Federal Constitutional Court

Logo auf den Entscheidungen des Verfassungsgerichts

the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) is the constitutional court of the Federal Republic of Germany. As guardian of the German condition the court has a double role on the one hand as an independent constitutional body and on the other hand than part of the Judikativen government authority in the special area of the condition and international law. Although it controls decisions of other courts, it belongs not to the stage of appeal, but examines it as with other state organs than „document of the government authority “.

The Federal Constitutional Court has its seat in Karlsruhe and is as a constitutional body of one Befriedeten district surround. It is protected by the federal police.

Kollegium of the first senate, 2004
Kollegium of the second senate, 2005
buildings of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe

table of contents


constitutional court barness is in Germany no invention from the time after the Second World War. Already institutions like the realm Court of Appeal starting from 1495 and that Realm yard advice starting from 1518 spoke right between state organs. After the Paulskirchenverfassung 1849 the realm court should have been equipped with constitutional authority. 1850 developed with the Bavarian high court of state in Germany the first special court for constitutional questions. A reduced constitutional court saw those Weimar condition with the high court of state forwards.

With the Federal Constitutional Court the Basic Law (GG ) planned a legal infrastructure sui generis starting from 1949.

Establishment, tasks and occupation of the constitutional court are regulated in the articles 92 to 94 GG. Further rules over organization,Powers and procedural law are in the law over the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG). The court required differently than the remaining constitutional bodies of the constitution by this law. It took its work two years after the entry into force of the Basic Law up to 9. September 1951the first decisions were made; as „a day of the opening “becomes in the annals of the court of the 28. September 1951 designates.

binding effect and legal power

the special meaning of the Federal Constitutional Court come into § 31 exp. 1 BVerfGG to the expression:

„The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court bind the constitutional bodies of the federation and the countries as well as all courts and authorities. “

The formal binding effect of a decision exists only in the concrete case (inter of partes). There is not contentwise connection on for other courtsthe right opinion of the court expenditure-judged. These do not have a legal power. The right opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court is however a guide for the subordinated courts, which is usually also obeyed. Deviations are quite rare. Each court can however in another directly or similarlyfollow stored case of another legal opinion, if it considers this correct.

In § 31 exp. 2 BVerfGG cases mentioned have the decisions of the court however legal power and to apply to everyone (inter of omnes). It actsitself thereby essentially around procedures in which the court determines whether a law is compatible with the condition or not. Only the Federal Constitutional Court can explain a law for unconstitutional, that after the entry into force of the Basic Law was discharged (standard distortion authority). If another court considers a law unconstitutional, then it has this the BVerfG in accordance with kind. To submit 100 GG, as far as it is underlying (concrete standard control).

organization and saying body

the court are divided in two Senates and six chambers with different material competencies. It has the authority to change the competencies of the senates and chambers by the agenda which gives itself it. Increasingly thereby the legal background and emphasis of the members are considered. Left simplifyingin former times the first senate as „a fundamental right senate “and the second senate as „a public law senate “classify themselves: The first senate was particularly for questions of the interpretation of the kind. 1 to 17, 19, 20 exp. 4, 33, 38, 101, 103 and 104 GGresponsibly, while organ disputes between constitutional bodies or party prohibition procedures arrived before the second senate. This demarcation does not apply today, since both senates work on procedures depending upon specialized subject. By the high control density of its iurisdiction the court forms in the long run the regulation density of theGerman juridical system off.

Each senate was originally occupied with 12 judges. 1963 were lowered the number of the judges on 8. This includes the president and the vices-president of the Federal Constitutional Court, who preside one of the senates in each case. A senate is resolutionable,if at least 6 judges are present. Because of the straight number of judges in a senate deadlocks are possible (4-zu-4-Entscheidung so mentioned). An applicant or a complaint leader wins, if at least 5 judges divide his legal concept.

The senates appoint within their divisions independentlyseveral chambers, which are occupied with in each case 3 judges. These chambers decide with constitutional complaints, concrete standard controls and procedures after the PUAG in place of the senate and relieve it. Zurzeit exist in each case three chambers with each senate. Afterwards some judges are inseveral chambers member.

With a majority decision been subject judges have the possibility of attaching individually or together the decision of the court a special vote. This is published then together with the decision of the court under the heading „deviating opinion of the judge… “.

