In this exclusive interview with Federal Constitutional Court Justice, Professor Udo Di Fabio, GLJ looks forward to some of the challenges the Court will face in next fifty years, especially the meaning for the Court of domestic (privatization) and international (europeanization) changes to the role of the nation state. The interview begins with an exploration of the nature and role of the Federal Constitutional Court in light of radical changes in the law as well as the social sciences. Justice Di Fabio also addresses the Court's narrow role as an interpreter of legal texts, noting that the Court performs this function while also exercising broader, quasi-legislative authority within a pluralistic and post-traditional society. The interview then turns to questions related to the role of the state and the traditional public structuring of societal authority as set against the general turn to societal self-structuring, especially in the context of the debate over the nature of the European Union's authority.

In three high-profile cases the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG — Federal Constitutional Court) was recently called upon to exercise its authority to issue a temporary injunction in proccedings referred to as einstweilige Anordnungen (provisional measures). Article 32 of the Bundesverfassungsgerichtgesetz (BVerfGG — Federal Constitutional Court Act) provides: In a dispute the Federal Consitutional Court may deal with a matter provisionally by means of a temporary injunction if this is urgently needed to avert serious detriment, ward off imminent force or for any other important reason for the common good.

In January 1999 German Foreign Minister J. Fischer called for a debate on the creation of a constitution for the European Union. Since then, many German politicians have exposed their vision of the future of Europe and its constitution. However, even one year later, the matter appeared still to be a ‘German concern’ only.

During the last few years the German courts have had to face several cases in which companies — especially from the IT-sector — filed lawsuits against “headhunters.” “Headhunters” in this context are (usually) executive consultants who try to poach personnel from other companies by simply calling them and asking whether or not they want to change companies. Since skilled and qualified workers and employees are desperately but often unsuccessfully searched by innumerable German companies on the domestic and most recently also the European and international job-market, the methods of poaching have reached and sometimes crossed the borders of unfair practices. The courts faced with these cases had to draw these borders, a process this article attempts to outline.

For the first time in the \“New Market\”\'s history, a claim for damages against Infomatec, a NEMAX-company has been ruled in favor of plaintiff. Nemax is the index in which New Market companies are quoted. On September 26, 2001, the Landgericht (Regional Court) Augsburg granted a compensation worth DM 100.000 for a former shareholder of Infomatec [\“company\”]. This article will first give a brief survey of the facts as well as an explanation of the so-called \“Ad Hoc-notifications\” under German securities law before outlining the Court\'s holding.