Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:08:06.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Accountability and Public Liability—The German “Judges Privilege” Under the Influence of European and International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jörg Philipp Terhechte

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 emergence of an independent judiciary and the associated consistent implementation of the separation of powers principle are major achievements of modern times and important characteristics of the transition to the rule of law. Against this background, any attempt at reforming the independence, control structure or liability of the judiciary must be viewed critically, because reform efforts in this area often constitute modifications to the deep layers of a legal and political system. These changes are ultimately not easy to survey and the results are difficult to control. Consequently, those who seek to touch upon the liability of judges enter a rough and sometimes even downright hostile terrain. Does such liability not inevitably lead to an impairment of judicial independence, therefore damaging the “last bulwark against the erosion of law?” Does it even perforate the traditional system of the separation of powers? Will not a circulus vitiosus in the sense of a never-ending flood of cases be created if after any legal proceedings the question of judicial liability remains to be asked (or even, from the lawyer's perspective, has to be asked to avoid recourse)? These questions can take on an even more dramatic tone and show that the area is to be treaded on lightly. Therefore, important clarifications have to be made in advance in order to put the following observations into perspective: The German judicial system is not at all a bad judicial system-the opposite is true. In a global comparison, the German system is easily able to compete with any other system in terms of speed of proceedings, judicial facilities and reputation of the courts. So then why even be concerned at all with state liability for judicial wrongs?

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 2012 , pp. 313 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Albrecht, Peter A., Die Kriminalisierung der Dritten Gewalt - Ein verfehlter Beitrag der Exekutive zur Steigerung der Funktionstüchtigkeit des Kriminaljustizsystems, in 37 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik [ZRP] No. 8, 259, 259 (2004).Google Scholar

2 Burbank, Stephen B., Judicial Accountability to the Past Present and Future, 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 19 (2005).Google Scholar

3 Frerichs, Sabine, Judicial Governance in der Europäischen Rechtsgemeinschaft: Integration Durch Recht Jenseits des Staates (2008).Google Scholar

4 For a German perspective, see Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Verfassungsfragen der Richterwahl: Dargestellt Anhand der Gesetzentwurfe zur Einfuhrung der Richterwahl in Nordrhein-Westfalen (1974); Axel Tschentscher, Demokratische Legitimation der dritten Gewalt (2006).Google Scholar

5 Jörg P. Terhechte, Zum Amtshaftungsanspruch bei Organisationsmängeln innerhalb der Dritten Gewalt – zugleich ein Beitrag zum Rechtschutz gegen den untätigen Richter, in 122 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1134, 1141 (2007).Google Scholar

6 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 258, 9 May 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47, 160.Google Scholar

7 Augsberg, Steffen & Sellmann, Christian, Entwicklungstendenzen des Vorlageverfahrens nach Art. 234 EG, in 59 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 533, 541 (2006); Jörg Philipp Terhechte, Temporäre Durchbrechung des Vorrangs des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts beim Vorliegen “Inakzeptabler Regelungslücken?”, in 6 Europarecht 828, 843 (2006).Google Scholar

8 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, art. 34, 4 Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar

9 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, art. 35(1), 4 Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar

10 Born, Gary, International Commercial Arbitration: Commentary and Materials (2009); Christoph A. Stumpf, Alternative Streitbeilegung im Verwaltungsrecht – Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Schiedsgutachten, Mediation und Schlichtung (2006).Google Scholar

11 On this, see Provine, Doris M. & Seron, Carroll, Privatization of Judicial Services, 1 J. Pub. Admin. & Theory 319 (1991); Wolfgang Voit, Privatisierung der Gerichtsbarkeit, 50 Juristenzeitung 120 (1997); Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, Justizdienstleistungen im kooperativen Staat, in Juristenzeitung 421 (1999).Google Scholar

12 Möllers, Christoph, Kooperationsgewinne im Verwaltungsprozeβ – zugleich ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Praxis der ökonomischen Analyse im Verwaltungsrecht, in 53 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 667 (2000).Google Scholar

13 1Fritjof Haft & Schlieffen, Katharina, Handbuch Mediation: Verhandlungstechnik, Strategien, Einsatzgebiete (2nd ed. 2009); Katharina Gräfin von Schlieffen, Der Mediationsstaat, in Politische Kultur im Wandel von Staatlichkeit 181 (Dieter Gosewinkel & Gunnar F. Schuppert eds., 2008); Katharina Gräfin von Schlieffen, Mediation – Renaissance der Laienjustiz oder eine neue Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts?, in Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 450 (2000); Mediation: Rechtstatsachen, Rechtsvergleich, Regelungen (Klaus J. Hopt & Felix Steffek eds., 2008).Google Scholar

14 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], Jan. 2, 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] I § 839 (Ger.).Google Scholar

** (1) If an official wilfully or negligently breaches the official duty incumbent upon him as against a third party, he shall compensate the third party for the damage arising there from. If the official is only negligent, a claim can be made against him only if the injured party is unable to obtain compensation in another way.Google Scholar