ToStandardization of its iurisdiction meets the court as plenum, if a senate wants to deviate from the iurisdiction of the other senate. For this it requires a collecting main resolution of the deviating senate. The plenum consists the presidency of all judges, leads the president. Todato the plenum only 2 times was called.

Since many decisions are prepared by the scientific coworkers, one speaks third senate in lawyer circles occasionally also of one „“, if one refers to the whole of the coworkers.


Judge with this court to be, is a high vocational honour;well-known personalities are and were judges at the Federal Constitutional Court. The judges are selected to the half of a special judge election commitee of the Bundestag and to the other half of the Upper House of Parliament. They havea unique term of office of 12 years, which ensures its personal independence.

While in the Upper House of Parliament a direct choice with 2/3-Mehrheit takes place, an election commitee from 12 delegates in the Bundestag, who are determined/selected using the d'Hondt'schen maximum number procedure, selects. A candidate is selected,if it at least eight voices of this committee on itself combines.

Three judges of each senate from the judges at the highest Courts of Justice of the federation are selected. Everyone, that is selectable over 40 years is old and after the German judge lawthe capability to the justiceship possesses (2. Legal state examination) or professor of the rights at a German university is. The judges must to be to the Bundestag selectable and be allowed neither the Bundestag, the Upper House of Parliament, the Federal Government still appropriate organs of a country belong.

In accordance with§ 4 exp. An age limit of 68 years exists 3 BVerfGG for the judges. With expiration of the monthly, in which the judge becomes 68 years old, its term of office ends, whereby it still resumes however the office, until a successor appointedis.

President and vice-president of the Federal Constitutional Court are determined according to § 9 BVerfGG alternating of Bundestag and Bundesrat. Usually this is the senate chairmen, also it is to be determined usually according to separating a president from the office the vice-president to its successor.

The judge becomes colloquial also „Federal Constitution judges “, briefly BVR (weibl. Form: BVR'in) mentioned, the correct designation reads however „judges at the Federal Constitutional Court “.

The court is not subject to supervision of service as a constitutional body.

first senate

judge of the first senate of the Federal Constitutional Court
name Beginning of the term of office end of the term of office
Hans Jürgen paper (* 1943) February 1998 February 2010 (term of office)
Evelyn Haas (* 1949) September 1994 Septembers 2006 (term of office)
Udo Steiner (* 1939) October 1995 30. September 2007 (age limit)
Christine Hohmann Dennhardt (*1950) January 1999 January 2011 (term of office)
Wolfgang Hoffmann Riem (* 1940) December 1999 31. March 2008 (age limit)
Brun Otto Bryde (* 1943) 23. January 2001 31. January 2011 (age limit)
pure hard Gaier (* 1954) November 2004 November 2016 (term of office)
Michael Eichberger (* 1953) April 2006 April 2018 (term of office)

second senate

judge of the second senate of the Federal Constitutional Court
name beginning of the term of office end of the term of office
Winfried Hassemer (* 1940) May 1996 29. February 2008 (age limit)
Siegfried Bross (* 1946) September 1998 Septembers 2010 (term of office)
Lerke Osterloh (* 1944) October 1998 Octobers 2010 (term of office)
Udo Di Fabio (* 1954) December 1999 Decembers 2011 (term of office)
Rudolf Mellinghoff (* 1954) 23. January 2001 23.January 2013 (term of office)
Gertrude Lübbe Wolff (* 1953) April 2002 April 2014 (term of office)
Michael Gerhardt (* 1948) July 2003 July 2015 (term of office)
harsh ore Landau (* 1948) October 2005 30. April 2016 (age limit)

presidents of the Federal Constitutional Court

The Federal Constitutional Court has a president. He is service superior of the officials of the court and is in minutes behind the Federal President, the president of the Bundestag, the Federal Chancellor as well as the president of the Upper House of Parliament in fifth place. The so far following persons had this office:

