Occupation liberty

the occupation liberty is the fundamental right to select and exercise its occupation freely. She is guaranteed in many historical and present constitutional systems.

Although the occupation liberty is designated partly than a classical fundamental right, it was not yet contained in the classical fundamental right catalogs. In particular the express guarantee of the occupation liberty was missing still in the French explanation of the people and citizen rights of 26. August 1789 and in the Virginia Bill OF Rights of 12. June 1776. For the first time however already granted the condition of the French republic of 24. June 1793 (condition of the yearly I) into the kind. 17 and 18 of the placed in front human being and citizen right explanation determined fundamental rights of the vocational liberty. This condition was suspended however because of interior and crises with regard to foreign policy first and never came into force.

Table of contents 1 Germany 1,1 the guarantee of the occupation liberty in Germany under the Basic Law 1.1.1 save area 1.1.1.1 personal save area 1.1.1.2 occupation 1.1.1.3 professional training 1.1.1.4 practise of the profession 1.1.2 interference 1.1.3 constitutional justification of 1.1.4 examples of more extensive legal regulations 1,2 regulations over the occupation liberty in the conditions of the German Lands of the Federal Republic 2 Belgium 3 France 4 Italy of the 5 Netherlands 6 Austria 7 Switzerland 8 Spain 9 the occupation liberty in the European right 10 United States of America 11 literature 11,1 Monographien of 11,2 contributions in comments and compilations of 11,3 essays 12 Web on the left of 12.1 guidance decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court to the occupation liberty 12,2 other ones on the left of

Germany

the occupation liberty is ensured in article 12 paragraph 1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.

In German condition history already ensured the Paulskirchenverfassung of 28. March 1849 in § 158 that it stands for everyone freely to select its occupation and for the same be formed, as and where he wants. In connection with § 133 exp. 1, the economic liberality ensured, contained the Paulskirchenverfassungs thus already a genuine guarantee of the occupation liberty. However also individual conditions already before contained of the German partial states of beginnings of an occupation liberty, so for instance the constitutional charter for the Kingdom of Württemberg of 25. September 1819 in § 29, as well as the constitutional charter for the Grand Duchy of Hessen of 17. December 1820 in kind. 36.

After the failure of the Paulskirchenverfassung became in the trade and industrial regulations of 21. June 1869 for the north Germans federation and also for the Empire of the freedom of trade proclaims later. This guarantee concerned however only the independent ones and applied only singlelegally. It was thus no fundamental right strictly speaking.

Those Weimar realm condition of the 11. August 1919 contained in kind. 111 the warranty of the economic liberality, where one could recognize also the guarantee of the liberty of the occupation choice. In kind. 151 paragraph 3 WRV besides the liberty of the trade and trade was ensured in accordance with condition of the realm laws. This standard covered not only the permission but also the practice and went to that extent beyond the regulation of the away-valid trade and industrial regulations. To the guarantee in that Weimar realm condition adhered however a law dependence, which led to the fact that the range of the guarantee of the occupation liberty was smaller in the Weimar Republic than in the empire.

In that Weimar realm condition was besides apart from the classical fundamental right guarantee in the articles 151 to 165 a regulation over “the economic life” met. Kind. 157 exp. 1 placed the worker under the special protection of the realm. According to kind. 163 exp. 2 Germans the possibility is to be given to everyone to acquire by economical work its maintenance. This socialnational objective, which carried nearly already socialist courses (Gerhard Anschütz), has however from today's viewpoint its request not reached. This was in particular because of the fact that those saw bare program sentences, which were suitable alone already for the conversion because of its uncertainty little to Weimar public law teachings in these regulations. And indeed there was a multiplicity of such proclamations, which partly even contradicted themselves in that Weimar condition.

the guarantee of the occupation liberty in Germany under the Basic Law

differently than still in the Paulskirchenverfassungs and that Weimar realm condition is uncoupled the occupation liberty in the Basic Law of the right to liberality. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany of 1949 guarantees all German in article 12 paragraph 1 both the liberty of the occupation choice and the liberty of the practise of the profession. Article 12 paragraph 1 reads:

“All Germans have the right, occupation, to select job and training centre freely. The practise of the profession can be regulated by law or due to a law. “

The wording of the standard suggests still another differentiation between the occupation choice and to the practise of the profession liberty. However both elements of a uniform fundamental right of the occupation liberty only konnexe in opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court form, because already the admission of a professional activity presents itself both at the beginning of the practise of the profession, and the straight herein expressing manipulation of the occupation choice. Basis of this dogma TIC to the occupation liberty is further the so-called pharmacy judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of the 11. June 1958 (BVerfGE 7, 377), in which the substantial principles had been developed for the first time for the interpretation of the occupation liberty by the iurisdiction. The occupation liberty is understood since then as a uniform fundamental right, which protects the occupation freedom of election and the practise of the profession liberty.

