No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Protection of Juveniles in Germany – A Report on the New Legislation
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 April, 2002, a 19 year-old pupil ran amok in a high school in Erfurt, killing several teachers and fellow pupils. The young man was reported to have played computer games, in particular games known as “ego-shooter,” quite excessively. These tragic events fueled the plans of the German government and the Federal states to reform the law for the protection of children and young persons. The legislative machinery issued new legislation at a rather impressive pace. Only one year after the tragedy in Erfurt, on 1 April 2003, two major legal documents entered into force: the Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG – Juvenile Protection Act) of the Federal government and the Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag (JMStV – Agreement of the German Federal States regarding the Protection of Human Dignity and Juveniles in Radio and Televised Media). This complicated two-fold structure stems from the federal nature of the German state where the competence to legislate is divided between the Federal Government and the individual Laender (Federal States). The latter, in order to achieve uniformity among themselves and reaching the breadth of the Germany territory, must cooperate and legislate in the form of an interstate agreement. The JuSchG regulates mainly the protection of juveniles in the public and limits the distribution of items, which have been determined to be dangerous, like printed material, videos, DVDs or CD-Roms. In contrast thereto the JMStV pertains to the protection of juveniles in the radio broadcasting industry and in the so called “Telemedia,” in particular the internet. In the following, we will give a short overview of the developments wrought by these new laws.
- Type
- Public Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Compare e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/27/germany.shooting/ (visited 26 May 2003).Google Scholar
2 Video games which show the hand with a weapon on the bottom of the screen and demand the player to destroy human beings out of the player's own perspective are called “ego-shooter”.Google Scholar
3 Cf. www.bundesregierung.de/dokumente/,-476458/Pressemitteilung.htm (visited 16 May 2003)Google Scholar
4 Of 23 July 2002; Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) 2002 Vol. I, p. 2730.Google Scholar
5 Bayerisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt (GVBl.) No. 5/2003, p. 147 = Niedersächsisches. GVBl. No. 31/2002, p. 706.Google Scholar
6 Cf. the commentaries to the old law (JÖSchG): Scholz, Jugendschutz, 3rd ed. München 1999, p. 1; Gernert/Stoffers, JÖSchG-Kommentar, Düsseldorf 1993; Steindorf in: Erbs/Kohlhaas, Strafrechtliche Nebengesetze J 215, München, 1995; Liesching, Das Deutsche Bundesrecht V G 70, Baden-Baden, 2001.Google Scholar
7 §§ 4, 5, 6 of the JuSchG; previously § 1, 10 JÖSchG.Google Scholar
8 §§ 7, 8 JuSchG; previously § 1, 10 JÖSchG.Google Scholar
9 Cf. the statistics reprinted in the travaux préparatoire, in Bundestagsdrucksachen (hereinafter: BT-Drs.) 14/9013, p. 19.Google Scholar
10 § 9 JÖSchG (see above Fn. 6)Google Scholar
