Supreme constitutional court for the Federal Republic of Germany
Bundesverfassungsgericht
Oral proceedings in the courtroom (November 1974)
Library (foreground) and Courtroom (background)
The
Federal Constitutional Court
(German:
Bundesverfassungsgericht
[b?nd?sf???fas?ŋs?????ct]
ⓘ
; abbreviated:
BVerfG
) is the
supreme
constitutional court
for the
Federal Republic of Germany
, established by the constitution or
Basic Law
(
Grundgesetz
) of Germany. Since its inception with the beginning of the post-
World War II
republic, the court has been located in the city of
Karlsruhe
, which is also the seat of the
Federal Court of Justice
.
[3]
The main task of the Federal Constitutional Court is
judicial review
, and it may declare legislation
unconstitutional
, thus rendering them ineffective. In this respect, it is similar to other supreme courts with judicial review powers, yet the court possesses a number of additional powers and is regarded
[
by whom?
]
as among the most interventionist and powerful national courts in the world. Unlike other
supreme courts
, the constitutional court is not an integral stage of the judicial or appeals process (aside from cases concerning constitutional or public international law), and does not serve as a regular
appellate court
from lower courts or the
Federal Supreme Courts
on any violation of federal laws.
The court's jurisdiction is focused on constitutional issues and the compliance of all governmental institutions with the constitution. Constitutional amendments or changes passed by the parliament are subject to its judicial review since they have to be compatible with the most basic principles of the
Grundgesetz
defined by the
eternity clause
.
[note 1]
First meeting of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court on October 2, 1951
50th Anniversary of the
Bundesverfassungsgericht
(last coin in Deutsche Mark denomination)
Scope
[
edit
]
The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany stipulates that all three branches of the state (the legislature, executive, and judiciary) are bound directly by the constitution in Article 20, Section 3 of the document. As a result, the court can rule acts of any branches unconstitutional, whether as formal violations (
exceeding powers
or violating procedures) or as material conflicts (when the civil rights prescribed in the
Grundgesetz
are not respected).
The powers of the Federal Constitutional Court are defined in article 93 of the
Grundgesetz
.
[4]
This constitutional norm is set out in a federal law, the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG), which also defines how decisions of the court on material conflicts are put into force. The Constitutional Court has therefore several strictly defined procedures in which cases may be brought before it:
- Constitutional complaint
: By means of the
Verfassungsbeschwerde
(constitutional complaint) any person may allege that his or her constitutional rights have been violated. Although only a small fraction of these are actually successful (ranging around 2.5% since 1951), several have resulted in major legislation being invalidated, especially in the field of taxation. The large majority of the court's procedures fall into this category; 135,968 such complaints were filed from 1957 to 2002.
- Abstract regulation control
: Several political institutions, including the governments of the
Bundeslander
(states), may bring a federal law before the court if they consider it unconstitutional. A well-known example of this procedure was the
1975 abortion decision
, which invalidated legislation intended to decriminalise abortion.
- Specific regulation control
: Any regular court which is convinced, that a law in question for a certain case is not in conformance with the constitution must suspend that case and bring this law before the Federal Constitutional Court.
- Federal dispute
: Federal institutions, including members of the
Bundestag
, may bring internal disputes over competences and procedures before the court.
- State?federal dispute
: The
Lander
may bring disputes over competences and procedures between the states and federal institutions before the court.
- Investigation committee control
- Federal election scrutiny
: Violations of election laws may be brought before the court by a political institution or any involved voter.
- Impeachment procedure
: Impeachment proceedings may be brought against the
Federal President
, a judge, or a member of one of the Federal Supreme Courts, by the Bundestag, the
Bundesrat
or the federal government, based on violation of constitutional or federal law.
- Prohibition of a political party
: Article 21 of the Basic Law gives the Constitutional Court the power to ban political parties that either threaten the existence of Germany or "seek to undermine or abolish the
free democratic basic order
". This has happened just twice, both times in the 1950s: the
Socialist Reich Party
(SRP), a
neo-Nazi
group, was banned in 1952, and the
Communist Party of Germany
(KPD) was banned in 1956. A 2003 attempt to ban another neo-Nazi party, the
National Democratic Party of Germany
(NPD), failed when it was revealed that a significant proportion of its leadership were informants for the
Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution
.