The function of the occupation liberty in the modern arbeitsteiligen society has the Federal Constitutional Court in the participation judgement of the 1. March 1979 (BVerfGE 50, 290, 362) outlines as follows:

“Kind. 12 exp. 1 GG protects the liberty of the citizen within a range particularly important for the modern arbeitsteilige society: It ensures the right, each work, for which it believes itself suitably to seize as “occupation” to the particular i.e. to make the basis of its Lebensführung. In this interpretation kind is enough. 12 exp. 1 GG further as - covered certainly of it - the freedom of trade. Beyond that it differs however from it by its personalen fundamental: The “occupation” is understood in its relationship with the personality of humans generally speaking, those only therein fully forms out themselves and completed that the particular dedicates itself to an activity, which is for it task of life and base of life and furnishes by which it at the same time its contribution for social total output. The fundamental right wins in such a way meaning for all social layers; the work as “occupation” has for all same value and resembles became. ”

The occupation liberty is first a liberty right, which wants to protect the particular against the restriction of its vocational manipulation by the state. An objective dimension only partly comes to the fundamental right. In connection with kind. 3 exp. 1 GG opens it however a right to equal sharing with the distribution of limited resources by the public force (ex.: Introduction of the number clausus with the assignment of study places). Besides the occupation liberty guarantees in addition, in certain beginnings a requirement for protection guarantee, which affects itself in particular in the test right in procedural regard. With occupation-relevant state examinations therefore the occupation liberty makes demands against the arrangement of the test tasks. In the test procedure general right-national requirements are supplemented around occupation-fundamental right-specific elements. The occupation liberty gives beyond that also defaults to the civil legislator. After the commercial agents - decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 7. February 1990 (BVerfGE 81, 242) can order the occupation liberty that the legislator in the civil law creates precautions for the protection of the occupation liberty against contractual restrictions.

There kind. 12 exp. 1 GG however primarily a defense right against the state is, can the occupation liberty not as a “social right” in the sense of a performance demand be understood. In particular kind guarantees. 12 exp. 1 GG no “right to work”. The state can only help the particular to unfold its liberty in vocational regard granted however no requirement on the mechanism of certain jobs in individual cases, which would be to be carried out by subjective requirements secured and.

One turns around in kind. 12 exp. 1 GG in addition, not the free free-market economy and/or. the freedom of trade as objective principle of the society and economic system proclaims. Despite the occupation liberty and the other economic constitution-legally relevant fundamental rights such as kind. 2 exp. 1 GG (general freedom of action) and kind. 14 GG (property liberty), the Basic Law is in the opinion the Federal Constitutional Court „politicoly-economic neutral “. This statement accompanies with the developing history of the Basic Law. The parliamentary advice wanted to take up these with the warranty of the occupation liberty only as “classical fundamental right” to the fundamental right catalog. The regulation of the social order should be left to the future.

In the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the article 12 the liberty is guaranteed by compulsory labor and hard labour. These stand in close relationship with the occupation liberty guaranteed in paragraph 1.

In some cases of the restriction of the economic efficiency it can be difficult, the occupation liberty of the property warranty kind. To define 14 GG. During kind. , Has the property the protection of the acquiring protects 12 GG the liberty of the economic manipulation of acquiring to the article. The activity in the own enterprise of an independent one is thus for example by kind. 12 GG protected, while the existence of operating articles or of currencies among the property in the constitutional sense rank.

save area

national measures for their compatibility with the occupation liberty examined, is to be examined according to the usual test pattern first, whether the save area is open, thus whether the fundamental right regarding concrete circumstances is thematically relevant.

personal save area

the occupation liberty is in accordance with kind. 12 exp. 1 GG as German right so mentioned all German guarantees. Germans in this sense are all German citizens in accordance with condition of kind. 116 exp. 1 GG. Whether citizens of the European Union itself in kind. 12 exp. 1 GG destined know, is disputed. The basic liberties of the EEC contract grant however the citizens of the European Union member states a legal status, which corresponds to the German citizen regarding the occupation liberty legal status.