Federal Constitutional Court president
No. Name beginning of the term of office end of the term of office
1 Hermann Höpker Aschoff (1883 - 1954) 7. September 1951 15. January 1954
2 Josef Wintrich (1891 - 1958) 23. March 1954 19. October 1958
3 Gebhard Mueller (1900 - 1990) 8. January 1959 8. December 1971
4 Ernst Benda (* 1925) 8. December 1971 20. December 1983
5 Wolfgang Zeidler (1924 - 1987) 20. December 1983 16. November 1987
6 Novel duke (* 1934) 16. November 1987 30. June 1994
7 Jutta Limbach (* 1934) 30. June 1994 10. April 2002
8 Hans Jürgen paper (* 1943) 10. April 2002 presumably 2010 (term of office)

vices-president of theFederal Constitutional Court

Federal Constitutional Court vice-president
No. Name beginning of the term of office end of the term of office
1 Rudolf Katz (1895 - 1961) 7. September 1951 23. July 1961
2 Friedrich William Wagner (1894 - 1971) 19. December 1961 18. October 1967
3 Walter Seuffert (1907 - 1989) 18. October 1967 7. November 1975
4 Wolfgang Zeidler (1924 - 1987) 7. November 1975 20. December 1983
5 novel duke (* 1934) 20. December 1983 16. November 1987
6 Ernst Mahrenholz (* 1929) 16. November 1987 24. March 1994
7 Jutta Limbach (* 1934) 24. March 1994 14. September 1994
8 Johann Friedrich Henschel (* 1931) 29. September 1994 13. October 1995
9 Otto Seidl (*1931) 13. October 1995 27. February 1998
10 Hans Jürgen paper (* 1943) 27. February 1998 10. April 2002
11 Winfried Hassemer (* 1940) 10. April 2002

competencies and kinds of procedure (overview)

the Federal Constitutional Court is toControversy decision responsibly only if this results from the Basic Law or § 13 BVerfGG (so-called Enumerativprinzip). As every other court cannot become active it on its part, but must be called. Apart from its tasks on federal level it can a competence with condition disputes around the interpretation of national conditions give, if this plans the condition of a Land of the Federal Republic (for instance Schleswig-Holstein).

Not responsibly the Federal Constitutional Court is however with disputes, which affect the European union or its contracts. In this case is the European Court of Justice (EuGH) responsibly.

constitutional complaint

major item constitutional complaint

each citizen, who sees itself hurt by national acting in its fundamental rights, can submit a constitutional complaint („individual complaint “). By national acting each act of the public force is to be understood,in legal positions of the fundamental right carrier intervenes. Among them fall all document the carrying out of the force, iurisdiction and legislation. Acting, but also omitting cannot only cover document of the public force. The so-called „classical interference term “, which was relevant until 1992, defined under it oneInterference, which

  • is finally and not only unintentional consequence of national acting
  • is direct
  • by a legal instrument with imperativer external effect is justified.

The modern interference understanding done without the characteristics of the legal instrument, the immediacy and the imperativen external effect and makes in the resultnearly each effect of the state examinably.

The court is however no superappeal instance: A wrong application of simple laws by the specialized courts is not sufficient for a permissible complaint, if these legal positions are not basiclegally protected.

There are different constitutional complaints:

  • against lawsand/or other standards of the federation
  • against laws and/or other standards of a Land of the Federal Republic, if no national constitutional court is responsible
  • against an authority decision
  • against a judicial ruling
  • against every other national or the State of zuordenbare acting

also legal entities can raise constitutional complaint. This howeveronly, if the fundamental rights can find to their nature after on legal entities application (kind. 19 exp. 3 GG), about occupation liberty (kind. 12 GG) or property (kind. 14 GG), not however freedom of religion (kind. 4 GG). Legal entities of the public right are in principle does not complaint-authorize.

Municipalities and municipality federations can submit a constitutional complaint with the reason, them are hurt in their local right of self-government. In this case one speaks of „municipal constitution complaints “.

So that the constitutional complaint is permissible, the complaint leader no more other redress may openlystand („Subsidiaritätsprinzip “). Exceptions are if necessary permissible if the complaint leader the exhaustion of the course of law is not reasonable and the effective penetration of its fundamental rights would be otherwise defeated.

The constitutional complaint is the by far most frequent kind of procedure. The largest part of these proceduresdoes not become by the senates, but decided by a chamber, if they raise legal questions already clarified or are obviously unfounded or obviously justified. Partially the court in such cases A limine can decide.

One „working on warranty “gives it with thatConstitutional complaint not. Apart from the possibility of a A-Limine - rejection was created starting from 1993 with § 93d BVerfGG the possibility of not accepting constitutional complaints without reason for decision. Only 2.5% of all complaint requests are worked on. This was justified right-wing politically with the fact that reasons judiciallyDecisions only for calling further instances are necessary. The court does not belong however to the stage of appeal. In addition it comes that the court can raise an abuse fee - for in principle the court fee-free procedure -. In its practice the court made however very rarelyof it use.

concrete standard control

a specialized court, which considers a certain law unconstitutional, can introduce the procedure of concrete standard control by resolution (kind. 100 GG). Thus it interrupts the own procedure and gives the case to the inzidentenExamination to the constitutional court off. Only the constitutional court can explain laws for unconstitutional and had exclusive the standard distortion authority in the German juridical system.