Up to 2009, the Constitutional Court had struck down more than 600 laws as unconstitutional.
[5]
Organization
[
edit
]
The court consists of two senates, each of which has eight members, headed by a senate chairperson. The members of each senate are allocated to three chambers for hearings in constitutional complaint and single regulation control cases. Each chamber consists of three judges, so each senate chair is at the same time a member of two chambers. The court publishes selected decisions on its website
[6]
and since 1996 a public relations department promotes selected decisions with press releases.
[7]
Decisions by a senate require a majority. In some cases a two-thirds vote is required.
[8]
Decisions by a chamber need to be unanimous. A chamber is not authorized to overrule a standing precedent of the senate to which it belongs; such issues need to be submitted to the senate as a whole. Similarly, a senate may not overrule a standing precedent of the other senate, and such issues will be submitted to a plenary meeting of all 16 judges (the Plenum).
Unlike all other German courts, the court often publishes the vote count on its decisions (though only the final tally, not every judge's personal vote) and even allows its members to issue a
dissenting opinion
. This possibility, introduced only in 1971, is a remarkable deviation from German judicial tradition.
One of the two senate chairs is also the president of the court, the other one being the vice president. The presidency alternates between the two senates, i.e. the successor of a president is always chosen from the other senate. The 10th and current president of the court is
Stephan Harbarth
.
Democratic function
[
edit
]
The Constitutional Court actively administers the law and ensures that political and bureaucratic decisions comply with the rights of the individual enshrined in the Basic Law. Specifically, it can vet the democratic and constitutional legitimacy of bills proposed by federal or state government, scrutinise decisions (such as those relating to taxation) by the administration, arbitrate disputes over the implementation of law between states and the federal government and (most controversially) ban non-democratic political parties.
[9]
The Constitutional Court enjoys more public trust than the federal or state parliaments, which possibly derives from the German enthusiasm for the rule of law.
[10]
Appointment of judges
[
edit
]
The court's judges are elected by the
Bundestag
(the German parliament) and the
Bundesrat
(a legislative body that represents the sixteen state governments on the federal level). According to the
Basic Law
, each of these bodies selects four members of each senate. The election of a judge requires a two-thirds vote (but this supermajority requirement is not constitutionally mandated by the Basic Law, only by normal law
[11]
). The selection of the chairperson of each senate alternates between Bundestag and Bundesrat and also requires a two-thirds vote.
Up until 2015, the Bundestag delegated this task to a special committee (
Richterwahlausschuss
, judges election committee), consisting of a small number of Bundestag members. This procedure had caused some constitutional concern and was considered to be unconstitutional by many scholars. In 2015, the
Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz
(law code of the Federal Constitutional Court) was changed in this respect. In this new system, it is the Bundestag itself that elects judges to the court, and this by secret ballot in the plenum. To be selected, candidates must get a two-thirds majority of those present at the vote, and provided that the number of votes in favor constitutes an absolute majority of the total membership of the Bundestag, including those not present at the vote. The
Richterwahlausschuss
only retains the power to nominate candidates.
[12]
This new procedure was applied for the first time in September 2017, when
Josef Christ
was elected to the first senate as the successor of
Wilhelm Schluckebier
.
In the Bundesrat, a chamber in which the governments of the sixteen German states are represented (each state has 3 to 6 votes depending on its population, which it has to cast
en bloc
), a candidate currently needs at least 46 of 69 possible votes.
The judges are in principle elected for a 12-year term, though they
must retire
upon reaching the age of 68 regardless of how much of the 12 years they have served. Re-election is not possible. A judge must be at least 40 years old and must be a well-trained jurist. Three out of eight members of each senate have served as a judge on one of the federal courts. Of the other five members of each senate, most judges previously served as academic jurists at a university, as public servants or as a lawyer. After ending their term, most judges withdraw themselves from public life. However, there are some prominent exceptions, most notably
Roman Herzog
, who was elected
President of Germany
in 1994, shortly before the end of his term as president of the court.