Domestic legal entities can after measure gifts of kind. 19 exp. 3 GG carrier of kind. 12 exp. 1 GG its, as far as they are acquisition-economically active. No fundamental right carriers are however anyhow foreign legal entities and legal entities of the public right.

occupation

the material save area of the occupation liberty must be determined by the term of the occupation ago. The term occupation in the sense of kind. 12 exp. 1 GG is conceivablly far understood. It defined as each activity permitted directed toward acquisition and, which is put on on a certain duration. It is insignificant whether the cost of living thereby can be covered completely or only partially. Independent activities are seized just like the dependent occupation. Career profiles are not from the beginning given, also even invented manipulation can by this fall. Under the occupation term also nationally bound occupations fall, like e.g. the notary.

professional training

kind. 12 exp. 1 GG covers also the right to select the training centre freely. The iurisdiction defines the training centre as “a mechanism, which an applicant must have gone through, in order to be able to seize after distribution only of the examination of occupations attainable over this mechanism, which presuppose the quality attained by the examination”.

Due to topic tables of the context only the occupation-referred training, which precedes the practice of the occupation logically and practically, is seized. Not for this the training in general-forming schools and a study counts “just for fun”, thus for example the attendance of lectures at the university as bare leisure activities of a housewife without each vocational purpose.

practise of the profession

the term of the practise of the profession covers everything that belonged to the vocational activity strictly speaking, as it was managing described, thus for example the guidance of an enterprise, the conclusion of work contracts, the purchase of goods or operating articles, the mechanism of an office, occupation-referred advertisement or leading vocational or business titles and designations.

interference

is open the save area, is to be asked whether the national measure represents an interference into the occupation liberty. Such knows the aspect of practice (“how” the vocational activity) and their aspect of choice (“whether " the vocational activity) to concern. Not each measure, which concerns the professional activity only actually or only indirectly, can be evaluated however as fundamental right interference. Regulations, which have also, but not directly effects on the professional activity, are based by the Federal Constitutional Court in constant iurisdiction on the criterion of the objectively occupation-regulating tendency. In order to be able to affirm an interference, activities must be concerned, which are exercised typically vocationally and it must occur a considerable handicap of the vocational activity by the regulation.

In the last years a much discussed point at issue was to the interference problem whether national product informations represent an interference into the occupation liberty, which would be also unconstitutional for lack of justifying law. The controversy caught fire on the occasion of the glycol wine scandal, when the Federal Government published a list, which all wines, in which Diethylenglykol was found, enumerated and their Abfüller designated. This was rated of a majority of the bibliography as an interference into the practise of the profession liberty of the Abfüller, for which no justifying law was the basis. The Federal Constitutional Court represented strongly disputed decision (BVerfGE 105, 252) however in the year 2002 in one the opinion that market-referred information of the State of the basiclegal guarantee range of the competitors concerned from kind. 12 exp. 1 GG do not impair, if the influence on competition-substantial factors without distortion of market conditions takes place in accordance with condition of the legal defaults for national information acting. Constitutionally of importance are thereby being present a national task and the adherence to the competence order as well as the attention of the requirements to the correctness and Sachlichkeit of information.

constitutional justification

is affirmed an interference, does not mean this not automatically that the measure is unconstitutional. Also interferences into the occupation liberty can be justified. The occupation liberty stands thereby under simple law reservation (kind. 12 exp. 1 S. 2 GG). The Federal Constitutional Court developed the three-stage theory in such a way specified (also stage theory or stage teachings called) for this in the pharmacy judgement addressed already above, which is not undisputed in the literature. A gradated proportionateness examination is to be made after the Federal Constitutional Court in the examination of the justification:

