Riedel / Wolfrum Recent Trends in German and European Constitutional Law

German Reports Presented to the XVIIth International Congress on Comparative Law, Utrecht, 16 to 22 July 2006
1. Auflage 2010
ISBN: 978-3-540-37720-7
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 289 Seiten

This volume contains the German National Reports on Public Law presented at the XVIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Utrecht 2006. The articles provide an overview over recent developments and new issues in both European Constitutional and German Public Law from a German perspective and offer an in-depth analysis of the legal issues discussed. The book offers scholars as well as practitioners a sound basis for studies on a wide range of current and interesting issues in the field of comparative law.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Riedel, Eibe

Wolfrum, Rüdiger

Wolfrum, Rudiger

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Title Page;4
2;Copyright Page;5
3;Preface;6
4;Table of Contents;8
5;Constitutional Principles for Europe*;9
5.1;I. General Issues;9
5.1.1;1. The Subject Matter;9
5.1.2;2. National and Supranational Principles: On the Question of Transferability;11
5.1.3;3. Constitutional Principles in View of Varying Sectoral Provisions;13
5.2;II. Founding Principles of Supranational Authority;15
5.2.1;1. Equal Liberty;15
5.2.2;2. The Rule of Law;18
5.2.3;3. Democracy;25
5.2.3.1;a) Development and Basic Features;25
5.2.3.2;b) The Principle of Democracy and the Institutional Structure;31
5.2.3.3;c) Transparency, Participation, Deliberation and Flexibility;34
5.2.3.4;d) Supranational Democracy: An Evaluation;38
5.2.4;4. Solidarity;40
5.3;III. Concluding Remarks;42
6;The Emergence of European Constitutional Law;44
6.1;I. Introduction;44
6.2;II. Starting Point: The Case Law;47
6.3;III. Fundamental Objections;49
6.4;IV. A Functional Approach?;53
6.5;V. The Case for Further Constitutionalization;59
6.6;VI. The Role of the European Convention on Human Rights ;62
6.7;VII. Conclusions;65
7;The Legal Position of Migrants – GermanReport;70
7.1;Introduction: Who Qualifies as ‘Migrant’ in the German Context? ;71
7.1.1;1. The Structure of Legal Regulation of Migrant’s Status: the Emergence of a Multi-Level System of Migration Law;73
7.1.1.1;1.1. Current Dynamics;73
7.1.1.2;1.2. German Migration Laws, according to their Rank within the Legal Order;74
7.1.1.2.1;1.2.1. Constitutional Law;74
7.1.1.2.2;1.2.2. Parliamentary Legislation;75
7.1.1.2.3;1.2.3. Rule-Making by the Federal Government;75
7.1.1.2.4;1.2.4. Rule-Making by the Länder Governments;76
7.1.2;2. Legal Conceptions Used in National Legislation: ‘Alien’ as the Basic Concept of German Migration Law;77
7.1.2.1;2.1. Aliens;77
7.1.2.2;2.2. Union Citizens;77
7.1.2.3;2.3. Refugees;78
7.1.2.4;2.4. Migrant Workers;78
7.1.2.5;2.5. Illegal Residents;79
7.1.3;3. Acquiring the Status of Migrant: a Plurality of Residence Permits ;79
7.1.3.1;3.1. The Types of Residence Permits Under the Residence Act;79
7.1.3.2;3.2. Administrative Procedures and Legal Review;82
7.1.3.3;3.3. The Main Groups of Migrants in Germany, according to their Legal Status;84
7.1.3.3.1;3.3.1. Union Citizens and their Relatives;84
7.1.3.3.2;3.3.2. Long-Term Residents and their Relatives;86
7.1.3.3.3;3.3.3. Migrant Workers of Turkish Nationality and their Relatives;89
7.1.3.3.4;3.3.4. Admission for Purposes of Employment;91
7.1.3.3.5;3.3.5. Persons with Refugees Status or Other Forms of InternationalProtection;92
7.1.3.3.6;3.3.6. Persons whose Deportation Is Temporarily Suspended (So-Called Toleration) ;96
7.1.3.3.7;3.3.7. Admission of Migrant Groups on the Basis of Political Discretion;97
7.1.3.3.8;3.3.8. Ethnic Germans and their Relatives;98
7.1.3.3.9;3.3.9. Undocumented Migrants;99
7.1.4;4. Guarantees of Migrants’ Status: Graded Integration into the German System of Social and Political Rights;100
7.1.4.1;4.1. Sources of Fundamental Rights Guarantees for Migrants;100
7.1.4.2;4.2. Restrictions to Political and Social Rights;100
7.1.4.2.1;4.2.1. Political Rights;101