Illegally concrete standard control is however for before-constitutional right, thus for laws, those before the entry into force of theBasic Law announced are. Specialized technical and authorities themselves can reject their application. By this however the following cases do not fall:

  • substantial components of the before-constitutional law were changed after the entry into force of the Basic Law or
  • reference of a new law to a before-constitutional law or
  • thatnew law stands in a close material connection to the before-constitutional law or
  • the before-constitutional law was announced new.

If it depends in a judicial procedure on the validity of a standard of the Community law, the specialized court has first the preliminary ruling of the EuGHto catch up. If the EuGH affirms its validity, German specialized court has however nevertheless a collecting main to the BVerfG as concrete standard control to decide (appropriate use of kind. 100 exp. 1 GG), if it of the invalidity of the European Union standard

  • because of injury afterKind. 23 GG of indispensable basiclegal minimum standard or
  • because of excess of the community authority (break out of „the integration program “of the contracts)

convinced is. → overview, so long I, so long II, Maastricht judgement

abstract standard control

the BVerfG becomes on request thatFederal Government, a federal state government or at least one third of the members of the Bundestag actively. Abstract standard control makes possible thus for the opposition to let the constitutionality of a law or an international-law contract decided by the government-supporting majority examine.

organ controversy

an organ controversya law case between national organs over rights and obligations, which result from their special constitutional status, is in particular from the condition or from their agenda or statute given in autonomy.

federation land controversy

a federation land controversy becomes with oneDifference between federation and countries for example in questions of the legislative competence exerted.

party prohibition

of party prohibitions are procedures according to the article 21 GG. Are request-entitled Bundestag, Bundesrat and the Federal Government. So far 1952 became the SRP (a socialist realm party) and 1956 the KPDforbidden. A prohibition procedure against the NPD was stopped from the court 2003.

forfeiture of fundamental rights

are request-entitled Bundestag, Bundesrat and the Federal Government. In the history of the court four procedures were pending. → major item fundamental right forfeiture and fundamental right forfeiture procedure

choice examination

the court is the second and last instance with objections against the election to the Bundestag. The first instance is as organ even administered the Bundestag. „“Know choice test complaint members of the federal daily, the Upper House of Parliament or the Federal Government or Quorum from at least 101 citizens entitled to vote raise. For this an error must have arisen by acting or omitting during the choice, which affected the allocation of seats in the Bundestag.

accusations against the Federal President or judge accusations

are request-entitledBundestag, Bundesrat and the Federal Government. Such an accusation did not occur ever.

provisional legal protection

as according to every other process order can meet the constitutional court provisional decisions, until the main method is decided (provisional arrangements in accordance with § 32 BVerfGG).A characteristic lies in the fact that organ contentious proceedings and standard controls take care of themselves in practice, if they are politically explosive. „The underlying “side continues to operate the main method often not.

criticism at the Federal Constitutional Court

regardless of changing criticism has the court oneremarkable and control frequency outstanding in the international comparison and - seals developed and practices a very strict judicial self restraint at the same time, which other legal orders in this combination often do not know (see. US supreme Court). This given and sequentially developed condition understandingit made the one unique confidence in the state people its own democratic institution, enjoys and internationally designates one it as example of highly developed right control. The role of the court as guardians of the Basic Law goes by definitionem over bare arbitrariness control of the stateoutside, it is the preserving and integrals retaining the condition in the German domestic development dynamism and in the context of the European union.

The court cooperated with the highest or constitutional courts of over 70 states and its position as a strong constitutional body served othersCountries as state-organizational model.


with some judgements is criticized, the court goes to clear decisions out of the way. About „the head cloth judgement was often felt “as unsatisfactory and dilatory. One hears this criticism particularly ofSides, which would see the court gladly as letztinstanzliches political corrective. On the other hand the court remained resistant since its existence. Its practice of judicial self restraint does not see it as essential in the distribution of roles of the constitutional bodies tunlichst not intervening. This showed uplast with the decision for dissolution of Bundestag 2005.