11 Compare Scholz (Fn. 6), § 9, MN (Marginal Number) 1; Steindorf (Fn. 6), § 9 MN 3; Liesching (Fn. 6), p. 15.Google Scholar
12 As did the predecessor law, the new statute entails an order not to allow minors under 16 to smoke in public, which comes into play, when the juvenile is already in possession of tobacco, see BT-Drs. 9/1992, p. 15.Google Scholar
13 See BT-Drs. 10/2546, p. 18.Google Scholar
14 The norm is probably in conformity with the constitution because the colossal health risks which come within the ambit of Art. 2 (I) Grundgesetz (Basic Law) outweigh the economic interests of the industry which are nevertheless protected by Art. 12 and 14 Grundgesetz.Google Scholar
15 See BT-Drs. 14/9013, p. 20.Google Scholar
16 See BT-Drs. 14/9013, p. 20.Google Scholar
17 Compare § 14 (I) S. 2 JuSchG-Draft, reprinted in BT-Drs. 14/9013, p. 6.Google Scholar
18 See ECJ, 5 October 2000, C-376/98 (Germany v. European Parliament and Council), reprinted in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (hereinafter: NJW) 2000, 3701.Google Scholar
19 There exists a general prohibition of advertising tobacco on radio and television according to § 22 (I) Lebensmittel- und Bedarfsgegenständegesetzes (LMBG); similarly for “Telemedien”, see § 6 (V) S. 2 JMStV; as concerns “Printmedien”: § 22 (II) LMBG and Bundesgerichtshof (henceforth: BGH), Aktenzeichen (File No.) I ZR 275/91 and 176/91.Google Scholar
20 § 1 (I) No 4 JuSchG.Google Scholar
21 Cf. Liesching (Fn. 6), p. 15.Google Scholar
22 Cf. Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht (BayObLG) in: Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht – Rechtsprechungsreport (NStZ-RR) 1996, 280 = Gewerbe Archiv (GewArch) 1996, 211; more restricted as to the former law Scholz (Fn. 6), § 2 MN. 2b.Google Scholar
23 Cf. Liesching (Fn. 6), p. 12.Google Scholar
24 Cf. Liesching (Fn. 6), p. 12.Google Scholar
25 See Scholz (Fn.4), § 2 MN. 3.Google Scholar
26 Cf. Liesching (Fn. 6), p. 12.Google Scholar
27 To pinpoint the exact provision is not easy. It is either the general competence to legislate in the field of criminal law according to Art. 74 (I) No 1 or it stems from the power to legislate in the field of youth welfare according to Art. 74 (I) No 7 of the Grundgesetz. Despite criticism this must be seen as generally accepted as the Federal Constitutional Court has accepted this reading of Art. 74 (I) No. 7 in BVerfGE 31, 113, 117; critical Degenhart, in: Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz, 3rd ed. München 2002, Art. 74 MN 33.Google Scholar
28 The competence to legislate in the area of protection of children and young persons is discussed by Liesching, Zur Gesetzgebungskompetenz der Bundesländer für den Bereich “Jugendschutz in Rundfunk und Telemedien”, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM) 2002, 868; Reinwald, Jugendmedienschutz im Telekommunikationsbereich in Bundeskompetenz?, ZUM 2002, 119; Meyer-Hesemann, Kompetenzprobleme beim Jugendschutz im Rundfunk, Deutsche Verwaltungsblätter (DVBl) 1986, 1181; Ory, Jugendschutz in Neuen Medien, ZUM 1986, 123, 126.Google Scholar
29 The difficult term “Trägermedien” is further explained by Liesching, Das neue Jugendschutzgesetz, NJW 2002, 3281, 3282 f.Google Scholar
