¹ Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), judgment of 24 October 2002, 2 BvF 1/01. Reprinted in, 2003 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl.) 44; 2003 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 119. Also available at: <http://www.bverfg.de/cgi-bin/link.pl?entscheidungen>..>Google Scholar

² A first draft for a law on geriatric nursing was presented by the Federal Government in 1990. See, Bundestags-Drucksache (BT-Drs.) 11/8012. The draft was rejected, however, by the Bundesrat (Council of Federal States - the second chamber of the German Parliament) because the Länder (German Federal States) rejected the competence of the Federal legislature over the matter. See, ibid., at 21 et seq.Google Scholar

³ Official translation in: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Promulgated by the Parliamentary Council on 23 May 1949 and as amended up to 16 July 1998. Published by the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, 1998.Google Scholar

⁴ See, infra at B. III.Google Scholar

⁵ Isensee, Josef, Subsidiarität als verfassungsrechtliches Auslegungsprinzip, in Subsidiarität als rechtliches und politisches Ordnungsprinzip in Kirche, Staat und Gesellschaft. Genese, Geltungsgrundlagen und Perspektiven an der Schwelle des dritten Jahrtausends (Peter Blickle, Thomas O. Hüglin and Dieter Wyduckel eds.), 20 Rechtstheorie Beiheft 199, 210 (2002). For the principle of subsidiarity in German federalism see (most recently), e.g., Stefan Oeter, Integration und Subsidiarität im deutschen Bundesstaatsrecht. Untersuchungen zur Bundesstaatstheorie unter dem Grundgesetz (1998).Google Scholar

⁶ The European Convention, the task of which is to invent and propose a machinery that will enable the European Union to face the challenges of enlargement, institutional reform and globalization and speak to the world with a single voice, has set up a working group on the principle of subsidiarity. In the meantime, the working group has presented its conclusions. See, Report of the Chairman of Working Group I on the Principle of Subsidiarity to the Members of the European Convention, Brussels, CONV 286/02, 23 September 2002, available at: <http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00286en2.pdf>..>Google Scholar

⁷ 2000 Bundesgesetzblatt I (BGBl. I) 1510.Google Scholar

⁸ See (most recently), Deutscher Bundestag, Schlussbericht der Enqǔete-Kommission “Demografischer Wandel - Herausforderungen unser älter werdenden Gesellschaft an den Einzelnen und die Politik”, BT-Drs. 14/8800, at 233 et seq.Google Scholar

⁹ See, Article 4 of the Geriatric Nursing Act.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For an introduction into the German Federal Constitutional Court's power to issue temporary injunctions pursuant to Section 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, see, Andreas Maurer, The Federal Constitutional Court's Emergency Power to Intervene: Provisional Measures Pursuant to Article 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, 2 German Law Journal No. 13 (1 August 2001) www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

¹¹ BVerfG, order of 22 May 2001, 2 BvQ 48/00.Google Scholar

¹² BVerfG, order of 7 November 2001, 2 BvQ 48/00; BVerfG, order of 29 April 2002, 2 BvQ 48/00.Google Scholar

¹³ Article 93 para. 1 nos. 2 and 2a of the Basic Law reads: “(1) The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule: […] 2. in case of disagreement or doubt as to the formal and material compatibility of Federal or Land law with this Basic Law or as to the compatibility of Land legislation with other Federal legislation at the request of the Federal Government, a Land government or one third of the Members of the Bundestag; 2a. in case of disagreement as to whether a law meets the requirements of paragraph 2 of article 72 at the request of the Bundesrat or the government or legislature of a Land; […].”Google Scholar

¹⁴ For the wording of Article 72 para. 2 of the Basic Law, see, supra at A.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, Neumeyer, Christoph, Der Weg zur neuen Erforderlichkeitsklausel für die konkurrierende Gesetzgebung des Bundes (Art. 72 Abs. 2 GG). Renaissance alliierter Verfassungspolitik, at 19 et seq. (1999).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See, e.g., Article 12 para. 1 (1) of the 1919 Weimar Constitution, which stated that: “The Länder shall have the right to legislate as long as and to the extent that the Reich does not exercise its legislative power.”Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, Neumeyer, supra note 15, at 82 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See, ibid., at 36 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See, 2 BVerfGE 213, 224.Google Scholar

²⁰ See, 4 BVerfGE 115, 127.Google Scholar

²¹ Hesse, Konrad, Der unitarische Bundesstaat (1962).Google Scholar

²² See, e.g., Achterberg, Norbert, Die Entscheidung über das Bedürfnis für die Bundesgesetzgebung (Art. 72 Abs. 2 GG), 1967 DVBl. 213 et seq.; Hartmut Krüger, Zur Bedeutung des Art. 72 Abs. 2 GG für die Gesetzgebungskompetenz des Bundes, 1984 Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter (BayVBl.) 545 et seq.Google Scholar

