No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rethinking Judicial Review: The Latest Decision of the Plenum of the Federal Constitutional Court
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.
In the past few years, almost half of the Verfassungsbeschwerden (individual constitutional complaints) brought before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG –Federal Constitutional Court) claimed a violation of the Recht auf rechtliches Gehör (right to a hearing in court), guaranteed in Art. 103 para. 1 of the Grundgesetz (GG – German Basic Law). These constitutional complaints do not only constitute the largest number of all constitutional complaints, they are also the most successful ones: If such a violation is plausible, then the Court usually does not make use of its discretion to refuse to hear the case, but rules on the merits in favor of the complainants.
- Type
- Public Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 See, Wagner, Der Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör, 2nd edition, Cologne 2000, at 498.Google Scholar
2 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), decision of April 30th, 2003, 1 PBvU 1/02; http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/frames/up20030430_1pbvu000102.html, NJW 2003, 1924 A commentary on the decision gives Voßkuhle, NJW 2003, 2193.Google Scholar
3 Reported in BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
4 Reported in BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
5 About € 30,000. The case was decided before the introduction of the Euro to Germany and the change of the Civil Procedure Act. Now, the revision is only possible with the permit from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in Civil Matters according to sect. 543 para.1 ZPO.Google Scholar
6 So reported in BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
7 BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
8 BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
9 BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
10 See, e.g., BGHZ 109, 41 = NJW 1990, 840.Google Scholar
11 BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
12 BGH NJW 1999, 290.Google Scholar
13 According to Art. 93 section 1 Nr. 4a GG, sect. 13 Nr. 8a and sect. 90 ff. BVerfGG.Google Scholar
14 This article reads: “Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör“, that is “Everybody has a right to hearing in court”.Google Scholar
15 Although the first senate still has to deliver a final decision on the complaint, it will have to do so based on the plenary decision. The violation of the right to a hearing in court was not doubted; thus cancellation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals will be the legal consequence, compare sect. 95 para. 2 BVerfGG.Google Scholar
16 BVerfG v. 30.04.2003 – 1 PBvU 1/02.Google Scholar
17 See, e.g., BVerfGE 4, 27, and BVerfGE 54, 277.Google Scholar
18 Sub A II 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
19 Sub A II 1 b) of the decision.Google Scholar
20 Vorlagebeschluss (Submission Decision) of January 16th, 2002, - 1 BvR 10/99 - BVerfGE 104, 357.Google Scholar
21 Under C IV 3) of the decision, final sentence.Google Scholar
22 Sub C of the decision, introductory sentence.Google Scholar
23 Sub C II of the decision.Google Scholar
24 Sub C I of the decision.Google Scholar
25 The relevant part of Art. 19 para. 4 reads: “Wird jemand durch die öffentliche Gewalt in seinen Rechten verletzt, so steht ihm der Rechtsweg offen. […]“, that is “Should any person's rights be violated by state acts, recourse to the courts shall be open to him. [….]”Google Scholar
26 BVerfGE 15, 275, 280; 65, 76, 90; so the present president of the Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, in Josef Isensee/Paul Kirchhof (eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, volume 6, 2nd edition, Heidelberg 2001, § 154 at 37 through 39: Rechtsschutzgarantie gegen die öffentliche Gewalt, at 37; Hans D. Jarass/Bodo Pieroth, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 6th edition, Munich 2002, Art. 19 at 31; Bodo Pieroth/Bernhard Schlink, Grundrechte, 14th edition, Heidelberg 1998, at 1082; Wolf-Rüdiger Schenke, in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 105th installment, Heidelberg May 2003, Art. 19 para. 4 at 275; differentiating Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann in Maunz-Dürig, Grundgesetz Kommentar, 42nd installment, Munich February 2003, Art. 19 para 4 at 98, who almost anticipated the line of argumentation of the Constitutional Court, when commenting on the just published decision of the first senate.Google Scholar