On the other hand from the policy with several judgements, the court far its authority was reprimanded to those of a spare legislator out, although this role is zugedacht after the condition the parliament. Instead of itself upsubstantial excesses and arbitrariness of the legislator to limit, bring in it own social and political conceptions and make for the legislator decided defaults of justice, which are to be financed often with difficulty and on the other hand from conceptions of the policy deviate.

Partiallyjudge the two senates of the Federal Constitutional Court differently despite legal standards for the uniformity of the iurisdiction, approximately in the question whether a physician is responsible for the maintenance of a handicapped child, if he clears parents up insufficiently regarding an abortion for health reasons.

ThatEuropean Court of Justice for human rights accepted, approximately the not sufficient keeping of the human rights with some decisions of the court with the protection of the Privatsphäre of persons of the public life, which the court without reservation granted only to children of these persons.


A further point of criticism is the choice of the judges by politicians after arrangement between the political parties, in particular the rotation-moderate designation. A suggestion by the Ministries of Justice would cut however the parliament rights. Even if the judges are usually members of a party, leaveswith their decisions no party or interest-arranged sample determine themselves nevertheless.

important decisions (thematically arranged)

decisions of the court become and. A. in the official collection BVerfGE publishes.

  • no valuation life against lives,the Credo of the decision is to the air safety law 2005. The condition forbids killing the state innocent humans, in order to save others, under all circumstances (judgement of 15.02.2006 Az. 1 BvR 357/05).

fundamental right protection generally and Prozessuales

  • that Eleven-it judgement treated the general freedom of action, legally important is it by the definition of the prozessualen fundamental right protection: The court defined as „constitutional objective legal order “the whole of all standards on all standardize-hierarchical levels, those formal and material in accordance with the condition are andit points out that basiclegally protected positions are not only in the Basic Law laid down, but numerously and often by simple right is regulated dropconcretely. An offence against it can always at least as injury of kind. 2 exp. 1 GG reprimanded and ofConstitutional court to be examined. Since however the German juridical system does not know a superrevision, it requires a constitutionally focused delimitation (so-called. „Tail' sche formula “), according to which the court examines the decisions of specialized courts only for the injury „specific constitutional law “:
    • if the influence of a condition standardif the application of the law was misjudged
    • completely or in principle rough or obviously arbitrary was or
    • if the borders of judicial right advanced training were exceeded.

(BVerfGE 6, 32).

freedom of conscience

  • the court waives 1978 a Federal law, after person liable for military service the war serviceby a written explanation to refuse, without stating in detail their conscience decision (also called „Verweigerung by postcard “), BVerfGE knew 2 BvF 1/77, 2 BvF 2/77, 2 BvF 4/77, 2 BvF 5/77.

art liberty

fundamental right on Informationelle self-determination (data security)

  • 1983 is deduced in the census judgement a fundamental right on several condition principles, not codified in the Basic Law, and defined as independent Rechtsinstitut. (BVerfGE 65, 1)
  • 2006 decide thatCourt that on a non removable disk privately stored Internet supported communication is not by the communications secret protected, since Übermittlungsvogänge are already terminated, however experiences it in an auxiliary relationship protection by the fundamental right on Informationelle self-determination as well as the inviolability of the dwelling -2 BvR 2099/04

marriage and family

  • the court 2001 confirmed and/or. 2002 the life partnership law and got straight that equal rights of homosexual one the special national protection of marriage and family (kind. ) Does not contradict 6 GG. The Basic Law requiresa particularly active promotion of marriage and family, probably however none „spacer requirement “to other life organizations - from the disadvantage others would not have marriages and families anything (BVerfGE 105, 313).
  • see also: Overview for further iurisdiction in economic and fiscal questions

inviolability of the dwelling and telecommunications liberty

  • large wire-tapping: 2004 is waived regulations over acoustic dwelling monitoring as partly unconstitutional. The court defines an inviolable „core range of private life organization on the basis the fundamental right on Informationelle self-determination “, as personal Refugium of the citizen, thatby national measures not to penetrieren and even prosecution is no interference justification to be may (BVerfGE 109, 279)
  • the preventive telephone monitoring in Lower Saxony 2005 for unconstitutional is explained, since the legislative competence is missing to Lands of the Federal Republic. The decision for similar Landesgesetzgebung is materially importantin Thuringia and Bavaria (BVerfGE 1 BvR 668/04).

