Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:03:48.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Court Upholds Lifetime Partnership Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Russell Miller  and
Volker Röben

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.

On 17 July 2002, the First Senate of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) upheld the recently enacted Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz (Lifetime Partnership Act). The Court found, unanimously, that the process leading to the law's enactment was constitutional. The Court further found, over three dissenting votes, that the substance of the law conforms to the Grundgesetz (GG - Basic Law).

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 8 , August 2002 , E2
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar
See, Maurer, Andreas, Federal Constitutional Court to Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 12 (16 July 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=42; Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court Does Not Issue Temporary Injunction to Block the Entry Into Force of the Lifetime Partnership Law, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 13 (1 August 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=73.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hütig, Stephan, Homo-Ehe vor Gericht, FAZ.NET (visited 17 July 2002) <http://faz.net>; Thomas Reinhold, Homo-Ehe: Das ist gut so, FAZ.NET (visited 17 July 2002) <http://faz.net>.;+Thomas+Reinhold,+Homo-Ehe:+Das+ist+gut+so,+FAZ.NET+(visited+17+July+2002)+.>Google Scholar
Most notably, the exclusion of the right to adopt. See, BverfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 11, http://www.bverfg.de; Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court to Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 12, 10 (16 July 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=42.Google Scholar
Maurer, Andreas, Federal Constitutional Court to Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 12, 4 (16 July 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=42.Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 2 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 6 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 3 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 2 Nr. 12 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 10 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 3 §§ 52, 54 and 56 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 3 § 11 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).Google Scholar
The center-right parties brought their challenge to the formal and material constitutionality of the new law by way of a Normenkontrollanträge (Abstract Judicial Review), which permits Länder (Federal State) governments to engage the Court “in the event of disagreements or doubts respecting the formal or substantive compatibility of federal law or Land law with this Basic Law, …” Art. 93.1(2) GG. In this case the center-right parties acted through the state governments of Bavaria and Saxony, which they control.Google Scholar
BverfG, 1 BvQ 23/01 from 18 July 2001, <http://www.bverfg.de>. See, Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court Does Not Issue Temporary Injunction to Block the Entry Into Force of the Lifetime Partnership Law, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 13 (1 August 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=73..+See,+Andreas+Maurer,+Federal+Constitutional+Court+Does+Not+Issue+Temporary+Injunction+to+Block+the+Entry+Into+Force+of+the+Lifetime+Partnership+Law,+2+GERM.+LAW+JOURNAL+13+(1+August+2001)+http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=73.>Google Scholar
Clifford, Jonnie Skye, High Court Okays Gay-Marriage Bill, F.A.Z. WEEKLY (visited 19 July 2002) <http://www.faz.com>..>Google Scholar
The state governments argued that their right to “regulate the establishment of the authorities and their administrative procedure,” where they are responsible for the execution of federal laws, had been violated (Art. 84.1 GG). The state governments also argued that a proposed version of the legislation, which had required the involvement of the Standesbeamten (Registration Offices) in the execution of the Lifetime Partnerships, had been unconstitutionally amended. The Registration Offices are administered by the state governments and this interest would have necessitated the Bundesrat's consent to the proposed legislation.Google Scholar
Germany's federal structure grants the Länder (Federal States) the authority to legislate all matters, except those areas explicitly conferred on the legislative power of the Bundes (Federal Authorities) by the Basic Law (Art. 70.1 GG). In another broad range of areas explicitly identified by the Basic Law, the Bundes and the Länder enjoy concurrent legislative authority. With respect to concurrent legislative authority, the Federal Government has legislative priority where “the establishment of equal living conditions throughout the federal territory or the maintenance of legal or economic unity renders federal regulation necessary in the national interest” (Art. 72.2 GG). German federalism has a final mechanism, along side this careful, “vertical” division of subject area au The Lifetime Partnership Act touches upon this scheme because the “registration of births, deaths, and marriages,” belongs to the concurrent legislative authority of the Bundes and the Länder (Art. 74.2 GG). It was this final element of federalism, known as the Zustimmungsgesetzpflicht (Acts Requiring Consent) that was at stake in the Lifetime Partnership Act.Google Scholar
Clifford, Jonnie Skye, High Court Okays Gay-Marriage Bill, F.A.Z. WEEKLY (visited 19 July 2002) <http://www.faz.com>..>Google Scholar
See, 2001 BGBl. I, p. 3513, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101067f.pdf.Google Scholar
Art. 74.1 para. 2 GG.Google Scholar
Art. 84.2 GG.Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 66, http://www.bverfg.de (citing BVerfGE 34, 9 (p. 28); BVerfGE 37, 363 (p. 382)).Google Scholar
BverfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 67, http://www.bverfg.de (“Die Möglichkeit des Bundestages, mit der Aufteilung einer Gesezesmaterie auf zwei oder mehrere Gesetze das Zustimmungsrecht des Bundesrates auf einen Teil der beabsichtigten Regelung zu begrenzen, folgt aus seinem Recht zur Gesetzgebung.”).Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 67-74, http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar
BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 73, http://www.bverfg.de (“Dies ermöglichte zwar einerseits dem Bundesrat, seinen Einfluss stärker auch auf das materielle Recht auszuüben, entzöge andererseits aber den Ländern schleichend Gesetzgebungskompetenz dort, wo für sie originäre Zuständigkeiten von Verfassungs wegen bestehen.”).Google Scholar
See, also Hans-Jürgen Papier, Ehe und Familie in der neueren Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, in: 55 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 2129 (2002).Google Scholar