** (2) If an official commits a breach of official duty in giving judgment in legal proceedings, he shall be liable for the damage arising there from only if that breach of duty constitutes a criminal offence. This provision shall not apply to a wrongful refusal to exercise official duties or to a wrongful delay in exercising them.Google Scholar

** (3) The obligation to compensate shall not arise if the injured party has wilfully or negligently failed to avert the damage by utilising a legal remedy.Google Scholar

15 Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law] 23 May 1949, BGBl I at art. 34 (Ger.).Google Scholar

** If any person, in the exercise of a public office entrusted to him, violates his official duty to a third party, liability shall rest principally with the state or public body that employs him. In the event of intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence, the right of recourse against the individual officer shall be preserved. The ordinary courts shall not be closed to claims for compensation or indemnity.Google Scholar

16 In detail, see Ossenbühl, Fritz, Staatshaftungsrecht 11 (5th ed., 1999).Google Scholar

17 See Seron, supra note 11; Voit, supra note 11; Hoffmann-Riem, Justizdienstleistungen, supra note 11.Google Scholar

18 See Möllers, supra note 12.Google Scholar

19 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice] 30 Oct. 1986, 99 BGHZ 62, 64 (Ger.); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice] BGHZ 129, (1988).Google Scholar

20 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice] 50 BGHZ 14, 19 (Ger.).Google Scholar

21 Wittreck, Fabian, Die Verwaltung der Dritten Gewalt 153 (2006).Google Scholar

22 122 BGHZ 268 (Ger.); [BGHZ] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – Rechtsprechungsreport [NJW-RR] 1992, 919.Google Scholar

23 Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg, Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR), 2002, 1192.Google Scholar

24 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH – Federal Court of Justice] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2003, 3252.Google Scholar

25 Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code], 15 May 1871, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] I at 3322, § 332 (Ger.).Google Scholar

26 Id. § 339.Google Scholar

27 Id. § 240.Google Scholar

28 See Terhechte, supra note 5, at 1134.Google Scholar

29 170 BGHZ 260 (Ger.).Google Scholar

30 Case C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239.Google Scholar

31 Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-5177, para. 36.Google Scholar

32 Case C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239, para. 31.Google Scholar

33 Id. at para. 33.Google Scholar

34 Id. at para. 43.Google Scholar

35 Id. at para. 51.Google Scholar

36 Id. at para. 55.Google Scholar

37 Gerhard Köbler himself never received compensation because the infringement in question was judged to not be sufficiently serious.Google Scholar

38 See lit. b.Google Scholar

39 Case C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239, para. 36.Google Scholar

40 Case C-185/95, Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities, 1998 E.C.R. I-6601.Google Scholar

41 Case 20/88, Roquette Frères v. Commission, 1989 E.C.R. 1553, para. 20.Google Scholar

42 Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-5177.Google Scholar

43 Id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

44 Id.Google Scholar

45 Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

46 Case C-379/10, Comm'n v. Italian Republic, 2010 EUR-Lex CELEX LEXIS 0006 (29 July 2010).Google Scholar

47 Case C-119/05, Ministero dell'Industria, del Commercio e dell'Artigianato v. Lucchini, 2007 E.C.R. I-6199, para. 63.Google Scholar

48 Case C-2/08, Amministrazione dell'economia e delle Finanzeand Agenzia delle Entrate v. Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl, in liquidation, 2009 E.C.R. I-7501.Google Scholar

49 For more information, see Project on International Courts and Tribunals, http://www.pict-pcti.org/ (last visited Mar. 6, 2012).Google Scholar

50 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int'l L.J. 191, 219 (2003).Google Scholar

51 See Finke, Jasper, Die Parallelität Internationaler Streitbeilegungsmechanismen – Untersuchung der aus der Stärkung der Internationalen Gerichtsbarkeit resultierenden Konflikte (2004).Google Scholar

52 Cf. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 2; World Trade Organization, Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, art. 8(1); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, art. 21, 4 Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar

53 But see, e.g., European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, art. 24, 4 Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar

54 See Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 19.Google Scholar

55 See also Statute of the International Court of Justice art. 2; World Trade Organization, Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, art. 8(2); European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6.Google Scholar

56 See European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, art. 46, 4 Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar

57 See Breuer, Marten, Staatshaftung für judikatives Unrecht: Eine Untersuchung zum deutschen Recht, zum Europa- und Völkerrecht 521 et seq. (2011); Marco Ottaviano, Der Anspruch auf rechtzeitigen Rechtsschutz im Gemeinschafsprozessrecht 16 (2009).Google Scholar

58 Terhechte, supra note 5, at 1134.Google Scholar

59 Sürmeli v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H.R. 75529/01 (2006).Google Scholar

60 See Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg [VGH] 27 Aug. 2002, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 2003, 154 (Ger.); Terhechte, supra note 5, at 1141.Google Scholar

61 Code of Constitution of Courts § 198(2).Google Scholar

62 Marion Eckertz-Höfer, Vom guten Richter – Ethos, Unabhängigkeit, Professoinalität, in 62 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 729, 739 (2009); Jörg P. Terhechte, Judicial Ethics for a Global Justice – How Judicial Networks Create Their Own Codes of Conduct, 10 German L.J. 501 (2009).Google Scholar