²³ See, e.g., Kisker, Gunter, Neuordnung des bundesstaatlichen Kompetenzgefüges und Bund-Länder-Planung, 1975 Der Staat 169 et seq.Google Scholar

²⁴ For the wording of Article 93 para. 1 no. 2a of the Basic law see, supra note 13.Google Scholar

²⁵ For the discussion, see, e.g., Markus Kettner, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip als Beweislastumkehrregel. Überlegungen zur Neufassung von Art. 72 II GG und zur Justitiabilität des Subsidiaritätsprinzips, 1995 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 367 et seq.; Hubertus Rybak and Hans Hofmann, Verteilung der Gesetzgebungsrechte zwischen Bund und Ländern nach der Reform des Grundgesetzes, 1995 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 230 et seq.; Arndt Schmehl, Die erneuerte Erforderlichkeitsklausel in Art. 72 Abs. 2 GG, 1996 DÖV 724 et seq.; Gerold Schmidt, Die neue Subsidiaritätsprinzipregelung des Art. 72 GG in der deutschen und europäischen Wirtschaftsverfassung, 1995 DÖV 657 et seq.; Rupert Scholz and Klaus G. Meyer-Teschendorf, Reduzierung der Normenflut durch qualifizierte Bedürfnisprüfung, 1996 ZRP 404 et seq.Google Scholar

²⁶ Section C. I. of the decision.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, e.g., 7 BVerfGE 29, 44; 33 BVerfGE 125, 152 et seq.; 42 BVerfGE 20, 29; 61 BVerfGE 149, 175; 68 BVerfGE 319, 328.Google Scholar

²⁸ Section C. I. 1. a) of the decision.Google Scholar

²⁹ For the methods of analysis referred to by the Federal Constitutional Court, see (most recently), e.g., Albert Bleckmann, Zu den Methoden der Gesetzesauslegung in der Rechtsprechung des BVerfG, 2002 Juristische Schulung (JuS) 942 et seq.; Horst Sendler, Die Methoden der Verfassungsinterpretation - Ratio- nalisierung der Entscheidungsfindung oder Camouflage der Dezision?, in Staatsphilosophie und Rechtspolitik. Festschrift für Martin Kriele zum 65. Geburtstag 457 (Burkhardt Ziemske, Theo Langheid, Heinrich Wilms and Görg Haverkate eds., 1997).Google Scholar

³⁰ 12 BVerfGE 205.Google Scholar

³¹ See, e.g., 75 BVerfGE 108, 146.Google Scholar

³² Section C. I. 1. a) of the decision.Google Scholar

³³ See, e.g., 3 BVerfGE 407, 421; 26 BVerfGE 246, 256 et seq.; 98 BVerfGE 265, 299.Google Scholar

³⁴ Section C. I. 1. a) dd) (1) of the decision.Google Scholar

³⁵ 98 BVerfGE 265Google Scholar

³⁶ See, Degenhart, Christoph, Staatsrecht I. Staatsorganisationsrecht, at 56 et seq. (18^th ed., 2002).Google Scholar

³⁷ Article 30 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar

³⁸ Section C. I. 1. a) of the decision. See, similarly 7 BVerfGE 29, 44; 33 BVerfGE 125, 152; 61 BVerfGE 149, 175.Google Scholar

³⁹ Sections C. II. 3. to 4. a) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See, supra at C. I.Google Scholar

⁴¹ 1 BVerfGE 299, 312. See, 8 BVerfGE 274, 307; 11 BVerfGE 126, 129 et seq.; 20 BVerfGE 283, 293; 33 BVerfGE 265, 294; 47 BVerfGE 109, 127.Google Scholar

⁴² 54 BVerfGE 277, 297 et seq.Google Scholar

⁴³ Radbruch, Gustav, Rechtsphilosophie, at 107 (Ralf Dreier and Stanley L. Paulson eds., 1999).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Section C. II. 4. b) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Similarly, , e.g., Bodo Pieroth, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Kommentar, Art. 93 para. 23a (Hans D. Jarass and Bodo Pieroth eds., 6^th ed. 2002); Schmehl, supra note 25, at 728; Stefan Oeter, in Das Bonner grundgesetz. Kommentar, Vol. II, Art. 72 para. 114 (Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein and Christian Starck eds., 4^th ed., 2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ It has sometimes been contended though that recourse to Article 93 para. 1 no. 2a of the Basic Law was circular, as the norm presupposed the justiciability of Article 72 para. 2 but could not independently justify it. See, Neumeyer, supra note 15, at 158. From a systematic point of view, this argument is, however, misleading.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Section C. II. 4. a) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Section C. II. 5 of the decision.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Sections C. II. 5. a) and b) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Section C. II. 6. c) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁵² See section B. 5. b) of the decision.Google Scholar

⁵³ Section C. II. 7. of the decision.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See, supra at C. II. 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ It may be noted in this context that the Court's decision in the Geriatric Nursing Act case comprises 152 (!) pages.Google Scholar