• Pure practise of the profession regulations can be justified by “reasonable, appropriate reasons of the public interest”. To the practise of the profession regulations for example the appointment of closing times by the law regulating the closing time of shops , the regulations belong over the work time, the prohibition for a lawyer to defend several accused ones of or also the obligation membership in chambers.
• The list of subjective restrictions of occupation choice knows important community goods” as required precaution to the protection “, which the legislator can give after political purpose (therefore: “relative” community goods or - rate), to be justified. The practise of the profession of the legal profession e.g. without previous state exams would be “impossible or inappropriate”. Also the selection of the doctors participating in a public health insurance by the board of admission of the cash-medical combination is a occupation-referred differentiation, which sets to subjective characteristics of the concerning.
• Against objective restrictions of occupation choice the strictest demands are made. They are permissible only if they serve the defense of provable or most likely serious dangers for “absolute” (thus by constitutional law given) “outstandingly important” community goods. In addition e.g. belongs. the public health during the permission of working persons within the range of the medicine. Particularly problematic need clauses so mentioned, thus regulations in this connection, are which attach the admission of a vocational activity to a public need. So had e.g. the pharmacy judgement a need clause in the pharmacy right to the article, which required as a condition for the establishment of a new pharmacy that the existing pharmacies for the supply of the population with medicaments to be sufficient and the establishment of the new pharmacy economically not substantially would not impair the existing pharmacies. Since it is not recognizable in what respect such a regulation is compellingly necessary, in order to protect for instance the public health, it is unconstitutional.

examples of more extensive legal regulations

Important examples of legal regulations of the occupation liberty are

• e.g. the law regulating the closing time of shops
• , the general trade and industrial regulations
• or the special regulations for restaurants and hotels in
• the licensing act as well as the handicraft ordinance, in. the formal-legal conditions for the mastership examination and the Meistertitel are regulated.

regulations over the occupation liberty in the conditions of the German Lands of the Federal Republic

not all, but some Lands of the Federal Republic made concerning own regulations in their national conditions the occupation liberty. They contain differently than the Basic Law partly apart from the guarantee of the liberal of liberty right of the occupation liberty also following those social fundamental rights and the right to work of Weimar realm condition. The individual nationalconstitutional regulations to the occupation liberty and to the right to work have in practice a small meaning, in particular, there them as bare program sentences to be qualified and there the Federal Constitution-legal regulation kind. 12 GG despite the parallel validity in accordance with kind. 142 GG clearly dominates.

Exemplarily also for other countries in the following the regulations of the countries Bavaria, Bremen, Hessen, and Saxonia are pointed out:

• The condition of the Free State of Bavaria of 2. December 1946 guarantees in kind. 151 exp. 2 the liberty of the independent economic manipulation. It contains in addition, following those to Weimar realm condition social fundamental rights and places in kind. 166 the work as source of the national wealth under the special protection of the state. According to kind. 166 exp. everyone has 2 the right to create itself by work a auskömmliche existence.

• The national condition of the free Hanseatic city Bremen of 21. October 1947 speaks in kind. 8 exp. of the fact 1 that everyone has the moral obligation to work and a right to work. In exp. it contains 2 however beside the fact the guarantee that everyone has the right to select its occupation freely.

• The condition of the country Hessen of the 1. December 1946 places in kind. 28 exp. 1 likewise the manpower under special protection of the state and proclaims in exp. 2 everyone the right to work after its abilities and, without prejudice to its personal liberty, the moral obligation to the work.

• Also the condition of the Free State Saxonia of 26. May 1992 contains of the occupation liberty apart from the classical guarantee in kind. 18 exp. 1 also the acknowledgment of the right of each humans to a human being-worthy existence, in particular on work, on appropriate dwelling, on appropriate living costs, on social safety device and on education, as state State of (kind. 7 exp. 1).

Belgium

the condition of Belgium of 7. February 1831 contains only since the coordinated condition of 17. February 1994 a standard those expressly the occupation liberty concerns. Kind. 23 No. 1 ensures the right to work and to free choice of the professional activity in the framework to general employment policy. The occupation liberty is here thus only ensured in the framework the general employment policy. It concerns therefore thereby only a goal regulation by program. Besides the liberty of economic manipulation is recognized in Belgium as unwritten legal maxim, which has its origin in the simple right, i.e. in the acknowledgment of the freedom of trade.