7.1.4.2.2;4.2.2. Freedom of Movement;102
7.1.4.2.3;4.2.3. Access to the Welfare System;102
7.1.4.3;4.3. The New Integration Policy;103
7.1.5;5. The Migrant and the Employer: Immigration Policy from a Labor Market Perspective;104
7.1.5.1;5.1. Alien’s Access to the Labor Market: Involvement of the Federal Agency for Labor;104
7.1.5.2;5.2. The Employers’ Stance on Future Immigration Policy;106
7.1.5.3;5.3. Undocumented Migrants and the Issue of Illegal Employment;107
7.1.6;6. State Protective Measures: Graded Protection against Expulsion ;108
7.1.6.1;6.1. Expulsion and Deportation Decisions in German Law;108
7.1.6.2;6.2. Supranational and International Sources for Protection against Expulsion ;110
8;Constitutional Referendum in Germany –Country Report;113
8.1;I. Introduction;113
8.2;II. Terminology;114
8.3;III. Historical Overview;115
8.3.1;1. The Experience of Weimar;115
8.3.1.1;a) Options for a Referendum in the Constitution of Weimar;115
8.3.1.2;b) Constitutional Referenda in the Praxis of Weimar;117
8.3.2;2. The Decision of the Parliamentary Council;119
8.4;IV. Constitutional Referendum and the Basic Law (GG);120
8.4.1;1. The Referendum in order to Change Internal Borders;122
8.4.1.1;a) Genesis and Purpose of Art. 29 GG;122
8.4.1.2;b) Elements of Direct Democracy in Art. 29 GG ;123
8.4.1.2.1;(1) The Referendum Pursuant to Art. 29 (2) GG;123
8.4.1.2.2;(2) The Right to Initiate the Process of a New Delimitation – a Popular Initiative ;124
8.4.1.2.3;(3) The Advisory Referendum in Art. 29 (5) GG;125
8.4.1.2.4;(4) The Anticipated Referendum;125
8.4.2;2. The Referendum to Replace the Basic Law – Art. 146 GG42;125
8.5;V. Constitutional Referendum in the Constitutions of the Länder50 ;126
8.5.1;1. Dissolving of Parliament before the Expiry of a Legislative Term;127
8.5.2;2. Initiation of Legislation / Petition for a Referendum /Referendum ;128
8.5.3;3. The Plea for Referendum;129
8.5.4;4. Amendment of the Constitution;131
9;E-Government – Country Report on Germany;132
9.1;I. Introduction;132
9.2;II. What Is e-Government?;134
9.3;III. The Current Status of e-Government in Germany in an International Comparison;136
9.4;IV. The Significance of e-Government within the Political Agenda;138
9.5;V. Policy Initiatives on e-Government;138
9.5.1;1. The “BundOnline2005” Initiative;139
9.5.2;2. Media@Komm and Media@Komm-Transfer;140
9.5.3;3. Deutschland-Online;142
9.6;VI. Legal Implications of e-Government;143
9.6.1;1. Electronic Communication in Administrative Procedures;144
9.6.2;2. Admissibility of Electronic Form;145
9.6.2.1;a) Opening Electronic Access;145
9.6.2.2;b) Factual Access of Electronic Declarations;148
9.6.3;3. Replacement of Written Form through Electronic Form;149
9.6.4;4. Transmission Difficulties;152
9.6.5;5. Summary;152
9.7;VII. E-Government Applications in Practice;152
9.7.1;1. ELSTER;153
9.7.2;2. E-Procurement;155
9.8;VIII. Executive Summary and Outlook;156
10;Quangos – An Unknown Species in German Public Law? German Report on the RulemakingPower of Independent Administrative Agencies;158
10.1;I. What Are Quangos and where Do They Exist?;158
10.2;II. Are there Independent Administrative Agencies withRule-making Powers in Germany?;160
10.2.1;1. Direct Administration;160
10.2.1.1;a) Concept;160
10.2.1.2;b) The Federal Authorities;161
10.2.2;2. Indirect Administration;165
10.2.2.1;a) Concept;165
10.2.2.2;b) Corporate Bodies Under Public Law;166
10.2.2.3;c) Public Law Institutions;166
10.2.3;3. Maxims and Boundaries of Administrative Body Independisation;168
10.2.3.1;a) Principles;168
10.2.3.2;b) Constitutional Boundaries;169
10.3;III. The Agency Approach in the European Community and the U.S.;173
10.3.1;1. European Community Law;173
10.3.2;2. United States Law;177
10.4;IV. Concluding Remarks;178
11;Progress and the Precautionary Principle in Administrative Law – Country Report on Germany;183
11.1;I. Introduction;184
11.2;II. The Concept of Precautionary Action;186
11.2.1;1. Material Content and Limits of the Precautionary Principle in German Law;186
11.2.2;2. The Limits of Precaution: the Residual Risk;189
