Constitutional complaint (Germany)

Last updated

The (individual) constitutional complaint (German : (Individual-)Verfassungsbeschwerde) is an extraordinary legal remedy in German law. The procedure serves to vindicate constitutional rights under the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz, abbreviated GG). Constitutional complaints are adjudicated solely by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Contents

In the business year 2018, the Court recorded 5678 constitutional complaints filed, of which only 92 were granted relief, in total. [1] Such relief may even extend, however, to voiding the statute found unconstitutional. [lower-alpha 1]

The constitutional complaint is set out in the Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (abbreviated BVerfGG), [lower-alpha 2] which is the law establishing the Federal Constitutional Court itself, pursuant to GG art. 93, para. 2.

The constitutional complaint was originally codified in federal law (BVerfGG §§ 90 et seq.) and was not initially guaranteed by the constitution itself. [2] It was incorporated into the constitution in 1969 as a political bargain. The constitution was then controversially amended to allow the declaration of a state of exception (Notstandsverfassung), allowing temporary restrictions on Basic Rights. It was felt that the constitutional complaint remedy had to be enshrined in the constitution to prevent its abolition by a simple repeal of the BVerfGG.

Admissibility of complaints

Art. 93, para. 1, no. 4a of the Basic Law enumerates the rights that may be the subject of a constitutional complaint. These are the Basic Rights (Grundrechte) found in GG articles 1-19, as well as rights considered equivalent [3] (Art. 33, 38, 101, 103 or 104, GG; also, Art. 20, para. 4, GG), [lower-alpha 3] like the right to stand for election or to be heard by a judge.

The constitutional complaint is open to natural persons and legal persons. However, constitutional rights apply to legal persons only insofar as they can be sensibly applied to them (Art. 19, para. 3, GG).

A constitutional complaint is admissible only if complainants, at the time of filing, [4] have the legal standing (Beschwerdebefugnis) to do so. They must allege that one of their Basic Rights or equivalent rights (see the enumeration above) has been violated by an action or omission of German state power. That includes acts carried out by any level of government (not those, however, directly carried out by European Union agencies, which are not part of the German state), and any function of government (executive, judicial, legislative). [5]
In particular, the act or omission must

  1. affect the complainant themselves;
  2. be affecting them currently (already or still);
  3. and they must be affected directly, that is, there are no intermediate acts that need to be taken before the complainant is legally affected (immediacy). [6]

Standing is virtually always given when there is a court judgment or administrative order against the complainant. Violations of constitutional rights by a law are also actionable, but most laws are not self-executing and therefore fail the immediacy requirement.

As an extraordinary remedy the constitutional complaint is subsidiary to regular remedies, especially appeals to higher courts, which means two things. In the first place, the appellants must have exhausted all other possible remedies, [7] including, if appropriate, a complaint on the procedural grounds of not being judicially heard (for instance, a violation of audi alteram partem). Therefore, constitutional complaints are in practicce mostly directed against judicial acts, not acts of the executive (which can still be contested before the administrative courts). Secondly, the complainant must have already raised the issue of the violation while in the course of their other remedies and so many complaints are dismissed as inadmissible.

Further, the complaint must be submitted in written form, and the case must be argued, with appropriate evidence attached. [lower-alpha 4] The action or omission by which the complainant alleges their rights have been violated must be specified, as well as the specific right that is alleged to have been violated. [lower-alpha 5] [4] Complaints against a law must be lodged within one year after it comes into force. and those against other acts must be filed within one month after service or notification. [lower-alpha 6]

The Verfassungsbeschwerde resembles, in certain respects, the writ of amparo , a remedy available in some Spanish-speaking nations.

Related Research Articles

In law, a judgment, also spelled judgement, is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Justice</span> Highest court in the system of ordinary jurisdiction in Germany

The Federal Court of Justice is the highest court of civil and criminal jurisdiction in Germany. Its primary responsibility is the final appellate review of decisions by lower courts for errors of law. While, legally, a decision by the Federal Court of Justice is only binding with respect to the individual case in which it enters, de facto the court's interpretation of the law is followed by lower courts with almost no exception. Decisions handed down by the Federal Court of Justice can only be vacated by the Federal Constitutional Court for violating a provision of the German constitution, the Basic Law.

<i>Vriend v Alberta</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.

Freedom of religion in Germany is guaranteed by article 4 of the German constitution. This states that "the freedom of religion, conscience and the freedom of confessing one's religious or philosophical beliefs are inviolable. Uninfringed religious practice is guaranteed." In addition, article 3 states that "No one may be prejudiced or favored because of his gender, his descent, his race, his language, his homeland and place of origin, his faith or his religious or political views." Any person or organization can call the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany for free help.