Current members
[
edit
]
First Senate 1989
Second Senate 1989
Name
|
Term
|
Nomination by
|
Election by
|
First Senate
|
Stephan Harbarth
(born 1971)
(President of the Court, Chairman of the First Senate)
|
November 2018 ? November 2030 (12-year-term)
|
CDU/CSU
|
Bundestag (as judge)
Bundesrat (as president)
|
Miriam Meßling
[
de
]
(born 1973)
|
April 2023 ? April 2035 (12-year term)
[13]
|
SPD
|
Bundesrat
|
Yvonne Ott
[
de
]
(born 1963)
|
November 2016 ? November 2028 (12-year-term)
|
SPD
|
Bundesrat
|
Josef Christ
[
de
]
(born 1956)
|
November 2017 ? 2024 (retirement)
|
CDU/CSU
|
Bundestag
|
Henning Radtke
[
de
]
(born 1962)
|
July 2018 ? May 2030 (retirement)
|
CDU/CSU
|
Bundesrat
|
Ines Hartel
[
de
]
(born 1972)
|
July 2020 ? July 2032 (12-year term)
|
SPD
|
Bundesrat
|
Heinrich Amadeus Wolff
[
de
]
(born 1965)
|
June 2022 ? June 2033 (retirement)
[14]
|
FDP
|
Bundestag
|
Martin Eifert
[
de
]
(born 1965)
|
February 2023 ? 2033 (retirement)
[15]
|
Greens
|
Bundestag
|
Second Senate
|
Doris Konig
(born 1957)
(Vice president of the Court, Chairwoman of the Second Senate)
|
June 2014 ? June 2025 (retirement)
|
SPD
|
Bundestag (both as judge and as vice president)
|
Ulrich Maidowski
[
de
]
(born 1958)
|
July 2014 ? July 2026 (12-year term)
|
SPD
|
Bundestag
|
Christine Langenfeld
(born 1962)
|
July 2016 ? July 2028 (12-year term)
|
CDU/CSU
|
Bundesrat
|
Astrid Wallrabenstein
[
de
]
(born 1969)
|
June 2020 ? June 2032 (12-year term)
|
Greens
|
Bundesrat
|
Rhona Fetzer
[
de
]
(born 1963)
|
January 2023 ? September 2031 (retirement)
|
SPD
|
Bundestag
|
Thomas Offenloch
[
de
]
(born 1972)
|
January 2023 ? January 2035 (12-year term)
|
FDP
|
Bundestag
|
Peter Frank
(born 1968)
[16]
|
December 2023 ? December 2035 (12-year term)
|
CDU/CSU
|
Bundesrat
|
Holger Wockel
[
de
]
(born 1976)
[16]
|
December 2023 ? December 2035 (12-year term)
|
CDU/CSU
|
Bundesrat
|
Presidents of the court
[
edit
]
The court's head is the president of the Federal Constitutional Court, who chairs one of the two senates and joint sessions of the court, while the other senate is chaired by the vice president of Federal Constitutional Court. The right to elect the president and the vice president alternates between the
Bundestag
and the
Bundesrat
. If the president of the Federal Constitutional Court leaves office, i.e. when his or her term as judge at the court ends, the legislative body, whose turn it is to choose the president, has to elect one of the judges of the senate, of which the former president was not a member, with a two-thirds majority. If the office of the vice president falls vacant, a new vice president is elected from the senate, of which the sitting president is not a member, by the legislative body, which has not elected the former vice president. The given legislative body is free to elect the judge it prefers, but with respect to the position of president, it has been always the sitting vice president, who was elected president, since 1983.
The president of the Federal Constitutional Court ranks fifth in the
German order of precedence
, as the highest-ranking representative of the judicial branch of government.
Criticism
[
edit
]
The court has been subject to criticism. One complaint is the perceived function as a replacement lawmaker (German:
Ersatzgesetzgeber)
because it has overturned controversial policies numerous times, such as the
Luftsicherheitsgesetz
,
[17]
the
Mietendeckel
[
de
]
(rent cap) of Berlin,
[18]
and parts of the
Ostpolitik
.
[19]
This behavior has been interpreted as a hindrance to the normal functioning of the parliament.
[19]
Another criticism of the federal constitutional court issued by the former president of the
Federal Intelligence Service
, August Hanning, is that the court tends to overprotect people, according to him, even members of
ISIS
.
[20]
He considers that to hinder the efficiency of German intelligence agencies in favour of protecting people in far-away countries.
Finally, numerous decisions have been criticised and sparked demonstrations.