equality before the law

  • in that speculation-expensively - decision for the years 1997 and 1998 explained the court of parts of the income tax act for unconstitutional and futile, those the load of profits from salewith securities plan, but on the own legal interspersing barness, so-called do without.structural execution deficit. Thus an uneven load is already in the law put on (BVerfGE 2 BvL 17/02).

opinion and Pressefreiheit

  • in „the Tucholsky decision “around the publicStatement „soldiers are murderers! “the court of its tradition remains faithful to protect the opinion and Pressefreiheit as democracy-vital condition property and leads an exemplary examination of fundamental right interferences due to a law reservation as constitutional barrier. This decision shows practical application more importantlyPrinciples from the constant iurisdiction to the fundamental right protection like the tail' sche formula, the reciprocal effect teachings, the objective value ranking and the save area definition of Werturteilen and factual statements (BVerfGE 93, 266).

freedom of reunion and demonstration

  • in the Brokdorf decision lift the courtthe special meaning demonstration and of the freedom of reunion for a plebiszitarme democracy out, why a particularly strong status Negativus works against excessive regimentations by law or act of administration. The state may not meet interference measures due to the police regulations, but only on the basis the fundamental right-carefulMeeting right (so-called. Police firmness). Also such might not be seized with reference to a ready for violence minority (BVerfGE 69, 315).

freedom of religion

  • in the so-called. Scientology sect - decision defines 1994 the court the freedom of religion and. A. as collective fundamental right and onefrom this resulting autonomy liberty of religious communities. This is not anyhow hurt with a commercial manipulation with realization of profits intention, if the religious community is obligated to the trade announcement and trade tax (DVBl. 1194, 413)
  • crucifix resolution 1995 explain parts of the Bavarian school law for unconstitutional, whereafterin each classroom of the elementary schools in Bavaria a crucifix or a cross to attach was. (BVerfGE 93, 1)
  • 2002 decide the BVerfG that it is unconstitutional, to refuse to Muslim butchers special permissions for the religious pits from animals to. (BVerfGE 104, 337)
  • in Head cloth controversy forbids the court 2003 to the country Baden-Wuerttemberg to forbid and close on a missing suitability for the government service carrying a head cloth without legal basis. (BVerfGE 108, 282)


several legal regulations to the abortion(§§ 218 FF StGB) by the court for unconstitutional are explained and waived, because they did not correspond to the life protection yardstick of the Basic Law, and. A. the so-called. „Period regulation “.


broadcast judgements in several decisions the court the development ofPress, broadcast and media like hardly another subject substantially codesign.

the court

  • the occupation liberty defines universities and occupation liberty in the pharmacy judgement as uniform fundamental right, which is limitable according to strict gradated criteria on 3 levels, so-called. 3-Stufen-Theorie (BverfGE7, 377).
  • In the number Clausus - decision is defined a requirement on permission to the higher education and capacity development as status positivus, that for the save area of the occupation liberty is heard (BVerfGE 33, 303).
  • The university framework law of the federation becomes in the years 2004 and 2005 inexplains to important parts for unconstitutional, because the federation has only the framework legislative competence. This concerns the Juniorprofessur (BVerfGE 2 BvF 2/02) as well as the prohibition of study fees (BVerfGE 2 BvF 1/03).


  • in the Nassauskiesungs resolution puts the court the save areaa very much definition-stressed fundamental right as the property firm and the legal techniques for its permissible restrictions as „contents and barrier regulations “of the institute for property, legal paste now gene or legal criteria for administrative paste now gene (BVerfGE 58, 300).


  • the transformation law to the European Union warrant of arrest becomes 2005 for unconstitutional explain. The decision defines the save area kind. A political codesigning and a fundamental delivery stop guarantees 16 GG in the sense of a comprehensive right of domicile, a durable nationality , (BVerfGE 2 BvR 2236/04). see together seizing major item

