No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
More Disagreement Over Human Dignity: Federal Constitutional Court's Most Recent Benetton Advertising Decision
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.
Article 1 is the Basic Law's crown. The concept of human dignity is this crown's jewel: an interest so precious that the state must affirmatively protect and foster its inviolability. This uniquely important status is evident from human dignity's prominence in the constitution, the early Federal Republic's pressing need to repudiate the Third Reich, the many judicial and scholarly exegeses of Article 1, and human dignity's unique claim to absolute protection. The success of the German legal construct of human dignity also is apparent from its influence on the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. That document likewise begins with a provision nearly identical to the Basic Law's Article 1.
- Type
- Public Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Ofcl. J.E.C. 2000/C 364/01.Google Scholar
2 BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003, Slip Opinion ¶ 26 (available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20030311_1bvr042602.html).Google Scholar
3 BGH I ZR 180/94 (6 July 1995); BGHZ 149, 247 (I ZR 284/00, 6 December 2001), Slip Opinion available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/. See German Law Journal, Volume 2, Number 1 (15 January 2001).Google Scholar
4 The first decision (BVerfGE 102, 347) came on 12 December 2000. See German Law Journal, Volume 2, Number 1 (15 January 2001). The second is BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003.Google Scholar
5 See BVerfGE 102, 347, Slip Opinion at ¶¶ 5, 10, 68 (summarizing BGH I ZR 180/94 of 6 July 1995); BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003, Slip Opinion at ¶ 3 (same).Google Scholar
6 BVerfGE 102, 347, Slip Opinion at ¶¶ 10, 68 (summarizing BGH I ZR 180/94 of 6 July 1995).Google Scholar
7 Id. at ¶ 72.Google Scholar
8 Id. at ¶ 61.Google Scholar
9 Id. at ¶ 66.Google Scholar
10 Id.Google Scholar
11 Id.Google Scholar
12 BGHZ 149, 247 (6 December 2001).Google Scholar
13 Id., Slip Opinion at 26-27.Google Scholar
14 BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003, Slip Opinion at ¶¶ 5-7 (summarizing BGHZ 149, 247).Google Scholar
15 Id.Google Scholar
16 BGHZ 149, 247 (6 December 2001), Slip Opinion at 26-27.Google Scholar
17 Id. at 14.Google Scholar
18 Id. at 24-25.Google Scholar
19 Id. at 27-28. See BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003, Slip Opinion at ¶ 28 (summarizing BGHZ 149, 247).Google Scholar
20 BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003, Slip Opinion at 16. Art. 5(1) GG states in part: “Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinion in speech, writing, and pictures …. Freedom of the press … [is] guaranteed.”Google Scholar
21 BVerfG 1 BvR 426/02 of 11 March 2003, Slip Opinion at ¶ 16.Google Scholar
22 Id.Google Scholar
23 Id. at ¶ 18 (citing BVerfGE 18, 85 (92-93).Google Scholar
24 Id. at ¶ 17.Google Scholar
25 Id. at ¶ 22. See BGHZ 149, 247 (6 December 2001), Slip Opinion at 8-9.Google Scholar
26 Id. at ¶¶ 23-24.Google Scholar
27 Id. at ¶ 24.Google Scholar
28 Id.Google Scholar
29 Id.Google Scholar
30 Id.Google Scholar
31 Id.Google Scholar
32 Id.Google Scholar
33 Id. at ¶¶ 21, 27.Google Scholar
34 Id. at ¶ 27.Google Scholar
35 Id. at ¶ 26.Google Scholar
36 Id. at ¶ 27.Google Scholar
37 Id.Google Scholar
38 Id. at ¶ 28.Google Scholar
39 Id. at ¶ 24 (“Because the advertising purpose forms part of the social-criticism message's context, this purpose can influence the message's meaning.”).Google Scholar
40 Id. at ¶ 25.Google Scholar
41 Id. at ¶ 29.Google Scholar
You have
Access