leading decisions on the competence of the Federal Government to warn the public of poisoned wine and psycho-sects. In these recent decisions the court affirmed an earlier ruling and at the same time ignored the almost unanimously harsh criticism of it. For some two decades the question of furnishing information to the public on the part of the Federal Government has kept busy, to a remarkable extent, all levels of the judiciary and a great number of scholars.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 12 , December 2002 , E1
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

(1) BVerfG, Decisions of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91 (Jugendsekten - OSHO) and 1 BvR 558/91 and 1428/91 (Glykol-Weine), http://www.bverfg.de/. Generally, English translations of decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court can be obtained from the series “Decisions of the Bundesverfassungsgericht-Federal Constitutional Court- Federal Republic of Germany,” published by the Nomos Verlag in several volumes.Google Scholar

(2) BVerfG, Decision of 15 August 1989, 1 BvR 881/89 (Transzendentale Meditation - TM), 1989 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (NJW) 3269.Google Scholar

(3) Marion Albers, Rethinking the Doctrinal System of Fundamental Rights: New Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, 3 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL 11 (1 November 2002) http://www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

(4) The facts and outcome of the cases have been laid down in detail in the article of the GERMAN LAW JOURNAL'S foregoing issue by Marion Albers. Therefor I provide only a brief summary. See, Albers, supra, note 3.Google Scholar

(5) BVerwGE, 90,112 (27.3.1992 – 7 C21.90). An analysis of this judgement provided by Lege, Nochmals: Staatliche Warnungen, 1999 DEUTSCHES VERWAL TUNGSBLATT (DVBl.) 569, 572.Google Scholar

(6) In spite of the legal principle of religious neutrality of the state deriving from Article 4 of the Basic Law, it seems to be obvious that German and also Western society is largely influenced by the Christian tradition. On the factual effects of this influence, see, Britz, Der Einfluß christlicher Tradition auf die Rechtsauslegung als verfassungsrechtliches Gleichheitsproblem? - Zu den praktischen Grenzen religiöser Neutralität im säkularen Staat, 2000 JURISTENZEITUNG (JZ) 1127.Google Scholar

(7) BVerwGE, 87, 37 (18 October1990 – 3 C2.88). An analysis of this judgement provided by Lege, supra, note 5 at 569.Google Scholar

(8) See, Pieroth/Schlink, GRUNDRECHTE (17th ed.), Para. 206.Google Scholar

(9) Representing this wide-spread opinion, see, Dreier, Vorbemerkung, in GRUNDGESETZ I 80-82 (Dreier ed.); Pieroth/Schlink, GRUNDRECHTE (17th ed.), Para. 238-251.Google Scholar

(10) Schulze-Fielitz, Art. 20 (Rechtsstaat), in GRUNDGESETZ II Para. 95 (Dreier ed.); Wehr, 1997 JURISTISCHE SCHULUNG (JuS) 419.Google Scholar

(11) Schulze-Fielitz, supra, note 10 at Para. 97; Degenhart, STAATSRECHT I (14th ed.), Para. 281.Google Scholar

(12) On the theory of Staatsaufgabenlehre (public tasks), see, Bull, STAATSAUFGABEN NACH DEM GRUNDGESETZ 1977; Peters, Öffentliche und staatliche Aufgaben, in FESTSCHRIFT NIPPERDEY, BD. II (1965).Google Scholar

(13) So did Lege, supra, note 5 at Para. 570.Google Scholar

(14) Maunz, , DEUTSCHES STAATSRECHT 118 (20th ed., 1975). See, Lege, supra, note 5 at Para. 570.Google Scholar

(15) Lege, , supra, note 5 at Para. 571.Google Scholar

(16) Albers, , supra, para 22 and 23.Google Scholar

(17) See, Baldwin/Scott/Hood (Ed.), 1998 A READER ON REGULATION; Baldwin/Cave, 1999 UNDERSTANDING REGULATION; Ruge, GEWÄHRLEISTUNGSVERANTWORTUNG DES STAATES UND REGULATORY STATE, PhD – Jena (forthcoming).Google Scholar

(18) BVerfGE 4, 7, 17,18, Decision of 20 July 1954 (Investitionshilfegesetz); Decision of 1 March 1979 (Mitbestimmungsgesetz); for more, see, Maurer, 2001 STAATSRECHT I, 2nd ed., para 85 and following.Google Scholar

(19) A similar principle is contained in the Law of the European Union: Principle of Neutrality of the EU towards the property order of the Member States, Art. 295 EC Treaty. On that, see, Ruge, Goldene Aktien und EG-Recht, 2002 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPÄISCHES WIRTSCHAFTSRECHT (EuZW) 241.Google Scholar

(20) Schulze-Fielitz, supra, note 10 at Para. 98. Rejecting this approach, see, Degenhart, supra, note 11 at Para. 288.Google Scholar

(21) Gröschner, , Öffentlichkeitsaufklärung als Behördenaufgabe, 1990 DEUTSCHES VERWALTUNGSBLATT (DVBL.) 619.Google Scholar

(22) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91 (Jugendsekten – OSHO), Paras. 80-82, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(23) See, Bundestags-Drucksache 14/8738 and 14/9065.Google Scholar

(24) This opinion is not shared by Hermes, STAATLICHE INFRASTRUKTURVERANTWORTUNG, 352 (1998), who proposes deducing public tasks from necessities lying beyond the constitutional text. Criticising this stance, see, Ruge, GEWÄHRLEISTUNGSVERANTWORTUNG UND REGULATORY STATE, PhD – Jena (forthcoming).Google Scholar

(25) Compare, Pernice, Art. 30, in GRUNDGESETZ II, para 27 (Dreier ed., 1998); Hermes, Art. 83, in GRUNDGESETZ III, para 36 (Dreier ed., 2000).Google Scholar

(26) BVerfG, Decisions of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91 (Jugendsekten – OSHO), Para. 85; 1 BvR 558/91 and 1428/91 (Glykol-Weine), Para. 55, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(27) Apart from the competence Kraft Natur der Sache there is the Annexkompetenz and the Kompetenz kraft Sachzusammenhang as two other forms of implied competencies of the Federal State. They have been scarcely used. In principle, they are applicable not only for the legislative but also for the administrative competencies. See, Pernice, supra, note 25 at para 33; Stettner, Art. 70, in GRUNDGESETZ III, para 54 and following (Dreier ed., 2000); Hermes, supra, note 25 at para 39 and following.Google Scholar

(28) BVerfG, Decisions of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91 (Jugendsekten – OSHO), Para. 86; 1 BvR 558/91 and 1428/91 (Glykol-Wein), Para. 56, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(29) See, Pernice, supra, note 25 at para 24; Hermes, supra, note 25 at para 49; Erbguth, in GRUNDGESETZ, paras. 6 and 17 (Sachs ed., 2003). This is approved by the Court, which points out that forms of cooperation are not prohibited, BVerfGE 63, 1, 38-40, Decision of 12 January 1983 (Schorsteinfeger).Google Scholar

(30) BVerfG, Decisions of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91 (Jugendsekten – OSHO), Paras. 91-94; 1 BvR 558/91 and 1428/91 (Glykol-Wein), Paras. 57-59, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(31) See, Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 1990 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (NJW) 2690; Stillner, 1991 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (NJW) 1340.Google Scholar

(32) Representing this position, see, Degenhart, supra, note 11 at 281; Gröschner, supra, note 21 at 619; Gusy, 1989 JURISTENZEITUNG (JZ) 1003; Lege, supra, note 5 at 569; Schoch, 1991 DEUTSCHES VERWALTUNGSBLATT (DVBl.) 667.Google Scholar