Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T07:40:58.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compulsory Military Service and Equal Treatment of Men and Women – Recent Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice (Alexander Dory v. Germany)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Karen Raible

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 European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided, in the case Tanja Kreil v. Germany, that Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (equal treatment directive) precludes the application of national provisions, such as those of German law, which impose a general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of arms. The ECJ found that such policies violated the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. Since this ruling both the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) and the ECJ have had to confront the question whether the German system of compulsory military service for men is compatible with Article 3.2 and 3.3 of the Grundgesetz (GG – German Basic Law) and the equal treatment directive.

Type
Public Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , 01 April 2003 , pp. 299 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v. Germany, [2000] ECR I-69.Google Scholar

2 OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.Google Scholar

3 An English translation of the German Basic Law can be found at <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/>..>Google Scholar

4 See, Russell Miller, Dodging the Draft: Federal Constitutional Court Evades Review of Germany's Military Service Law, 3 German Law Journal No. 5 (1 May 2002), <http://www.germanlawjournal.com>..>Google Scholar

5 BGBl. 1995 I, p. 1756.Google Scholar

6 FCC, 2 BvL 2/02, 2002 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift p. 1709 et seq.Google Scholar

7 The question if the the ECJ judgment in the case Tanja Kreil v. Germany necessitated an amendment to Article 12a.4 of the German Basic Law was widely debated in Germany. See, e.g., Karl Doehring, Die erste Seite: Vorwärts Amazonen, 2000 Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft No. 3.Google Scholar

8 BGBl. 2000 I, p. 1755. Article 12a.4 of the German Basic Law used to read: “If, during a state of defense, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary bases, women between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services. Under no circumstances may they render service involving the use of arms.”Google Scholar

9 FCC, 2 BvL 2/02, 2002 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift p. 1709 et seq.Google Scholar

10 BGBl. 1998 I, p. 1823. An English translation of the Federal Constitutional Court Act can be found at <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/>..>Google Scholar

11 BVerfGE 22, 199, (203et seq.); BVerfGE 39, 169 (181); BVerfGE 65, 178 (181); BVerfGE 78, 38 (48); BVerfGE 87, 341 (346); BVerfGE 94, 315 (323).Google Scholar

12 BVerfGE 12, 45 (52).Google Scholar

13 Dieter Waltz, 2002 Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht p. 173.Google Scholar

14 See, e.g., Ekardt, Felix, Wehrpflicht nur für Männer – vereinbar mit der Geschlechteregalität aus Art. 79 III GG, 2001 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt p. 1171–1179.Google Scholar

15 Case C-79/99, Julia Schnorbus v. Land Hessen, [2000] ECR I-10997. In this case, the ECJ decided that the equal treatment directive does not preclude national provisions governing the date of admission to the practical legal training which is a necessary prerequisite of access to employment in the civil service, in so far as such provisions are justified by objective reasons and prompted solely by a desire to counterbalance to some extent the delay resulting from the completion of compulsory military or civilian service.Google Scholar

16 Advocate General Stix-Hackl in case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, opinion of 28 November 2002, not yet published, para. 98 et seq.Google Scholar

17 Compulsory military service as such cannot be regarded as employment. See, e.g., Advocate General Stix-Hackl in case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, opinion of 28 November 2002, not yet published, para. 73; Carl Otto Lenz, Frauen im Dienst mit der Waffe – nationales Reservat oder europäische Gleichberechtigung?, 2000 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik p. 265, 268.Google Scholar

18 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 42: “[…] Community law does not preclude compulsory military service being reserved to men.”Google Scholar

19 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 30.Google Scholar

20 Case 222/84, Marguerite Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, [1986] ECR 1651, Rec. 26.Google Scholar

21 Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v. The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defense, [1999] I-7403, Rec. 16.Google Scholar

22 Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v. Germany, [2000] ECR I-69, Rec. 16.Google Scholar

23 See, Articles 30, 39, 46, 58 and 64 of the EC Treaty.Google Scholar

24 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 33.Google Scholar

25 Case C-273/97, Angela Maria Sirdar v. The Army Board and Secretary of State for Defense, [1999] I-7403, Rec. 28; case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v. Germany, [2000] ECR I-69, Rec. 25.Google Scholar

26 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 34.Google Scholar

27 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 35.Google Scholar

28 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 39.Google Scholar

29 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 41.Google Scholar

30 Case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, judgment of 11 March 2003, not yet published, Rec. 37 et seq. The German government stated that “the institution of [compulsory military] service makes a contribution to the democratic transparency of the military, national integration, the link between the armed forces and the population, and the mobilisation of the manpower needed by the armed forces in the event of a conflict.”Google Scholar

31 See, among others, Iris Canor, Harmonizing the European Community's Standard of Review?, 2002 European Public Law p. 135-166; Karl Doehring, Die erste Seite: Vorwärts Amazonen, 2000 Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft No. 3; Carsten Stahn, Streitkräfte im Wandel – Zu den Auswirkungen der EuGH-Urteile Sirdar und Kreil auf das deutsche Recht, 2000 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift p. 121-135; Torsten Stein, Frauen in der Bundeswehr – Anmerkung, 2000 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht p. 213–214.Google Scholar

32 Canor, Iris, Harmonizing the European Community's Standard of Review?, 2002 European Public Law p. 135, 141.Google Scholar

33 According to Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union, the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the powers of the ECJ shall not apply to the provisions on the CFSP.Google Scholar

34 See, <http://europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/offtext/doc151201_en.htm>..>Google Scholar

35 See, the reference of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in case C-186/01, Alexander Dory v. Germany, opinion of 28 November 2002, not yet published, para. 51.Google Scholar

36 CONV 369/02. An English version can be found at <http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00369en2.pdf>..>Google Scholar

37 CONV 528/03. An English version can be found at <http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/CV00528.EN03.pdf>..>Google Scholar