27 Sub A II 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
28 Compare Peter Michael Huber in Herman von Mangoldt/Friedrich Klein/Christian Starck, Grundgesetz, 4th edition, Munich 1999, Art. 19 para. 4 at 447; undecided Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz, in Horst Dreier (Ed.), Grundgesetz Kommentar, volume 1, Art. 19 para. 4 at 35; extensively Voßkuhle, Rechtsschutz gegen den Richter, München 1993, S. 255 ff.Google Scholar
29 See, e.g., Hans-Jürgen Papier, in Josef Isensee/Paul Kirchhof (eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, volume 6, 2nd edition, Heidelberg 2001, § 154 at 37; Georg Nolte in Hermann von Mangoldt/Friedrich Klein/Christian Starck, Grundgesetz, Art. 103 para. 1 at 81; Wolf-Rüdiger Schenke, in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Art. 19 para. 4, at 275.Google Scholar
30 See only Wolf-Rüdiger Schenke, in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Art. 19 para. 4, at 275.Google Scholar
31 So e.g Peter Michael Huber in Herman von Mangoldt/Friedrich Klein/Christian Starck, Grundgesetz, 4th edition, Munich 1999, Art. 19 para. 4 at 447; undecided Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz, in Horst Dreier (Ed.), Grundgesetz Kommentar, volume 1, Art. 19 para. 4 at 35; extensively Voßkuhle, Rechtsschutz gegen den Richter, München 1993, S. 255 ff.Google Scholar
32 Sub C I 3 b) of the decision.Google Scholar
33 Sub C I 3 b) of the decision.Google Scholar
34 Sub C I 3 b) aa) of the decision.Google Scholar
35 Sub C I 3 a) of the decision.Google Scholar
36 Sub C I 3 b) bb) of the decision.Google Scholar
37 Sub C I 3 b) bb) of the decision.Google Scholar
38 Sub C I 3 b) bb) of the decision.Google Scholar
39 C I 3 of the decision, introductory sentence.Google Scholar
40 BVerfGE 88, 118, 123; 93, 99, 107; 97, 169, 185.Google Scholar
41 Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, in Maunz-Dürig, Grundgesetz Kommentar, 42nd installment, Munich February 2003, Art. 19 para.4 at 16.Google Scholar
42 Sub C I 3 b) bb) (1) of the decision.Google Scholar
43 C I 3 b) bb) (2) of the decision.Google Scholar
44 C II 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
45 C I 3 b) bb) (2) of the decision.Google Scholar
46 Under C II 5 of the decision.Google Scholar
47 Sub C I 4 of the decision.Google Scholar
48 Sub C II of the decision, introductory sentence, and C II 1.Google Scholar
49 Under C II 1 b) of the decision: only minimum standard must be guaranteed.Google Scholar
50 Sub C I 4 of the decision.Google Scholar
51 Under C II 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
52 Under C II 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
53 See, e.g., only BVerfGE 24, 367, 407; 49, 252, 257; Walter Krebs in Ingo von Münch/Philip Kunig (Eds.), Grundgesetzkommentar, 5th edition, Munich 2000, Art.19 at 47.Google Scholar
54 See, e.g., Roman Herzog in Maunz-Dürig, Grundgesetz Kommentar, 18th installment, Munich September 1980, Art. 20 at 40.Google Scholar
55 This is generally argued for Art. 19 para. 4 GG, compare e.g. Hinrich Rüping, in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Art. 103 para. 1 at 13; Georg Nolte in Hermann von Mangoldt/Friedrich Klein/Christian Starck, Grundgesetz, Art. 103 para. 1 at 89; Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, in Maunz-Dürig, Grundgesetz Kommentar, 42nd installment, Munich February 2003, Art. 19 para. 4 at19.Google Scholar
56 Under C IV of the decision.Google Scholar
57 Sub C IV 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
58 See, e.g., of the many decisions regarding this issue BVerfGE 9, 89; 42, 243; 47, 182; 49, 252; 60, 96; 73, 322; 70, 180.Google Scholar
59 See, e.g., BVerfGE 60, 96, 98; 70, 180, 187; 73, 322, 327.Google Scholar
60 Sub C III 2 of the decision.Google Scholar
61 Under C III 2 a) bb)Google Scholar
62 Sub C III 2 a) bb) of the decision.Google Scholar
63 C IV 1 of the decision.Google Scholar
64 C IV 2 b) of the decision.Google Scholar
65 Sub C III 1 a) of the decision.Google Scholar
66 See, only Franz-Ludwig Knemeyer, in Josef Isensee/Paul Kirchhof (eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, volume 6, § 155: Rechtliches Gehör im Gerichtsverfahren, at 33 ff.Google Scholar
67 C IV 3 of the decision.Google Scholar
68 Under C IV 2 a) of the decision.Google Scholar
69 Sub C IV 2 of the decision.Google Scholar
70 C IV 2 a) of the decision.Google Scholar
71 BVerfGE 88, 118; 93, 99; 97, 169; 101, 397.Google Scholar
You have
Access