¹ Decision of 5th December 2002 (2 BvL 5/98 und 2 BvL 6/98) (see: www.bverfg.de). In the following text I refer to the decision by citing its paragraphs.Google Scholar

² See only Wolfgang Loewer, Wasserverbandsrecht, in: Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht, para. 17 (Norbert Achterberg / Guenter Puettner / Thomas Wuertenberger eds., 2000).Google Scholar

³ The provisions are also binding for the state structure of the Laender (Article 28.3 of the Basic Law); see BVerfGE 9, 268 (281); 83, 60 (71); 93, 37 (66).Google Scholar

⁴ Klein, Eckart, Die verfassungsrechtliche Problematik des ministerialfreien Raumes (1974); Janbernd Oebbecke, Weisungs- und unterrichtungsfreie Raeume in der Verwaltung (1986); about the specific problem of the Bundesbank: BVerwGE 41, 334 (354 et seq.); Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, Deutsche Bundesbank und Demokratieprinzip, Berlin 1997; Klaus Stern, Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Vol. II, p. 491 et. seq. (1980).Google Scholar

⁵ BVerfGE 83, 60; 83, 37; Brun-Otto Bryde, 1989 JZ p. 257; Josef Isensee, in Staat, Kirche, Wissenschaft in einer pluralistischen Gesellschaft. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Paul Mikat (in: Dieter Schwab / Dieter Giesen / Joseph Listl / Hans-Wolfgang Straetz eds., 1989) p. 705; Helmut Quaritsch, 1983 DÖV 1983 p. 1; Helmut Rittstieg, 1991 DuR p. 10; Hans Heinrich Rupp, 1989 ZRP 1989 p. 363.Google Scholar

⁶ BVerfGE 9, 268 (281 et seq.); 93, 37 (66); Wolfgang Daeubler, 1988 PersR p. 65 et seq.; Jens Kersten 2002 ZBR 2002 p. 28; Helmut Lecheler, 1986 NJW p. 1079; Walter Leisner, Mitbestimmung im oeffentlichen Dienst (1970); Fritz Ossenbuehl, Grenzen der Mitbestimmung im oeffentlichen Dienst (1986). About the specific questions concerning co-determination in publicly owned companies: Florian Becker, 2001 ZögU p. 1; Dirk Ehlers, 1987 JZ p. 218 (225), Fritz Ossenbuehl, 1996 ZGR p. 504; Guenther Puettner, 1984 DVBl. p. 165 (166); Ralf Schaefer, Mitbestimmung in kommunalen Eigengesellschaften (1988).Google Scholar

⁷ BVerfGE 44, 125; 47, 253; 83, 37 and 60; 89, 155; 93, 37.Google Scholar

⁸ See Ernst-Wolfgang Boeckenfoerde, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts Vol. I, § 22 (Josef Isensee / Paul Kirchhof eds., 2nd ed., 1995)Google Scholar

⁹ See BVerfGE 83, 60 (73); 93, 37 (67).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See BVerfGE 93, 37 (67 et seq.).Google Scholar

¹¹ About this topic see only Winfried Kluth, Funktionale Selbstverwaltung (1997).Google Scholar

¹² Para. 161 et seq. and para. 167 of the decision.Google Scholar

¹³ Peter Unruh, 2001 VerwArch p. 531 (542).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Emde, Ernst Thomas, Die demokratische Legitimation der funktionalen Selbstverwaltung p. 366 (1991); Reinhard Hendler, Selbstverwaltung als Ordnungsprinzip p. 284 (1984); Matthias Jestaedt, Demokratieprinzip und Kondominialverwaltung p. 71 (1993); Unruh at p. 536, supra note 13.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Kluth at p. 12 et seq., supra note 12. Especially about the criteria of being affected by a certain subject matter: Roman Herzog, in Grundgesetz, Art. 20 II para. 59 (T. Maunz / G. Duerig et alt., 2003); Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, in Gedaechtnisschrift fuer Wolfgang Martens, 249 (253) (Peter Selmer / Ingo v. Muench eds., 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Para. 170 et seq. of the decision.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See BVerfGE 33, 125 (158 et seq.); 34, 136 (192); 49, 89 (127); 83, 130 (142) and Hans Herbert v. Arnim, 1987 DVBl. p. 1241; Juergen Staupe, Parlamentsvorbehalt und Delegationsbefugnis p. 136 et seq.; Dieter C. Umbach, Dieter, in Festschrift Hans-Joachim Faller p. 111 (Wolfgang Zeidler / Theodor Maunz / Gerd Roellecke eds., 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁸ BVerfGE 38, 281 (299).Google Scholar

¹⁹ That was said by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht which had laid the decision before the constitutional court; see BVerwG 106, 64 (77 et seq.).Google Scholar