11.3;III. The Requirements for Precautionary Action in German Constitutional Law;190
11.4;IV. The Requirements for Precautionary Action in German Statutory Law;192
11.4.1;1. Conceptual Issues;192
11.4.2;2. Relevant Rules of Administrative Procedure and Administrative Court Procedure relating to the Burden of Proof;194
11.4.3;3. The Draft of a General Environmental Code;196
11.4.4;4. The Federal Pollutants Control Act;196
11.4.5;5. The Atomic Energy Act;198
11.4.6;6. The Gene Technology Act;200
11.4.7;7. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act;201
11.4.8;8. Consumer Health Protection;201
11.4.9;9. The Chemicals Act;202
11.4.10;10. The Fight against Terrorism and Disaster Management;204
11.4.11;11. Other Areas;205
11.5;V. Consequences for the Precautionary Principle as Applied in Administrative Law;206
11.5.1;1. The Phases of Risk Administration;206
11.5.1.1;a) Risk Assessment;206
11.5.1.2;b) Risk Management: Wide Margins of Appreciation and Discretion;208
11.5.2;2. Specific Requirements of Risk Administration;209
11.5.2.1;a) Requirement of Argumentation and Clear Determination;210
11.5.2.2;b) Requirements of Proportionality and Risk Comparison;210
11.5.2.3;c) Requirement of Establishing Accountability;211
11.5.2.4;d) Requirement of Administrative Review;211
11.6;VI. The Future;212
12;Legal Means for Eliminating Corruption in the Public Service;214
12.1;I. The Factual and Legal Context;215
12.1.1;1. The Occurrence of Corruption in Germany – Spotlights and Statistics;215
12.1.2;2. The Legal Framework and the Scope of this Report;221
12.2;II. The Legal Mechanisms for the Fight against Corruption in the Public Service;223
12.2.1;1. Rules Safeguarding Institutions;223
12.2.1.1;a) Rules Safeguarding Public Administration;224
12.2.1.1.1;(1) Criminal Law;224
12.2.1.1.2;(2) Administrative Law;227
12.2.1.2;b) Rules Safeguarding the Integrity of Political Decision-Making;231
12.2.1.2.1;(1) General Rules of Criminal Law;231
12.2.1.2.2;(2) Further Rules of Conduct for Politicians;233
12.2.1.2.3;(3) Financing of Political Parties;236
12.2.2;2. Rules Safeguarding Transactions;237
12.2.3;3. The Investigation of Potential Corruption;241
12.2.3.1;a) Investigating Authorities;241
12.2.3.2;b) Procedures and Penalties;243
12.3;III. Conclusion;246
13;Characteristics of International Administration in Crisis Areas – A German Perspective;249
13.1;I. Factual Background;249
13.2;II. The Legal and Institutional Framework Under GermanLaw;254
13.2.1;1. The 1994 Constitutional Court Ruling;254
13.2.2;2. The 2005 Federal Law on Parliamentary Approval of International Deployment of German Armed Forces;256
13.2.3;3. Institutional Setting and Action Plan “Civilian Crisis Prevention”;258
13.3;III. The Legitimacy of International Administration in Crisis Areas Under Public International Law;261
13.3.1;1. Political Assessment;261
13.3.2;2. Academic Debate;263
13.4;IV. Linkages to Development Co-operation;266
13.5;V. Perspectives;267
14;Constitutional Guarantees of Judicial Independence in Germany;269
14.1;I. Introduction: The Legal Framework;269
14.2;II. The Elements of Judicial Independence in Germany;271
14.2.1;1. Substantive Independence;272
14.2.1.1;a) Independence from the Legislature;273
14.2.1.2;b) Independence from the Executive;274
14.2.1.3;c) Independence within the Judiciary;275
14.2.2;2. Structural Independence;276
14.2.3;3. Personal Independence;276
14.3;III. Appointment of Judges;277
14.3.1;1. The Necessary Qualifications for Judicial Appointment;277
14.3.2;2. The Selection and Appointment Process;278
14.4;IV. Independence of Judges while in Office;281
14.4.1;1. Judicial Tenure;281
14.4.2;2. The Scope of Judges’ Authority and Powers;282
14.4.3;3. Independence and Disciplinary Supervision;283
14.4.4;4. The Financial Independence of Judges;285
14.5;V. Dismissal and Transfer of Judges from Office;285
14.5.1;1. Grounds of Dismissal;285
14.5.2;2. The Body Authorized to Dismiss Judges and to Make Final Decisions on Disciplinary Measures;287
14.6;VI. Conclusion;288
15;List of Contributors;290