[17]
[18]
[21]
Landmark decisions
[
edit
]
Year
|
Case
|
Unofficial name
|
Synopsis
|
Legal principles set
|
Consequences
|
Human dignity
|
1993
|
2 BvF 2/90
[22]
|
(None)
|
Federal lawmakers
permitted abortion within twelve weeks after
implantation
. To be legal the expectant mother had to go to a pregnancy consultation minimum three days in advance and the abortion has to be their own decision.
|
- If a pregnancy is not the result of a
criminal interaction
or a threat to the mother's life or health an abortion violates the
right to life
of an
embryo
. As a result, in the last case, abortion has to be prohibited.
|
Following the decision the lawmakers changed the criminal law. They prohibited abortion within twelve weeks but after using a pregnancy consultation all participants go unpunished.
|
2003
|
1 BvR 426/02
[23]
|
Benetton II
|
The
Federal Court of Justice
prohibited the
magazine
Stern
to publish a shocking advertisement of the
Benetton Group
. The advertisement showed a bare bottom with a stamp: "
HIV-positive
".
|
- Human dignity is absolute. All
fundamental rights
are substantiations of human dignity therefore there is no trade-off of human dignity and any fundamental right possible.
|
The case was remanded to the
Federal Court of Justice
for a second time. After Benetton II the plaintiff abandoned the lawsuit. A final decision was unnecessary.
|
2006
|
1 BvR 357/05
[24]
|
Civil aviation security act decision
|
Federal lawmakers permitted the military to shoot down civil aeroplanes if there is an indication that they will be used as a weapon against human lives and a shoot-down is the last resort.
|
- Human dignity is inviolable. There cannot be any trade-off of the lives of innocent people.
- The military can be used as disaster relief, but the use of military weapons violates the constitution.
- Only the federal government can order the military to provide disaster relief.
|
The disputed part of the civil aviation security act was declared void. Basically, the court decided that a shoot-down could be legal if a flight vehicle is unmanned or there are only suspects on board.
|
Protection of fundamental rights
|
1957
|
1 BvR 253/56
[25]
|
Elfes-Decision (Elfes-Urteil)
|
Wilhelm Elfes
, a left-wing member of the centre-right
CDU
, was accused of working against the constitution but was never convicted. Based on this indictment he was denied a passport multiple times.
[26]
Elfes litigated against the decision.
|
- The right to
personal liberty
is to be construed in a broad way.
- Invention of "Heck's Formula" (named after the rapporteur of the case, Justice Heck). The court can only review cases if one of the following conditions applies:
- The impact of a constitutional norm was misjudged
- Application of the law was discretionary
- Judicial restraint
was violated
|
Elfes lost his specific case but the court cemented personal liberty in general. Justice Heck defined the limits of the court relative to the specialised court system.
|
1958
|
1 BvR 400/51
[27]
|
Luth Decision
(
Luth-Urteil
)
|
The court of Hamburg prohibited
Erich Luth
to call for a boycott of the film
Immortal Beloved
. Luth justified his action because director
Veit Harlan
also was responsible for the
antisemitic
movie
Jud Suß
in 1940.
|
- The
Basic Law
binds
private law
indirectly.
- The Federal Constitutional Court is not a regular appellate court on violation of federal law. The court only overviews violation of the Basic Law.
|
With the Luth Decision the court defined and restricted its own power. But on the other hand, it expanded the effective range of the Basic Law beyond the tension of government and people to the private law. The Basic Law does not bind citizens but it binds the lawmakers in creating private law and the
judiciary
in interpreting it.
|
2021
|
1 BvR 2656/18,
1 BvR 78/20,
1 BvR 96/20,
1 BvR 288/20
[28]
|
(Klimaschutz)
|
In 2019 the German federal government implemented the Climate Protection Act, to transpose the
Paris Agreement
into German law. It defined
CO2
-reduction goals for 2030 but did not describe how to reach the 1.5°C/2°C limitation beyond that year. The German branch of
Fridays for Future
litigated against the law because it would put an undue burden to their freedom and the freedom of the generations to come.
|
- The
Basic Law
binds legislation to protect the liberty of actual people as well as the freedoms of generations to come. Legislation has to implement laws in a way that does not put an undue burden on the liberty of young people or
future generations
. The decision was unanimous.
|
The court instructed the federal government to implement the law in a way that does not put most of the effort needed to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement to future generations. Personal liberty is not to be interpreted in a way that restricts the personal liberty of future generations inappropriately.