²⁰ Hendler at p. 318, supra note 14; Hans Hugo Klein, in Festschrift fuer Ernst Forsthoff zum 70. Geburtstag p. 165 (179, note 71) (Roman Schnur ed., 1972); Ulrich Scheuner, in Gedaechtnisschrift fuer Hans Peters, p. 797 (815) (Helmut Conrad / Hermann Jahrreiß / Paul Mikat / Hans Carl Nipperdey eds., 1967).Google Scholar

²¹ See e.g. BVerfGE 10, 89 (103); 24, 367; 58, 34; BVerwGE 3, 1.Google Scholar

²² See the text at notes 33 et seq. of this article.Google Scholar

²³ Para. 167 of the decision.Google Scholar

²⁴ Expressly conceded in Para. 172 of the decision.Google Scholar

²⁵ Para. 168 of the decision.Google Scholar

²⁶ It has to be noted that the representatives of the working forces in the bodies organs are not directly elected by their fellows. A proposal of candidates has to be made by the regular workers representation body (existing in every branch of the public administration) consisting twice as many candidates as posts are to be staffed. Finally, the representatives of the working forces are elected by the assembly of members.Google Scholar

²⁷ In Para. 184 of the decision the court says that this organisational modification of the self-administrating bodies is still within the framework of the constitution.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Hendler at p. 302 et seq., supra note 14.Google Scholar

²⁹ Similarly Emde, supra note 14.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Winfried Brohm, Strukturen der Wirtschaftsverwaltung, p. 253 et seq.; Emde at p. 382 et seq., 316, supra note 14; see also Jestaedt at p. 492 et seq., supra note 14; M. Kleine-Cosack, Berufsstaendische Autonomie und Grundgesetz, S. 102 et seq., 117 et seq., 181 et seq.; Kluth at p. 236 et seq., supra note 11; Hendler at page 312 et seq., supra note 14; Ossenbuehl, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts Vol. III, § 66 para. 24 (Josef Isensee / Paul Kirchhof eds., 2nd ed., 1996); Matthias Papenfuß, Die personellen Grenzen der Autonomie oeffentlich-rechtlicher Koerperschaften p. 150 et seq. (1991).Google Scholar

³¹ See Hendler, Reinhard, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts Vol. IV, § 106 para. 48 et seq. (Josef Isensee / Paul Kirchhof eds., 2nd ed., 2000).Google Scholar

³² Starck, Christian, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts Vol. II, § 29 para. 35 (Josef Isensee / Paul Kirchhof eds., 2nd ed., 1998).Google Scholar

³³ By doing so, the court follows a new eyplanatory pattern for the democratic legitimation of self-administrating bodies established by W. Kluth at p. 373 et seq, supra note 11. If the idea of personal democratic legitimation rests upon the fact that the individual any public power is conferred upon has to be selected personally by another individual ranking higher in the chain of democratic legitimation, in cases of self-administrating bodies Kluth sees this act of selection already made by the establishing statute in an abstract manner. But his concept rests upon the idea that the parliament is allowed to waive its competences (“Verzichtstheorie”, see Peter Badura, in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Art. 38 para 31 et seq. (Rudolf Dolzer / Klaus Vogel / Karin Graßhof eds. 1966); Klein at p. 197, supra note 4; against this theory: Emde at 309 et seq., supra note 14). Furthermore, it mingles the concepts of personal and factual democratic legitimation without justifying this step properly.Google Scholar

³⁴ It has been brought forward that the individuals united as members of such a body may be an alternate source of democratic legitimation as being a “people” in the sense of Article 20.2(1) of the Basic Law; see for this Brohm at p. 243 et seq., supra note 30; Emde, at p. 383 et seq., supra note 14; Herzog at para. 58, supra note 15; Kleine-Cosack at p. 117 et seq., supra note 30; Oebbecke at p. 88 et seq., supra note 4. Comprehensively against that idea: Jestaedt at p. 216 et seq., supra note 14.Google Scholar

³⁵ As the members of the bodies are not personally legitimated themselves they cannot transfer any personal legitimation to the representatives of the working forces even if they get elected by the members’ assembly and not by the working forces themselves.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Boeckenfoerde at para. 25, supra note 8; Klaus Stern, Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Vol. I, p. 402 (2nd ed., 1984); Jestaedt at p. 552, supra note 14.Google Scholar

³⁷ BVerfGE 93, 37 (69).Google Scholar

³⁸ BVerfGE 93, 37 (71 et seq.).Google Scholar

³⁹ Lecheler at p. 1081 et seq., supra note 6.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See about its meaning for the justification of co-determination in the public administration: BVerwGE 62, 55 (63); Gunter Kisker, 1985 PersV p. 137 (140 et seq.); Schmitt Glaeser, 1973 VVDStRL Vol. 31 (1973), p. 179 (232).Google Scholar

⁴¹ ”The dignity of man is inviolable.“.Google Scholar

⁴² ”Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.“.Google Scholar

⁴³ See only Ossenbuehl at p. 15 et seq., 26 et seq., supra note 6.Google Scholar