France

the condition of the French republic of 4. October 1958 does not contain an own fundamental right catalog. The fundamental rights are written down in the explanation of the people and citizen rights from 1789 as well as in the preamble of the condition of 1946. By their mention in the preamble to them legal commitment comes to the condition of 1957. A regulation over the occupation liberty is not in addition, there. The Conseil d'État recognized however the freedom of trade and handels as general legal maxim without condition rank. The Conseil constitutionnel awarded however condition rank to the liberty of the business manipulation.

Italy

Italy is according to kind. 1 exp. 1 of the condition of the Italian republic of 27. December 1947 a democratic republic created on the work. In accordance with kind. the Republic of all citizens the right to work recognizes and promotes 4 too the conditions for the implementation of this right. Regulations over the occupation liberty are furthermore in kind. 41 exp. 1, the liberty of the private-economical initiative ensures.

the Netherlands

the condition of the kingdom of the Netherlands of 24. August 1815 grants only since the revised version in the year 1983 a uniform fundamental right catalog. That the occupation liberty comparable fundamental right is in kind. 19 III, according to which the right of each Dutchman to free choice of the work is recognized, without prejudice to the restrictions by law or strength of a law. Also a fundamental right character in the traditional sense is attached to this standard, so that it lends subjective legal positions. The standard stands however in the systematic connection with kind. 19 I, which makes the creation from sufficient jobs to the the subject of the concern of the state and the other public bodies. Thus is kind. to regard 19 primarily as an order to the legislator for the arrangement of the fundamental right protection.

Austria

the Austrian constitution (StGG) of 21. December 1867 contains comparable regulations regarding the occupation liberty only conditionally with the German right. In accordance with kind. Each citizen under the legal conditions can exercise 6 StGG each branch of trade. To that extent kind ensures. 6 StGG differently than the German condition explicitly the freedom of trade. This guarantee stands however under law reservation; the legislation is not reduced here. In addition kind guarantees. 18 StGG that it stands for everyone freely to select its occupation and for the same be formed, as and where he wants. This standard unfolds however no large effectiveness. After the historical interpretation this standard turns particularly against ständische or zünftische connections and privileges.

Switzerland

in Switzerland protects in kind. 27 of the Federal Constitution 18. April 1999 ensured fundamental right of the freedom of trade the free economic manipulation in a comprehensive sense. Are ensured thereby also the occupation freedom of election, the occupation entrance liberty and the practise of the profession liberty both legally and actually. The comprehensive protection of the freedom of trade, that before in kind. 31 of the condition was ensured of 1874, goes in his save area beyond that, which in Germany and other countries by occupation liberty and straight is understood in it shows up the order-political basic decision of Switzerland for a liberal economic system, even in further regulations (kind. 94, 26, 96 exp. 1) one expresses to the Federal Constitution.

Spain

the condition of the Kingdom of Spain of 29. December 1978 contains regulations to the occupation liberty in kind. 35 exp. 1 and kind. 38 exp. 1. According to kind. 35 exp. 1 sentence 1 all Spaniards the obligation have to work and the right to work, to the free choice of the occupation or an office, on progresses by their work and on a remuneration, which is sufficient to the satisfaction of its needs and that their family. Kind. 38 exp. 1 recognizes the enterprise liberty in the context of the free-market economy. However no emphasized role comes to the economic fundamental rights within the fundamental right catalog. Partially even the quality is denied to you as fundamental rights. Anyhow outweighs here the objective dimension, which leads to the fact that it concerns more a catalog of demands of a political character.

the occupation liberty in the European right

in the European right the aspects of the occupation liberty are protected over various regulations. However in particular the European convention does not contain a warranty of the free choice of occupation, job or training centre of the human rights and basic liberties to the protection. Here is only a prohibition of the slavery and hard labour.

Are to the occupation liberty of the German Basic Law comparable regulations in kind. 15 and 16 of the Charter of the fundamental rights of the European union (kind. II-75/76 of the European condition contract). Kind. 15 exp. 1 ensures the right to work and to exercise a freely selected or accepted occupation. Beyond the guarantee of the basiclegal occupation liberty is besides in kind. 15 exp. 3 of the Charter a requirement for citizens of third states on conditions of work, which the union citizen corresponds to those, if the foreigners work rightfully within the sovereignty range of the member states. In article 16 the Charter contains a reservedly formulated guarantee of the business liberty, which becomes recognized “after the Community law and the legislation and customs of the individual nations ”. The Charter of the fundamental rights became to 7. December 2000 in Nice solemnly proclaims; is by the failed referenda to the condition contract now in addition, the future of the Charter uncertain.

