No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The FRAPORT Case of the First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court and its Public Forum Doctrine: Case Note
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.
The application of constitutionally granted communication-related rights assumes the existence of public space as a basic requirement for human encounters. Mass media, such as television, internet, radio, or journals, does not completely satisfy people's general communicative needs. Instead, people need actual places where they have the opportunity to confront other individuals face to face with their opinion. Indeed, some forms of communication require a more spacious area than is owned by individuals, or can only fulfill their purpose at specific locations. Protest marches or rallies, for example, are important in raising public awareness and encouraging a broader exchange of opinions with a wider circle of recipients. Public space is the site to exchange ideas and opinions and thus the location for individuals to confront the public with political disputes, societal conflicts, and other matters. Traditionally, market places, pedestrian areas, public streets, and squares offered such sites. They are not only seen as places for consumption and means of transportation, but also as places of communication and human encounters. Hence, in this capacity, public space is the prerequisite for the actualization of the freedom of assembly and general communication-related rights, which on their part—and thereby also the existence of public forums—are the foundations of democratic decision-making and can be seen as a constituting element of a free democratic basic order.
- Type
- Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 233/81, 1 BvR 341/81, BVerfGE 69, 315, 344 et seq. (May 14, 1985).Google Scholar
2 For example, the Sony Center at Potsdamer Platz, Berlin.Google Scholar
3 See Frankfurtrheinmain, http://www.frankfurt-rhein-main.net/en/node/465 (last visited Aug. 28, 2014).Google Scholar
4 See Gateway Gardens, http://www.gateway-gardens.de/?p=projektpartner (last visited Aug. 28, 2014).Google Scholar
5 In 1645, the company Braintree Iron Works established the first company town in the United States. See Margaret Crawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns 2 (1995). At the height of company towns, 2,500 were owned privately and inhabited by approximately 3% of the population in the United States. Hardy Green, The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy 3, 6 (2010); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 508 (1946) [hereinafter Marsh].Google Scholar
6 Marsh, 326 U.S. 501, set a precedent for the right to exercise communication rights on the sidewalk of privately owned company. The Supreme Court ruled that a privately owned company town is a functional equivalent to a public town and thus this distribution of leaflets cannot be prohibited.Google Scholar
7 See Gericke, Carsten, “Territorien des Wohlfühlens” durch sozialen Ausschluss, Forum Recht (2002), available at http://www.forum-recht-online.de/2002/302/302gericke.htm.Google Scholar
8 At the time of the decision the federal shares of the company had been sold and the State Hesse and the City of Frankfurt am Main together owned 52% of the shares.Google Scholar
9 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, BVerfGE 128, 226, para. 6 (Feb. 22, 2011).Google Scholar
10 Id. at para. 7.Google Scholar
11 Id. at para. 10.Google Scholar
12 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 11.Google Scholar
13 Id. Google Scholar
14 Id. at para. 13.Google Scholar
15 Article 8.1 of the Grundgesetz (hereinafter Basic Law) reads: “All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission.” Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I (Ger.).Google Scholar
16 Article 5.1, first clause, of the Basic Law reads: “Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources.” Id. Google Scholar
17 Article 1.3 of the Basic Law reads: “The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.” Id. Google Scholar
18 See the seminal decision in the Lüth case, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 400/51, BVerfGE 7, 198, 205 et seq. (Jan. 15, 1958); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 487/80, BVerfGE 73, 261, 269 (Apr. 23, 1986). See also Jacco Bomhoff, Lüth's 50th Anniversary: Some Comparative Observations on the German Foundations on Judicial Balancing, 9 German L.J. 121–124 (2008), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=900.Google Scholar
19 Philipp-L. Krüger, Versammlungsfreiheit in privatisierten öffentlichen Räumen, in DÖV 837, 842 (2012).Google Scholar
20 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 50; Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court – BVerwG], Case No. 1 D 88/97, BVerwGE 113, 208, 211 (Mar. 18, 1998); Horst Dreier, Commentary on Article 1.3 BL, in 1 Grundgesetz Kommentar, para. 69 (Horst Dreier ed., 2013).Google Scholar
21 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 52.Google Scholar
22 Id. Google Scholar
23 Id. at para. 53.Google Scholar
24 See Dreier, Horst, Commentary on Article 1.3 BL, in 1 Grundgesetz Kommentar, para. 72 (Horst Dreier ed., 2013).Google Scholar
