Radical decree

the radical decree was a resolution of the heads of the government of the federation and the countries of 28. January 1972. Its official name reads principles for the question of the anticonstitutional forces in the public service, in the vernacular was called it simply radical decree, extremist resolution or Professional disqualification.

The heads of the government of the countries have in a discussion with Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt to 28. January 1972 on suggestion of the constant conference of the Ministers of the Interior of the countries the following principles decided:

  1. After the official laws in federation and countries may inthe official relationship to be only appointed, who guarantees that he occurs at any time for the free democratic constitutional structure in the sense of the Basic Law; Officials are obligated to use itself actively within and outside of the service for the preservation of this constitutional structure.
    It actsitself here around compelling regulations.
  2. Each individual case must be examined and decided for itself. From the following principles is to be proceeded thereby:
    1. Applicant
      1. an applicant, who develops anticonstitutional activities, is not adjusted into the public service.
      2. Belongs an applicant to an organization,it pursues the anticonstitutional goals then this membership justifies doubts about the fact whether it will occur at any time for the liberal and democratic constitutional structure. These doubts usually justify a refusal of the attitude request.
    2. An official
      fulfills a civil servant by actions or because of itsMembership in an organization of anticonstitutional objective the requirements § 35 official right framework law, due to those it obligated is not to profess themselves, by its entire behavior to the liberal and democratic constitutional structure in the sense of the Basic Law and be occurred for their preservation,so the service gentleman has to draw and examine the required conclusions in particular due to circumstances determined in each case whether the distance of the official from the service is to be aimed at.
  3. To workers and employees in the public service apply according to the respective tariff-contractualRegulations the same principles.

(Ministerialblatt of North Rhine-Westphalia, 1972, S. 324)

Table of contents

[work on]

consequences

up to its abolishment altogether 3.5 million persons were examined. Approx. 10.000 of it became the entrance intothat and/or. remaining in the public service refused, 130 became to dismiss. In the start time of the radical decree a rule inquiry at the Federal Office for protection of the constitution even took place, if someone applied for a place in the public service. This measure became however afterviolent protests end of the 1970er years (except in Bavaria) adjusted.

The reasons, which brought applicants for the public service into the suspicion of the anticonstitutionalness, were various. In practice were from the radical decree above all officials, official candidates, employees and workers of thepublic service and teaching profession junior lawyers from the left spectrum concerned, whereby not only communist, but also members of the Social Democrats and persons, who did not belong to party, which was refused attitude. It was sufficient partly to be active in an organization inthe communists played a prominent role. In addition belonged for example the combination of the pursued ones of the Nazi regime/federation of the anti-fascists (VVN/BdA), the German peace company/united war service opponents (DFG-VK) or the combination of democratic lawyers. Although it applied also to Neofaschisten, were affected by this only few of it.

The radical decree was often criticized as democracy hostile. The examination of the condition loyalty from publicly officials was uniquely in the European community and in international committees as injury of the human rights was rated. The Federal Constitutional Court has thatRadical decree however to 22. May 1975 (BVerfGE 39, 334) approved of. The European Court of Justice for human rights has in case of a dismissed (and later again adjusted) teacher, who DKP - member was, an offence against the articles 10 and 11 of the European human right convention(Right to freedom of reunion and opinion) accepted and the Federal Republic for the payment of payment of damages condemns.

The judgement of the European Court of Justice for human rights (EGMR, case Vogt against Germany, Az: 7/1994/454/535, v. 26. September 1995) referred expressly however only to officials andnot on civil service applicants: „The Court of Justice repeats that the right to attitude was intentionally not taken up in the public service to the convention. Accordingly the refusal knows to appoint a person the official not as such the basis for a complaint in accordance withrepresent to the convention. “

Willy Brandt designated the radical decree later than heavy error of its government.

[Work on]

current

of the Heidelberger material school teacher Michael Csaszkóczy may do 26 since that. Do not exercise himself August 2004 its occupation, there he in a local groupthe Antifa engages, which is classified by the protection of the constitution as left-wing extremistic. Beyond that Csaszkóczy refuses dissociating itself from texts of the group within which „Militanz “as legitimate means for the change of the constitutional system of the Federal Republic one designates. The reason of the of Baden-WuerttembergMinistry for education and cultural it is that he does not guarantee „, at any time fully to occur for the free democratic constitutional structure “. Some fear therefore one Renaissance the so-called. “Professionals disqualification” in the Federal Republic of Germany. Supported this acceptance is alleged by the circumstance that to 2.September 2005 Michael Csaszkóczy was first not stopped also in Hessen and the examination persists whether it is suitable for an official relationship personally. The Administrative Court Karlsruhe decided meanwhile that the decision not to adjust Michael Csaszkóczy on the basis of this decree,would be legal. Although an appointment did not become certified against this judgement, the plaintiff already announced to proceed against this judgement. This legal concept corresponds to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court which is based on the radical decree, to which an attitude considers justifiable only ifthe applicant “one of the condition (GG kind 33 Abs 5) a demanded and legal condition for the entrance into the official relationship [it fulfilled], concretized by the simple law [] that the applicant guarantees, at any time for the liberal democratic constitutional structureto occur (resolution of the BVerfG, 22. May 1975, Az: 2 BvL 13/73). This guarantee did not see the court given, since Csaszkóczy denies in principle that it a radical break between the so-called „third realm “and the liberally democratic constitutional structure (FDGO)gave the Federal Republic of Germany.

[Work on]

literature

  • Manfred Histor: Willy Brandts forgotten victims, history and statistics of the politically motivated professionals disqualification in West Germany 1971-1988. Ahriman publishing house, 2. erw. Aufl. 1999, ISBN 3922774075 prehistory and constitutional appreciation, documentation andstatistic dressing of the professionals disqualification, in co-operation with the free citizens citizens' initiative against professionals disqualification.
  • Gerard Braunthal: Political loyalty and public service: the radical decree of 1972 and the consequences. Stir up press publishing house, Marburg 1992, ISBN 389472062X
[work on]

Web on the left of

 

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