The court stresses

  • parliament rights and legislation in the decision to the false question of confidence of Helmut Kohl 1983 that a dissolution of the parliament may not serve the organization of a favorable next choice date by the government. Also one requires by constructional vote of no confidencedid not install government of a new authentication by the voter, so-called. Equivalence formula (BVerfGE 62, 1).
  • In the judgement to new elections 2005 these principles are developed further. False and genuine question of confidence are directly set and to the purpose kind. 68 GG adjusts. The chancellorto support been entitled also by hidden circumstances its dissolution suggestion. The court practices again judicial self restraint and reduces its test authority in the distribution of power of the constitutional bodies. (Gz: Abroad 1994 concretized 2
  • BvE 4/05) in the decision over employments of the German Federal Armed Forcesthe court the principle of the parliament army and stated that the government could instruct military employments only if it catches up the konstitutive agreement of the federal daily before. This can do the Bundestag through „to simple vote of parliament “in sufficient form (BVerfGE 90, 286).
  • The life partnership law is confirmed 2002 with the reference to the organization liberty of the parliament as condition conformal. At the same time the court criteria for the liberty of the government in the legislative procedure of parts of a draft package concretizes to decouple and it against the will of the Upper House of Parliament asLaw come to let (105, 313).
  • Zuwanderungsgesetz is waived because of defects of proceedings in the legislative procedure 2002 and clarified a condition conflict in the Upper House of Parliament. (BVerfGE 106, 310)
→ recapitulatory major item judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court to the Zuwanderungsgesetz 2002

party prohibitions


  • in „as long as ii-resolution “the court suspends its own jurisdiction regarding fundamental right impairments from or due to the secondary EEC right, so long on community levelin essentially equivalent fundamental right protection by community organs as the EuGH is ensured. This is essentially given by two components: The German agreement law to the EGV as application instruction for the secondary Community law and the structural test density by the EuGH (BVerfGE 73,339).
  • In the Maastricht judgement these principles are continued to specify and „the co-operation relationship “in the fundamental right jurisdiction between BVerfG and EuGH is more near outlined. New connecting factor for the test density and the tasks of the BVerfG is after the EUV each Community law act directly and not itsConversion by the German executive. Thus the Basic Law is also for it test yardstick. Regarding the sovereignties - and authority transmission to the community applies „the principle of the limited single authorization “by the member states, that the EUV interpretation as well as the international-law Effet UtileRule affects, in the result however no authority extension or - again reason permits (BVerfG NJW 1993, 3047).


the Federal Constitutional Court has an internal, only technical library with the emphasis state and constitutional law, administrative law, which can be used by members of the court , State and society teachings, politics and contemporary history. The existence of the library covered about 345,300 volumes in March 2005 and grows each year by approximately 6,000 to 7,000 volumes. The magazine existence covers about 1,000 current of subscription. In attached press archivesbesides all are collected the court affecting materials; are evaluated daily between 20 and 30 daily and weekly papers. All existing works are listed in the South West German library group (SWB).

see also

to literature

  • Jutta Limbach (Hrsg.): The Federal Constitutional Court. History - task - iurisdiction. C. F. Mueller, Heidelberg 2000 (motives, texts, materials; 91), ISBN 3-8114-2143-3
  • Jutta Limbach: The Federal Constitutional Court. Beck, Munich 2001 (Beck' row, 2161: C.H.Beck knowledge), ISBN 3-406-44761-9
  • refuge Säcker: The Federal Constitutional Court.6. Edition. Federal center for political education, Bonn 2003 (series of publications of the federal center for political education, 405), ISBN 3-89331-493-8
  • Klaus Schlaich: The Federal Constitutional Court. Position, procedure, decisions; a study book. 6. revised edition. Beck, Munich 2004 (legal short text books), ISBN 3-406-51387-5
  • Uwe Wesel: ThatCourse to Karlsruhe. The Federal Constitutional Court in the history of the Federal Republic. 1. Edition. Blessing, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-89667-223-1

Web on the left of

Wiktionary: Federal Constitutional Court - word origin, synonyms and translations
Wikinews: Federal Constitutional Court - current messages

of on-line audio contributions

  • the last instance? Haven-guesses/advises the Federal Constitutional Court - composition of the Federal Constitutional Court - his tasks -Ozone Theodor Heuss for opening to 18.9.1951 - two examples of cases, with which the Federal Constitutional Court was entrusted: 1. The Lüth judgement - 2. “Soldiers are murderers” - sticker - authoress: Inches Hofmann - a transmission by inches Hoffmann. Radiant emittance inBayern2Radio: 28. /30.6.1999 "

Federal courts
Federal Constitutional Court
common senate of the highest Courts of Justice of the federation
Federal Labor Court | Federal Finance Court | Federal High Court | Federal Social Court | Federal Administrative Court
federal patents court | Troop service courts
This article was taken up to the list of the articles worth reading.
Please you consider also the reference tooRight topics!

Coordinates: 49° 0 ' 45 " N, 8° 24 ' 6 " O


  > German to English > de.wikipedia.org (Machine translated into English)