No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court Endorses Private Dentists' Information Service and Directory Within the Framework of the Right to Occupational Freedom
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
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 (Federal Constitutional Court) has repeatedly had to deal with regulation of the medical professions. (1) The frequency of decisions in this area result from the clash between two fundamental values: One is the constitutionally recognized “occupational freedom” (Art. 12 I GG), the other is the health of the population, which justifies the numerous regulations for the medical professions. (2) A recent decision of the Second (Three-Judge) Chamber of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG 1 BvR 881/00 — decided on October 18, 2001) is a further instance of this conflict.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2001 by German Law Journal GbR
References
(1) To mention only some examples: The ground-breaking pharmacy case (BVerfGE 7, 377) or a whole history of decisions concerning advertisements of medical professionals, e.g. BVerfGE 71, 183; BVerfGE 85, 248.Google Scholar
(2) Volksgesundheit (peoples' health), which the Constitutional Court calls an important community interest in the pharmacy case (BVerfGE 7, 377 (414 ff.)).Google Scholar
(3) The Berufsordnung, as a charter, is based on § 31 I 1 of the Baden-Württemberg Gesetz über die öffentliche Berufsvertretung, die Berufspflichten, die Weiterbildung und die Berufsgerichtsbarkeit der Ärzte, Zahnärzte, Tierärzte, Apotheker und Dentisten. (law on the public representation, professional obligations, continuing education and professional courts of doctors, dentists, veterinaries, apothecaries and dentists). The ban on advertising has been interpreted to forbid only improper (“berufswidrig”) advertising, see BVerfG NJW 2001, 2788 (2789).Google Scholar
(4) The Constitutional Court consists of two Senates with 8 judges. Each Senate has been divided into several Chambers, each with 3 judges, that are charged, e.g. with reviewing constitutional complaints and can dismiss them or grant them if the legal questions have already been decided before and the legal situation is obvious (See, Schleich, DAS BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT 258 note 38 (4th ed. 1997).Google Scholar
(5) BVerfGE 7, 377, See Donald Kommers, THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, 285 (1989).Google Scholar
(6) BVerfGE 7, 377; Pieroth/Schlink, GRUNDRECHTE. STAATSRECHT II, note 808 (17th ed., 2001).Google Scholar
(7) See e.g., Tettinger, Article 12, in GRUNDGESETZ, note 29 et sequ (Sachs ed., 1996).Google Scholar
(8) BVerfGE 97, 228 (253) (Short report – Kurzberichterstattung).Google Scholar
(9) BVerfGE 7, 377, see Kommers, supra note 4.Google Scholar
(10) The gradation theory is just a somewhat modified application of the principle of proportionality that the Court generally demands for justifications of infringements upon constitutional rights.Google Scholar
(11) See, BVerfGE 7, 377.Google Scholar
(12) See, supra, note 1.Google Scholar
(13) BVerfG, NJW 2001, 2788.Google Scholar
(14) BVerfG, NJW 2001, 2788 (2789).Google Scholar
(15) Earlier cases, such as BVerfGE 85, 248 (holding that collaboration of a doctor in press reports about his professional activity cannot be banned per se if he does not hold the right of examining the report before publication) confirm this trend.Google Scholar
You have
Access