|
Development of fundamental rights by the court
|
1983
|
- 1 BvR 209/83
- 1 BvR 269/83
- 1 BvR 362/83
- 1 BvR 420/83
- 1 BvR 440/83
- 1 BvR 484/83
[29]
|
Census Verdict (
Volkszahlungsurteil
)
|
Citizens litigated against the German census 1983
|
- Personal freedom under modern conditions depends on the right to be protected against unlimited data processing, use, collection, storage and disclosure. There is nothing like irrelevant data.
|
The census was postponed to 1987 until the "census 1983 act" was changed corresponding to the verdict. The court created, by deriving from human dignity and personal liberty, a new civil right:
informational self-determination
. The verdict became the foundation of the modern
German Data Protection Act (1990)
and the
EU Data Protection Directive (1998)
.
|
Freedom of expression
|
2000
|
1 BvR 1762/95 & 1 BvR 1787/95
[30]
|
Benetton I
|
The Federal Court of Justice prohibited the magazine
Stern
to publish shocking advertisements of the Benetton Group. The advertisements showed a bird doused with oil,
child labour
and a bare buttock with a stamp: "HIV-positive".
|
- The publishing of an opinion of a third party that is protected by freedom of expression is protected itself.
|
The case was remanded to the Federal Court of Justice whose new decision was challenged again as "Benetton II".
|
Freedom of art
|
1971
|
1 BvR 435/68
[31]
|
Mephisto judgment
(
Mephisto-Entscheidung
)
|
The heir of
Gustaf Grundgens
successfully sued the publisher of the 1936 novel
Mephisto
by Grundgens' former brother-in-law
Klaus Mann
to stop publishing the book. It was prohibited by all lower courts.
|
- Freedom of art is guaranteed by the Basic Law, but it finds its limit in human dignity and likewise in personality right. Because freedom of art is to be construed in a broad sense, weighing up has to be comprehensive and a case by case decision.
|
Due to a split decision the ban of the novel was upheld. It was the first decision of the court on the interpretation of freedom of art. Apart from the concrete decision, the court made clear that freedom of art cannot be limited by general laws.
|
Impact on European constitutional questions
[
edit
]
On 12 September 2012, the Court stated that the question of whether the
ECB
's decision to finance European constituent nations through the purchase of bonds on the secondary markets was
ultra vires
because it exceeded the limits established by the German act approving the
ESM
was to be examined.
[32]
This demonstrates how a citizen's group has the ability to affect the conduct of European institutions. On 7 February 2014, the Court made a preliminary announcement on the case, which was to be published in full on 18 March. In its ruling, the Court decided to leave judgment to the Court of Justice of the EU (
CJEU
).
[32]
In this regard, the ruling of May 5, 2020, deemed an act of the EU and the Weiss Judgment of the Court of Justice "ultra vires", for having exceeded the powers granted by the Member States.
[33]
The EU decided to initiate infringement proceedings against Germany. In response to the notification, the German government provided the European Commission with satisfactory assurances. As a result, the case was closed in December 2021.
See also
[
edit
]
Notes
[
edit
]
Further reading
[
edit
]
- Collings, Justin (2015).
Democracy's Guardians : a History of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 1951-2001
. New York, NY.
ISBN
978-0-19-181500-3
.
OCLC
920859864
.
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link
)
References
[
edit
]
- ^
"Bundesverfassungsgericht ? Library"
.
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
.
- ^
"Gesetz uber die Feststellung des Bundeshaushaltsplans fur das Haushaltsjahr 2021 (Haushaltsgesetz 2021)"
(PDF; 34,1 MB)
.
Bundeshaushalt.de
.
Bundesministerium der Finanzen
(BMF). 21 December 2020. p. 18
. Retrieved
13 June
2021
.
- ^
Donald P. Kommers & Russell A. Miller,
The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany
(3d ed.: Duke University Press, 2012), p. 40.
- ^
"Art. 93"
[Jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court]
(PDF)
.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
. Berlin: German Bundestag. April 2010. pp. 82?83
. Retrieved
19 August
2010
.
- ^
Law, David S.,
The Anatomy of a Conservative Court
in Texas Law Review lxxxvii: 1545?93
- ^
"Bundesverfassungsgericht ? Decisions ? General information"
.
