Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T09:22:55.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking the Doctrinal System of Fundamental Rights: New Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Marion Albers

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 German doctrinal system of fundamental rights is characterized by the interplay of three components: the scope of protection, the impairment and the explicit justification of restrictions. In the traditional conception fundamental rights serve as individual rights as a defense against governmental or administrative activities which impair the protected freedom without being legitimated by the Basic Law. The impairment occupies the central role: The scope of protection shall not define but leave room for the individual freedom, and that is possible because it refers to present possibilities and to interests like self-determination, freedom of action or freedom of property. In contrast, the “impairment” is strictly defined. It is a governmental or administrative order or prohibition by or based upon law; the order or prohibition includes sanctions; it is addressed to the person protected by a specific fundamental right, and it reduces the freedom protected by this very right. In case of an impairment, the governmental or administrative act has to meet all requirements of Basic Law. One of the most important requirements is the parliamentary legal basis.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 11 , November 2002 , E7
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

(1) Gallwas, , Faktische Beeinträchtigungen im Bereich der Grundrechte 10 et. seq., 21 et. seq. (1970); Eckhoff, Der Grundrechtseingriff 175 (1992).Google Scholar

(2) BVerfGE 46, 120 (137 et. seq.); 61, 291 (308); BVerwGE 71, 183 (190 et. seq.); 75, 109 (115 et. seq.); 87, 37 (39 et. seq.); 90, 112 (118 et. seq.).Google Scholar

(3) BVerfGE 57, 295 (319 et. seq.); 73, 118 (152 et. seq.); 80, 124 (131 et. seq.).Google Scholar

(4) Albers, , “Faktische Grundrechtsbeeinträchtigungen als Schutzbereichsproblem”, 1996 DVBl 233, 236.Google Scholar

(5) BVerfG, Decisions of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91 - Glykol -, 1 BvR 670/91 - Osho -; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(6) Article 12 of the Basic Law provides for occupational freedom; Article 14 protects the right to property.Google Scholar

(7) Article 4.1 provides: “Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.”Google Scholar

(8) BVerfGE 32, 311 (317); 85, 248 (256); 94, 372 (389).Google Scholar

(9) BVerfGE 34, 252 (256).Google Scholar

(10) See also, BVerfGE 97, 125 (149); 97, 391 (403); 99, 185 (194); 101, 361 (380).Google Scholar

(11) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Paras. 41 - 46; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(12) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Para. 40; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(13) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Para. 47; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(14) BVerfGE 20, 56 (100); 44, 125 (147 et. seq.); 63, 230 (242 et. seq.).Google Scholar

(15) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Paras. 51 - 52; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(16) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Para 53 - 56; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(17) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Paras. 57 - 59; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(18) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Paras. 60 - 61; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(19) BVerfGE 68, 193 (222); 77, 84 (118); 81, 208 (227 et. seq.); 95, 173 (187 et. seq.).Google Scholar

(20) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 558, 1428/91, Para. 77; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(21) BVerfGE 12, 1 (3 et. seq.); 24, 236 (245 et. seq.); 53, 366 (387); 83, 341 (354 et. seq.); 93, 1 (15 et. seq.).Google Scholar

(22) BVerfGE 93, 1 (16 et. seq.); 102, 370 (383, 394).Google Scholar

(23) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 52 - 54; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(24) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 56 - 63; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(25) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 64 - 67; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(26) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 68 - 70; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(27) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 72 - 76; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(28) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Para. 78; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(29) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 79 - 82; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar

(30) BVerfG, Decision of 26 June 2002, 1 BvR 670/91, Paras. 83, 92; http://www.bverfg.de.Google Scholar