Leseproben

"II. The Concept of Precautionary Action (S. 182-183)

1. Material Content and Limits of the Precautionary Principle in German Law

For many years the necessity to reflect on the conditions and limits of the precautionary principle has become apparent.10 Being a binding, but rather abstract legal concept it has been adapted to many different circumstances and largely depends on its concrete realization through various statutes.11 § 4 of the legal expert draft of a General Part of an Environmental Code (Umweltgesetzbuch – Allgemeiner Teil – Entwurf – UGB-AT-E) defines the precautionary principle as the requirement to strive towards precluding preventable or unforeseeable environmental degradation by adequate measures, in particular by long-term planning and by emission limitations according to the technical state of the art.

12 § 5 (1) of the Draft of the Commission on the Creation of an Environmental Code (UBG-KomE) in a more all-encompassing way maintains the necessity to prevent or reduce risks to the environment and human health, in particular by farsighted measures, by planning and by adequately applied technical measures.

13 § 5 (2) states that “precaution serves the protection of sensitive constituents of the balance of nature”. 14 Although these draft laws have not been enacted yet, they provide a good basis for understanding the nature of the precautionary principle.15 From a scientific point of view, risks are assessed by multiplying the probability of damage by the severity of that damage.16 In German law there is a discussion whether the precautionary principle should only be understood as precaution against risks or additionally as requiring precautions to ensure the preservation of resources, which is related to the term “sustainable development”.

Risk precaution basically means shifting the classical notion of danger prevention towards areas where a danger does not yet exist, although it appears very hard in practice to differentiate between the two situations. Some authors identify a certain tendency of police law, which traditionally has dealt with dangers, to increasingly adopt the structure of risk administration. According to a statement of Di Fabio, “the great ‘softener’ of the precautionary principle has for a long time infiltrated the field of danger prevention”. Others state that the precautionary principle does not aim at achieving something other than danger prevention, but that it requires different instruments and follows different categories."