- ^
Meyer, Philipp (2020).
"Judicial public relations: Determinants of press release publication by constitutional courts"
.
Politics
.
40
(4): 477?493.
doi
:
10.1177/0263395719885753
.
ISSN
0263-3957
.
S2CID
213896514
.
- ^
§ 15 IV 1 BVerfGG
- ^
Kesselman et al. (2009), ch. 4 p. 69
- ^
"Germany's Constitutional Court: Judgment days"
.
The Economist
. Karlsruhe. 26 May 2009. Archived from
the original
on 21 March 2012.
- ^
Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, §6 (1)
- ^
"Bundesgesetzblatt"
(PDF)
.
www.bgbl.de
.
- ^
"Rede: Richterinnenwechsel am Bundesverfassungsgericht"
.
Der Bundesprasident
(in German)
. Retrieved
19 April
2023
.
- ^
"Rede: Richterwechsel am Bundesverfassungsgericht"
.
Der Bundesprasident
(in German). 22 June 2022
. Retrieved
1 December
2022
.
- ^
"Rede: Richterwechsel am Bundesverfassungsgericht"
.
Der Bundesprasident
(in German)
. Retrieved
20 February
2023
.
- ^
a
b
"Entlassung und Ernennung von Richtern des Bundesverfassungsgerichts"
.
Der Bundesprasident
(in German)
. Retrieved
21 December
2023
.
- ^
a
b
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 1 Senat (15 February 2006).
"Bundesverfassungsgericht ? Entscheidungen ? Nichtigkeit der Abschussermachtigung im Luftsicherheitsgesetz: fehlende Gesetzgebungsbefugnis des Bundes fur einen Einsatz der Streitkrafte mit spezifisch militarischen Waffen bei der Bekampfung von Naturkatastrophen und besonders schweren Unglucksfallen ? LuftSiG § 14 Abs 3 mit dem Recht auf Leben iVm der Menschenwurdegarantie unvereinbar, soweit von dem Einsatz der Waffengewalt tatunbeteiligte Menschen an Bord des Luftfahrzeugs betroffen werden"
[Federal Constitutional Court ? Decisions ? Invalidity of the launch authorization in the Aviation Security Act: lack of legislative power of the federal government for the use of armed forces with specifically military weapons in the fight against natural disasters and particularly serious accidents ? Aviation Security Act, § 14 Paragraph 3 with the right to life in conjunction with the guarantee of human dignity incompatible, as far as of People on board the aircraft who are not involved in the use of armed violence are affected].
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
(in German)
. Retrieved
20 April
2021
.
{{
cite web
}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link
)
- ^
a
b
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 Senat (25 March 2021).
"Bundesverfassungsgericht ? Entscheidungen ? Gesetz zur Mietenbegrenzung im Wohnungswesen in Berlin ("Berliner Mietendeckel") nichtig"
[Federal Constitutional Court ? decisions ? law on rent limitation in housing in Berlin ("Berliner Mietendeckel") void].
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de
(in German)
. Retrieved
20 April
2021
.
{{
cite web
}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link
)
- ^
a
b
Zeitung, Berliner (21 March 2014).
"Kritik am Bundesverfassungsgericht: Hat das BVG zu viel Einfluss auf die Politik?"
.
Berliner Zeitung
(in German)
. Retrieved
20 April
2021
.
- ^
Feldmann, Marco (9 September 2020).
"Kritik an Bundesverfassungsgericht"
[Criticism of the Federal Constitutional Court].
Behorden Spiegel
(in German). Archived from
the original
on 20 April 2021
. Retrieved
20 April
2021
.
- ^
Haußler, Maria (15 April 2021).
"Demonstration am Hermannplatz: Mit Topfdeckeln gegen den Mietenwahnsinn"
[Demonstration at Hermannplatz: With pot lids against the rent madness].
Berliner Zeitung
(in German)
. Retrieved
20 April
2021
.
- ^
"Bundesverfassungsgericht Urt. v. 28.05.1993, Az.: 2 BvF 2/90"
[Federal Constitutional Court, decided on May 28th, 1993, Case 2 BvF 2/90].
Jurion
(in German).
Cologne
: Wolters Kluwer. 28 May 1993. Archived from
the original
on 14 December 2018
. Retrieved
1 December
2018
.