30 Cf. § 1 (II) S. 1 JuSchG.Google Scholar
31 Cf. Hartstein/Ring/Kreile/Dörr/Stettner, RStV-Kommentar, April 2000, § 2 MN. 5.Google Scholar
32 Compare § 2 Teledienste-Gesetz (TDG)/Mediendienste-Staatsvertrag (MDStV).Google Scholar
33 Cf. §§ 2 TDG/MDStV; in further detail Meier, § 2 MDStV MN. 49 et subs. and Spindler, § 2 TDG MN. 54 et subs., both in: Roßnagel (ed), Recht der Multimedia-Dienste, München Nov. 2000; further Engel-Flechsig/Maennel/Tettenborn, IuKDG-Kommentar, München 2001, § 2 TDG MN. 47 et subs.Google Scholar
34 Cf. § 14 (II) No. 1-4 JuSchG.Google Scholar
35 See § 14 (II) No. 5 JuSchG; the terminological modifications are explained in the travaux préparatoire: BT-Drs. 14/9013, p. 22.Google Scholar
36 Cf. § 28 (I) No 15, (V) JuSchG.Google Scholar
37 This is made possible by § 14 (VI) JuSchG.Google Scholar
38 Cf. Stelkens/Bonk/Sachs, VwVfG-Kommentar, 6th ed. München 2001, § 1 MN 231 et subs.Google Scholar
39 See BayObLG Jugendmedienschutz-Report (hereinafter: JMS-Report) 1/2003, p. 57; VGH Mannheim GewArch 2001, 479; VG Karlsruhe JMS-Report 5/2001, 9, 61; VG Düsseldorf JMS-Report 1/2002, 8; VG Ansbach NVwZ 2002, 352; LG Stuttgart JMS-Report 6/2002, 60; AG Erlangen, Urt. v. 20. 9. 2001 – 4 Ds 651 Js 48511/00; this is in conformity with the constitution, see Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) GewArch 1988, 369 f.; a different opinion is held by Meirowitz, Gewaltdarstellungen auf Videokassetten, Berlin 1993, 252.Google Scholar
40 Compare § 12 (IV) JuSchG.Google Scholar
41 Compare § 12 (IV) JuSchG.Google Scholar
42 Compare § 12 (IV) JuSchG.Google Scholar
43 Cf. Liesching, Jugendschutzrecht-Kommentar, München 2003 (forthcoming), § 12 MN 19.Google Scholar
44 Compare § 21 (IV) JuSchG.Google Scholar
45 Compare § 15 (I) JuSchG.Google Scholar
46 As to the limitations on the distribution, see Scholz (Fn. 6), Comments to §§ 3-5 GjSM; Steindorf (Fn. 6), Comments to §§ 3-5 GjSM; Gödel in: Löffler (ed), Presserecht, 4th ed. München 1997, JSchutz BT Comments to §§ 3-5; Liesching, Jugendmedienschutz in Deutschland und Europa, 2002, 130 et subs.Google Scholar
47 Cf. BT-Drs. 14/9013, p. 16, 25.Google Scholar
48 This is expressed in a rather complicated way in § 18 (II) JuSchG.Google Scholar
49 § 18 (II) No 1, 2 JuSchG.Google Scholar
50 § 18 (II) No 3, 4 JuSchG.Google Scholar
51 § 15 (I) JuSchG.Google Scholar
52 § 4 (I) S. 1 No. 11, (II) S. 1 No. 2 JMStV.Google Scholar
53 See § 4 (III) JMStV; critical in this regard is Bornemann, Der Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag der Länder, NJW 2003, 787, 789.Google Scholar
54 Cf. § 4 (I) S. 1 No 11, (II) S. 1 No 2 JMStV.Google Scholar
55 For further elaboration see below 8; the discrimination between radio and “Telemedia” is criticised as unjustified by Kreile/Diesbach, Der neue Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag – was ändert sich für den Rundfunk?, ZUM 2002, 849, 850.Google Scholar
56 §§ 12 (III) No. 2, 15 (I) No. 3 JuSchG.Google Scholar
57 See OLG Düsseldorf NJW 1984, 1977; BVerfG NJW 1982, 1512; more detailed: Eckstein, Pornographie und Versandhandel, wistra 1997, 47.Google Scholar
58 See Liesching (Fn. 16), NJW 2002, 3281, 3284.Google Scholar
59 § 1 (IV) JuSchG, see also § 4 (II) S. 2 JMStV.Google Scholar
60 Compare § 7 JÖSchG and § 4 (I) No 3 GjSM.Google Scholar