In the valid Community law there is no written fundamental right catalog apart from the Charter. The European Court of Justice (EuGH) must rely therefore during the derivation of an appropriate fundamental right primarily on the common condition tradition of the member states. The EuGH in this connection already stated in the year 1974 that the constitutional system of all member states ensures into “in similar way the liberty of the work, the trade and other professional activities” (Slg. 1974, 491, 507). In the further iurisdiction always far showed itself that the EuGH uses the free practise of the profession synonymously with the economic operating liberty, it thus differently than the dominant opinion in Germany the occupation liberty not from a personality-referred picture of the occupation ago interpreted, but market-referred argued. The occupation liberty is to that extent conceivablly far understood about the EuGH and interpreted as economic liberty. Also the interference understanding of the EuGH is comparatively far: an interference into the occupation liberty is to represent a protection of species-legal prohibition, determined net to fishing carry (Slg. 1990, I-4071, 4094 Rn. 81). This leads to the fact that almost any market-referred regulation could represent also an interference into the practise of the profession liberty. However in response the justification possibilities for an interference are various. Thus the typical statement is in the iurisdiction the fact that the mentioned interference corresponds to the public interest serving goals of the Gemeindschaft into the occupation liberty “and in its nature content does not touch this right " (Slg. 1994, 4973, 5068 Rn. 87). The EuGH does not define the term public interest however at all closely; he understands by it also the implementation of the domestic market, the protection of copyrights, the health -, consumers - or also environmental protection. Since the EuGH closely does not make also the examination of the proportionateness, so far a decision of the EuGH despite the far save area of the occupation liberty, which determined an offence against the practise of the profession liberty, is not.

Besides individual aspects of the occupation liberty are protected however also over the basic liberties of the EEC contract. To call is here the employee liberality (kind. 39 EGV), those into the kind. 43 FF. EGV protected freedom to establish residence as well as into the kind. 49 FF. EGV regulated service liberty. This basicfreeheated are only to the creation of a uniform domestic market aligned and address themselves mainly to the member states and/or. their sovereign instances. If one compares however the actual protection intensity of the basic liberties with the basiclegal occupation liberty, then one can speak quite of the fact that the basic liberties in their scope of protection correspond to the German occupation liberty roughly and functionally into for instance the same role takes as kind. 12 exp. 1 GG in the German right.

no express regulation

contains United States of America the condition of the United States of America of 1787 over the occupation liberty. However contains of the 14. Additional clause (§ 1) of the condition general clause-like the so-called. “due process clause”. This was not seen partly only than purely procedural regulation, but she was understood about supreme the Court as contentwise border of national interference power in lives, liberty and property. This led to the fact that also the basiclegal protection of economic interests was ensured. Long time coining/shaping was for this the “Lochner v. New York " - decision (198 U.S. 45) from the year 1905 (see in addition the article Lochner v. New York in the English Wikipedia). The supreme Court explained therein a law of the State of New York for unconstitutional, the work time of employees in baker's shops on at the most 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week limited. The hole he decision was based thereby on the classical economic liberalism and came later into sharp controversies. In the thirties this iurisdiction was completely changed. The hole he decision “overruled”, at the latest since 1937 did not however completely stop in the USA judicial control within the range of the restaurant legislation with reference to the due process clause. An offence against the condition is possible now only, if an economic adjustment offends against spezische constitutional regulations or fundamental constitutional interests.