- ^
"Leitsatze zum Beschluss des Ersten Senats vom 11. Marz 2003"
[Guiding principles of the decision of the first senate, decided on March 11th, 2003].
Federal Constitutional Court ? Decisions
(in German). Karlsruhe: Federal Constitutional Court. 11 March 2003
. Retrieved
1 December
2018
.
- ^
"Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 15. Februar 2006"
[Federal Constitutional Court verdict, decided on February 15th, 2006].
Federal Constitutional Court ? Decisions
(in German). Karlsruhe: Federal Constitutional Court. 15 February 2006
. Retrieved
1 December
2018
.
- ^
"Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 16. Januar 1957"
[Federal Constitutional Court verdict, decided on January 16th, 1957].
Federal Constitutional Court ? Decisions
(in German). Karlsruhe: Federal Constitutional Court. 16 January 1957
. Retrieved
2 December
2018
.
- ^
Rojahn, Gunther (11 January 2011).
"Elfes ? Mehr als ein Urteil"
[Elfes ? More than a verdict].
Dissertations of the University
(in German).
Berlin
:
Free University of Berlin
.
doi
:
10.17169/refubium-14242
. Retrieved
2 December
2018
.
- ^
"BVerfGE 7, 198 ? Luth"
[Case BVerfGE 7, 198 Luth].
Das Fallrecht (DFR) Verfassungsrecht
(in German).
Bern
:
University of Bern
. Retrieved
1 December
2018
.
- ^
"Pressemitteilung Nr. 31/2021 vom 29. April 2021"
[press release Nr. 31/2021] (in German)
. Retrieved
30 April
2021
.
- ^
"Volkszahlung ("Volkszahlungsurteil")"
[Census ("Census Verdict")] (in German).
Hamburg
: OpenJur. pp. openJur 2012, 616
. Retrieved
2 December
2018
.
- ^
"Leitsatze zum Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 12. Dezember 2000"
[Guiding principles of the decision of the first senate, decided on December 12th, 2000].
Federal Constitutional Court ? Decisions
(in German). Karlsruhe: Federal Constitutional Court. 12 December 2000
. Retrieved
1 December
2018
.
- ^
"BVerfG, Beschluss vom 24.02.1971 ? 1 BvR 435/68"
[Federal Constitutional Court, Court order, decided on February 24th, 1971 ? 1 BvR 435/68].
BVerfG Rechtsprechung
(in German). Hamburg: OpenJur e.V. 24 February 1971
. Retrieved
13 December
2018
.
- ^
a
b
"europarl.europa.eu: "The German Constitutional Court's ruling on the ECB's bond-buying decision" 10 Feb 2014"
(PDF)
.
- ^
Morcillo Pazos, Adrian (2022).
La declaracion "ultra vires" en la sentencia PSPP del Constitucional Aleman: ¿Cronica anunciada o giro jurisprudencial?
. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Instittut d'Estudis Europeus.
Bibliography
[
edit
]
- Allen, Christopher S. (10 February 2009). "Chapter 4: Germany". In Kesselman, Mark; Krieger, Joel; Joseph, William A (eds.).
Introduction to Comparative Politics
. Wadsworth.
ISBN
978-0-495-79741-8
.
- Law, David S. (2009). "The Anatomy of a Conservative Court: Judicial Review in Japan".
Texas Law Review
.
87
: 1545?1593.
SSRN
1406169
.
- "Judgment Days: Germany's Constitutional Court"
. The Economist. 28 March 2009.
- Lenaerts, Koen; Gutman, Kathleen (2006). "
'Federal Common Law' in the European Union: A Comparative Perspective from the United States".
The American Journal of Comparative Law
.
54
(1): 1?121.
doi
:
10.1093/ajcl/54.1.1
.
JSTOR
20454486
.
- Pruezel-Thomas. "The abortion issue and the federal constitutional court".
German Politics
.
2
(3).
- Johnson. "The federal constitutional court: Facing up to the strains of law and politics in the new Germany".
German Politics
.
3
(3).
External links
[
edit
]
|
---|
|
Sovereign states
| |
---|
States with limited
recognition
| |
---|
|
|
---|
Constitutional Court
| | |
---|
Supreme Courts
| |
---|
Collaborations of Supreme Courts
| |
---|
|
---|
International
| |
---|
National
| |
---|
Other
| |
---|