A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.

In most legal systems of the Spanish-speaking world, the writ of amparo is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. The amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Primacy of European Union law</span> Legal principle

The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic</span>

The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic is the supreme constitutional court in the Czech Republic and the de facto highest and most powerful court in the land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Austria</span> Overview of court system in Austria

The judiciary of Austria is the system of courts, prosecution and correction of the Republic of Austria as well as the branch of government responsible for upholding the rule of law and administering justice. The judiciary is independent of the other two branches of government and is committed to guaranteeing fair trials and equality before the law. It has broad and effective powers of judicial review.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court (Austria)</span> Constitutional court of Austria

The Constitutional Court in Austria is the tribunal responsible for judicial review.

Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria (10126/82) was a landmark case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1988.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental rights in the German Constitution</span> Set of rights guaranteed to everyone in Germany

Fundamental Rights in the Federal Republic of Germany are a set of rights guaranteed to everyone in Germany and partially to German people only through their Federal Constitution, the Grundgesetz and the constitutions of some of the States of Germany. In the Federal Constitution, the majority of the Grundrechte are contained in the first title, Articles 1 to 19 of the Grundgesetz (GG). These rights have constitutional status, binding each of the country's constitutional institutions. In the event that these rights are violated and a remedy is denied by other courts, the constitution provides for an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).

<i>Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor</i> A landmark decision in 1980 from Singapore

Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor is a landmark decision delivered in 1980 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Singapore which deals with the constitutionality of section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 ("MDA"), and the mandatory death penalty by the Act for certain offences. The appellants contended that the presumption of trafficking under section 15 of the MDA violated Article 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and that the mandatory death penalty was arbitrary and violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore constitutional law</span>

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Constitutional Court</span> Supreme constitutional court for the Federal Republic of Germany

The Federal Constitutional Court is the supreme constitutional court for the Federal Republic of Germany, established by the constitution or Basic Law of Germany. Since its inception with the beginning of the post-World War II republic, the court has been located in the city of Karlsruhe, which is also the seat of the Federal Court of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender rights in Germany</span>

Transgender rights in the Federal Republic of Germany are regulated by the Transsexuellengesetz since 1980, and indirectly affected by other laws like the Abstammungsrecht. The law initially required transgender people to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in order to have key identity documents changed. This has since been declared unconstitutional. The German government has pledged to replace the Transsexuellengesetz with the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz, which would remove the financial and bureaucratic hurdles necessary for legal gender and name changes. Discrimination protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation vary across Germany, but discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services is in principle banned countrywide.

Ingve Björn Stjerna is a German lawyer, known for having filed in 2017 a constitutional complaint with the German Federal Constitutional Court against the ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court in Germany. In April 2017, his complaint led the German Constitutional Court to ask the President of Germany to suspend the ratification of the Agreement. His complaint, which was assigned court case reference 2 BvR 739/17, was upheld by the Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephan Harbarth</span> President of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

Stephan Harbarth is the President of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht), former German lawyer and politician of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). From 2009 until 2018 he served as member of the Bundestag. On 22 November 2018 he was elected to the Federal Constitutional Court by the Bundestag. He succeeded Ferdinand Kirchhof and serves in the court's first senate. On 23 November 2018, one day after his election to the court, he was elected Vice President of the Federal Constitutional Court by the Bundesrat. In this capacity, he is chairman of the first senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prostitution Act</span> Federal law in Germany regulating the legal status of prostitution

The Prostitution Act is a federal law in Germany that regulates the legal status of prostitution as a service in order to improve the legal and social situation of prostitutes. The law was promulgated on 20 December 2001 and has been in force since 1 January 2002. At the same time the Strafgesetzbuch §180a and §181a (pimping) were amended so that the creation of an adequate working environment is no longer punishable as long as no exploitation of prostitutes takes place.

References

  1. ↑ Sec. 95, para. 3, sentence 1, Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz - enacted pursuant to Art. 94, para. 2, sentence 1, GG.
  2. ↑ Refer to sec. 90 et seq., BVerfGG - available in English at Gesetze im Internet.de, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bverfgg/englisch_bverfgg.html#p0400
  3. ↑ Art. 93, GG - available in English via Gesetze im Internet.de at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0520
  4. ↑ Sec. 23 para. 1, BVerfGG.
  5. ↑ Sec. 92, paras. 1 and 3, BVerfGG.
  6. ↑ Sec. 92, paras. 1 and 3, BVerfGG.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.