literature

Monographien

• Arnd Auer: The occupation term kind. 12 exp. 1 Basic Law, Frankfurt/Main [among other things], publishing house Peter Lang, 1991, zugl.: Cologne, Univ., Diss., 1991, ISBN 3-631-43888-5
• Alexandra Borrmann: The protection of the occupation liberty in the German constitutional law and in the European Community law, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2002, zugl. jur. Diss. Cologne 2000, ISBN 3-428-10482-X
• Jörg gap: The occupation liberty, Heidelberg, Mueller, 1994, ISBN 3-8114-2594-3
• Rupert Stadler: The occupation liberty in the European community, Munich, Tuduv Verl. - Total ones into come., 1980, zugl.: Munich, Univ., Diss., 1980, ISBN 3-88073-098-9
• Giesbert over: Liberty of the occupation, Hamburg, 1952

contributions in comments and compilations

• Ruediger Breuer: Liberty of the occupation, in: Isensee/Kirchhof (Hrsg), manual of the public law, Bd. VI, § 147, Heidelberg, Mueller, 1989, ISBN 3-8114-2788-1
• ders.: The national occupation regulation and economic control, ebd., § 148
• Peter M. Huber, to condition-judicial control of practise of the profession regulations, in: Burkhardt Ziemske (Hrsg.), state State of and right politics: Anniversary publication for Martin Kriele to 65. Birthday, Munich, publishing house C.H. Beck, 1997, ISBN 3-406-41791-4
• Gerrit Manssen, kind. 12 paragraph 1, in: v. Mangoldt small Starck, comment on the Basic Law, Bd. 1, 5. Aufl., Munich, publishing house Vahlen, 2005, ISBN 3-8006-3187-3
• Peter J. Tettinger, kind. 12, in: Michael Sachs (Hrsg.), Basic Law comment, 3. Aufl., Munich 2003, ISBN 3-406-492339
• Joachim how/as country: Kind. 12, in: Refuge of three, Basic Law comment, Bd. 1, 2. Aufl., Tübingen, publishing house Mohr filter-hit a corner, ISBN of 3-16-148233-6

essays

• Jörn Ipsen: “Stage theory” and oversize prohibition, in: JuS 1990, S. 634 FF.
• Friedhelm hooves: Occupation liberty - memory of a fundamental right, in: NJW 1994, S. 2913-2922
• Helmut Lecheler and Hans-Peter cutter: Article 12 GG, liberty of the occupation and fundamental right of the work, in: Publications of the combination of the German public law teachers (VVDStRL), number 43, (1985), S. 7 and 48 FF.
• Hans Jürgen paper: A blank. 12 GG - Liberty of the occupation and fundamental right of the work, in: DVBl., 1984, S. 801 FF.
• Hans Heinrich Rupp: The fundamental right of the occupation liberty in the iurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, in: AöR Bd. 92 (1967), S. 212 FF.
• Friedrich Schoch: National information politics and occupation liberty, in: DVBl. 1991, S. 667 FF.
• Peter J. Tettinger: The fundamental right of the occupation liberty in the iurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, in: AöR Bd. 108 (1983), S. 92 FF.

Web on the left of

to guidance decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court to the occupation liberty

in the following a selection of important decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (quotes after the BVerfGE - place of discovery) is including Web left to the full text:

• BVerfGE 7, 377 (pharmacy judgement, of the 11. June 1958): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 13, 97 (handicraft ordinance, of 17. July 1961): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 30, 292 (Erölbevoratung, of 16. March 1971): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 33, 125 (specialist, of 9. May 1972): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 33, 303 (number Claus US judgement, of the 3. May 1972): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 50, 290 (participation, of the 1. March 1979): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 78, 179 (welfare practical men, of 10. May 1988): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 81, 242 (commercial agents, of 7. February 1990): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 84, 34 (judicial test control, of 17. April 1991): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 84, 59 (multiple choice procedures with examinations, of 17. April 1991): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 94, 372 (advertising prohibition for pharmacists, of 22. May 1996): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 95, 173 (warning reference on Tabakerzeugnissen, of 22. January 1997): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 98, 265 (abortion as professional activity, of 27. October 1998):Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 102, 197 (gaming house law Baden-Wuerttemberg, of 19. July 2000): Decision in the full text
• BVerfGE 105, 252 (glycol wine, of 26. June 2002): Decision in the full text
• Federal Constitutional Court, resolution of 5. December 2005 - 1 BvR 1730/02 - master obligation: Decision in the full text
• Federal Constitutional Court, judgement of 28. March 2006 - 1 BvR 1054/01 - sport bets: Decision in the full text (a national monopoly on sport bets kind is with the fundamental right of the occupation liberty. 12 exp. 1 GG compatible only if it is consistently at the goal of the fight against craze dangers aligned.)

other ones on the left of

• iurisdiction overview with dejure.org
• the condition texts of the European Union member states