25 Cf. BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at paras. 113 et seq. (Schluckebier, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
26 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 59.Google Scholar
27 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 233/81, 1 BvR 341/81, BVerfGE 69, 315, 343 (May 14, 1985).Google Scholar
28 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 65.Google Scholar
29 Id. at para. 67.Google Scholar
30 Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court – BVerwG], Case No. 7 C 34/91, BVerwGE 91, 135 (Oct. 29, 1992).Google Scholar
31 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 68.Google Scholar
32 Id. at 70 (quoting the Supreme Court of the United States, Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness (ISKON) v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)).Google Scholar
33 See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 70.Google Scholar
34 Id. Google Scholar
35 Id. Google Scholar
36 See id. at para. 119.Google Scholar
37 Id. at paras. 69 et seq. Google Scholar
38 Id. at para. 72. But see BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 120 (Schluckebier, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
39 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 92.Google Scholar
40 Id. at paras. 69, 72.Google Scholar
41 Id. at para. 72. Meanwhile, the wording is more cautious. See Frankfurt Airport, http://www.frankfurt-airport.com/content/frankfurt_airport/en/shop_enjoy0/Shopping-Areas/Public-Area/airport-city-mall.html (last visited Aug. 28, 2014).Google Scholar
42 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 72.Google Scholar
43 Id. at para. 68.Google Scholar
44 Id. at para. 72.Google Scholar
45 See, e.g., H. Schulze-Fielitz, Commentary on Article 8 BL, 1 Grundgesetz Kommentar, para. 66 (H. Dreier ed., 2013).Google Scholar
46 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 77.Google Scholar
47 Id. at paras. 88 et seq. Google Scholar
48 Id. at para. 89.Google Scholar
49 Id. at paras. 91 et seq. Google Scholar
50 Id. at para. 68.Google Scholar
51 Id. at para. 98.Google Scholar
52 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 103.Google Scholar
53 With regards to judicial globalization and increasingly global constitutional jurisprudence, see Anne-Marie Slaughter, Judges: Constructing a Global Legal System, in A New World Order 65 et seq. (2004). She suggests— among other things—that these principles are explicitly written down in newer constitutions. For example, Section 9 (Interpretation of Bill of Rights) of the new South African Constitution requires the South African Constitutional Court to “consider international law” and permits the Court to consult foreign law in its human rights decisions. Id. Google Scholar
54 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 400/51, BVerfGE 7, 198, 205 et seq. (Jan. 15, 1958). Here, the FCC reasoned with the frequently cited formulation from Justice Cardozo in Palko v. State of Connecticut in order to demonstrate the special significance of the freedom of opinion for a free and democratic state: “Of that freedom one may say that it is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937)Google Scholar
55 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at paras 113 et seq. Google Scholar
56 The FCC seems to have been aware of the fact that the criterion of controlling influence might not be sustainable: “Whether or not this criterion should be expanded on in special cases does not need to be decided here.” See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 53.Google Scholar
57 Hauptbahnhof, Stuttgart, http://www.einkaufsbahnhof.de/de/stuttgart/erleben/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2014).Google Scholar
58 Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart [VG – Administrative Trial Court], Case No. 5 K 691/12 (Mar. 2, 2012). Also assumed for Frankfurt am Main airport. BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 120 (Schluckebier, J., dissenting) (Feb. 22, 2011).Google Scholar
59 Gericke, Carsten, “Territorien des Wohlfühlens” durch sozialen Ausschluss, Forum Recht (2002), available at http://www.forum-recht-online.de/2002/302/302gericke.htm.Google Scholar
60 Recently other administrative courts have started to use the term public forum but without further specifying the concept. See Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig [VG – Administrative Trial Court], Case No. 5 A 100/10 (Oct. 6, 2011) (stating that the area Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries is not accessible for general traffic); Verwaltungsgericht Berlin [VG – Administrative Trial Court], Case No. VG 1 L 102.12, (May 19, 2012) (stating that public green areas are only available for limited designated purposes); Verwaltungsgericht Augsburg [VG – Administrative Trial Court], Case No. Au 1 S 13.1314 (Sept. 2, 2013) (stating that Park & Ride parking lots are not a forum for communication).Google Scholar
61 BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 699/06, at para. 122.Google Scholar
62 This argument was brought up by the complainant's representatives in the Fraport case.Google Scholar
You have
Access