No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Preventive Detention.” No. 2 BvR 2365/09
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011
References
1 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], May 4,2011, No. 2 BvR 2365/09 (Ger.) (“Preventive Detention”). The basic documents, press releases, and related materials for the judgments of the Constitutional Court cited herein are available on the Court’s Web site, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/. Unless otherwise noted, translations from the German are by the authors.
2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5,213 UNTS 222 [hereinafter ECHR].
3 Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], May 23,1949, BGBL. 1. GG Article 2(2) provides: “Everyone has the right to life and to physical integrity. The freedom of the person is inviolable. Intrusion on these rights may be made only pursuant to a statute.”
4 GG Article 104(1) provides: “The liberty of the individual may be restricted only by virtue of a formal statute and only in compliance with the forms prescribed therein. Detained persons may not be subjected to mental or to physical ill treatment.”
5 The Court first enunciated the requirement oi Abstandsgebot in an earlier decision in this case. See infra note 22 and corresponding text.
6 GG Article 20(3) provides: “The legislature is bound by the constitutional order; the executive and the judiciary are bound by law and justice.”
7 Schummer v. Germany, App. Nos. 27360/04,42225/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13,2011); Mautes v. Germany, App. No. 20008/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13, 2011); Kallweit v. Germany, App. No. 17792/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13,2011).
8 M v. Germany, App. No. 19359/04 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 17, 2009).
9 Article 5(l)(c) of the European Convention, supra note 2, provides:
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
. . . (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so . . . .
10 Article 7(1) of the European Convention provides:
No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
11 M v . Germany, para. 133.
12 See Grabenwarter, Christoph, Wirkungen eines Urteils des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte—am Beispiel des Falls M. gegen Deutschland, 65 Juristen Zeitung 857 (2010)Google Scholar; Greger, Anette, Herausforderung Sicherungsverwahrung—Wie die Praxis mit der Entscheidung des EGMR (M. gegen Deutschland,) umgehen kann, 2010 Google Scholar Neue Zeitschrift Fur Strafrecht 676; Merkel, Grischa, Incompatible Contrasts?—Preventive Detention in Germany and the European Convention on Human Rights, 11 German L.J. 1046 (2010)Google Scholar.
13 BVerfG, Dec. 22, 2009, No. 2 BvR 2365/09.
14 Id, para. 3.
15 Id, para. 4.
16 See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht [OLG] [higher regional court] Celle, May 25,2010, No. 2 Ws 169-70/10; OLG Stuttgart, June 1, 2010, No. 1 Ws 57/10; OLG Koblenz, June 7, 2010, No. i Ws 108/10; OLG Nuremberg, June 24, 2010, No. 1 Ws 315/10; OLG Cologne, July 14, 2010, No. 2 Ws 428/10.
17 Schummerv. Germany, App. Nos. 27360/04,42225/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13,2011); Mautes v. Germany, App. No. 20008/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13, 2011); Kallweit v. Germany, App. No. 17792/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 13,2011).
18 See Greger, supra note 12, at 676-77.
19 Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] July 21, 2010, No. 5 StR 60/10.
20 Id., para. 17.
21 Id, para. 18.
22 BVerfG, Feb. 5, 2004, 109 BVerfGE 133.
23 The Court used the term “methodologically justifiable interpretation” in the Görgülü judgment, infra note 26 See also text at note 29 infra.
24 See, e.g., Ex-Sicherungsverwahrte unter Dauerbewachung, Rhein-Zeitung, May 4, 2011, at http://www.rhein-zeitung.de/.
25 Friedrich Holderlin, Patmos, in Hyperion and Selected Poems 245 (1990).
26 BVerfG, Oct. 14, 2004, 111 BVerfGE 289 (“Görgülü”).
27 See Jochen von, Bernstorff, Pflichtenkollision und Menschenwiirdegarantie: Zum Vorrang staatlicher Achtungspflichten im Normbereich von Art. 1 GG, 47 Der Staat 21 (2008)Google Scholar; see also Jochen, von Bernstorf F, Kerngehalte im Grund- und Menschenrechtsschutz (forthcoming 2012)Google Scholar.
28 Tomuschat, Christian, The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court, 11 German L.J. 513, 522-23 (2010)Google Scholar (quoting 111 BVerfGE 289 (315), Eng. trans, para. 29, at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/); Armin von, Bogdandy, Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship Between International and Domestic Constitutional Law, 6 Int’L J. Const. L. 397, 403 (2008)Google Scholar.
29 See note 23 supra and corresponding text.
30 Schmitz v. Germany, App. No. 30493/04, para. 41 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 9, 2011) (citation omitted).
31 Hans-Jürgen Papier was president of the Court in the period April 10, 2002-March 16,2010, during which the Görgülü ruling was handed down. Andreas Voßkuhle took over on March 16, 2010.
32 BVerfG, June 30, 2009, 123 BVerfGE 267 (holding that the Constitutional Court is competent to review whether legal acts of the European Union [EU] are compatible with the defining features of the German Basic Law—so-called constitutional identity review).
33 BVerfG, July 6,2010,2 BvR 2661 /06 (holding that while the Constitutional Court is competent to carry out ultra vires review of EU legal acts, the Court’s competence to declare an act of the EU institutions to be ultra vires is very restricted, which effectively makes that contingency remote); see Mehrdad Payandeh, Constitutional Review of EU Law After Honeywell: Contextualizing the Relationship Between the German Constitutional Court and the EU Court of Justice, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9 (2011).
34 Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2008-562DC, Feb. 21, 2008, Journal Officiel [J.O.], Feb. 26, 2008, p. 3272; see Stirn, Bernard, Les Sources Constitutionnelles Du Droit Administratif: Introduction Au Droit Public 17-18 (6th ed. 2008)Google Scholar; Bjorge, Eirik, National Supreme Courts and the Development of ECHR Rights, 9 Int’L J. Const. L. 5 (2011)Google Scholar.
35 See Stirn, Bernard, Les Libertés En Questions 73 (7th ed. 2010)Google Scholar.
36 Badinter, Robert, Les Epines Et Les Roses 240-41 (2011)Google Scholar (trans, by authors) ; see, e.g., CC decision No. 95-360DC, Feb. 2, 1995, J.O., Feb. 7, 1995, p. 2097; CC decision No. 2006-540DC, July 27, 2006, J.O., Aug. 3, 2006, p. 11,541; Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe, [untitled], in Constitutional Court Judges’ Roundtable, 3 lnt’L J. Const. L. 543, 550 (2005); Andenas, Mads & Bjorge, Eirik, Juge nationalet interpretation Svolutive de la Convention europeenne des droits de Ihomme, 2011 Revue du Droit Public 997 Google Scholar.
37 Andreas, Voßkuhle, Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund, 6 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 175 (2010)Google Scholar; Vofikuhle, Andreas, Die Landesverfassungsgerichtsbarkeit im foderalen und europaischen Verfassungsgerichtsverbund, 59 Jahrbuch Des Offentlichen Rechts Dergegenwart 215 (2011)Google Scholar.