61 See below Section 8. and Liesching (Fn. 16), NJW 2002, 3281, 3284.Google Scholar
62 § 15 (II) No 1-5 JuSchG.Google Scholar
63 §§ 15 (II) and 15 (I) JuSchG.Google Scholar
64 Compare § 1 (II) 1 JuSchG.Google Scholar
65 Cf. § 4 (I) and (II) JMStV.Google Scholar
66 § 15 (II) No 2 JuSchG.Google Scholar
67 § 15 (II) No 2 JuSchG.Google Scholar
68 § 4 (I) S. 1 No 7 JMStV.Google Scholar
69 Compare Bundesverwaltungsgericht in: BVerwGE 23 112, 115; 28, 61Google Scholar
70 See Liesching (Fn. 16), NJW 2002, 3281, 3285.Google Scholar
71 Compare Bundesverwaltungsgericht in: BVerwGE 23 112, 115; 28, 61; and Scholz (Fn. 6), § 1 GjSM MN. 5 e.Google Scholar
72 BVerwGE 23, 112, 115; BPjS-Entsch. No. 714a of 6 May 1960, RdJ 1960, 253, 254; BPjS-Entsch. No. 4489 of 18 May 1995; see also Steindorf (Fn. 6), § 1 GjSM MN. 27; Gödel (Fn. 22) JSchutz BT, § 1 MN. 79.Google Scholar
73 BPjS-Entsch. No. VA 1/03 of 25 February 2003 and No. 5172 of 6 March 2003 – “Command&Conquer - Generals”.Google Scholar
74 § 15 (II) No 3 JuSchG.Google Scholar
75 Cf. BPjS-Entsch. No. 1348 (V) of 4 November 1982; and BPjS-Entsch. No. 4335 (V) of 20 July 1992.Google Scholar
76 An equivalent absolute prohibition exists for radio and Telemedia according to § 4 (I) S. 1 No. 9 JMStV; a detailed discussion can be found in the travaux at BT-Drs. 14/9013, p. 24.Google Scholar
77 See Liesching (Fn. 16), NJW 2002, 3281, 3286; Bornemann (Fn. 24), NJW 2003, 787, 788.Google Scholar
78 The opinion of Hartstein/Ring/Kreile/Dörr/Stettner, JMStV-Kommentar, April 2003, § 4 MN. 45 seems too restrictive in this regard.Google Scholar
79 Compare AG Neuss JMS-Report 5/2002, 62 = MultiMedia und Recht (MMR) 2002, 837 commented by Gercke; LG Mainz JMS-Report 6/2000, 60; the decision of LG Düsseldorf, of 31 January 2003 – XXXI 34/02 cannot be accepted as correct.Google Scholar
80 Cf. AG Neuss JMS-Report 5/2002 = MMR 2002, 837 commented by Gercke; Sulzbacher, Kinderpornographie im Internet, JMS-Report 5/2002, 2, 5.Google Scholar
81 §§ 5 and 11 JMStV.Google Scholar
82 § 4 (II) 2 JMStV.Google Scholar
83 §§ 11 and 14 JMStV.Google Scholar
84 A critical analysis of the special rating-system ICRA (Internet Content Rating Association) has been given by Schindler, Kann man Kinder mit dem ICRA-Filter wirklich unbesorgt ins Netz lassen?, tv-diskurs 24/2003, 66 et subs.Google Scholar
85 See Schindler, Rating und Filtering, tv-diskurs 11/2000, 56; Sieber, Verantwortlichkeit im Internet, München 1999, MN. 556.Google Scholar
86 Cf. §§ 12 (I), 14 (VI) JuSchG.Google Scholar
87 Cf. §§ 8, 9, 20 (III) and (V) JMStV.Google Scholar
88 Cf. § 20 (III) and (V) JMStV.Google Scholar
89 Compare § 20 (III), (V) JMStV.Google Scholar
90 § 7 JMStV.Google Scholar
91 § 7 (I) and (III) JMStV.Google Scholar
92 A more detailed analysis of the duty to nominate a representative and of the responsibilities of this person, see: Liesching, Die Bedeutung des Jugendschutzbeauftragten für Informations- und Kommunikationsdienste, Computer und Recht (CR) 2001, 845; for radio-broadcasting institutions in particular: Mohr/Landmann: Jugendschutz bei ARD und ZDF – Bericht der Jugendschutzbeauftragten des öffentlichrechtlichen Rundfunks, München 2003.Google Scholar
93 § 7 (II) JMStV.Google Scholar
You have
Access