Confiscation of property in Czechoslovakia in 1945—exclusion of German jurisdiction—Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation—nationality in international law—neutrality of Liechtenstein in World War II

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-219
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Bardo Fassbender
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
World War ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Civil Courts ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court

Prince of Liechtenstein v. Federal Supreme Court. Case 2 BvR 1981/97. 36 Archiv des Volkerrechts 198 (1998).German Federal Constitutional Court (3d Chamber, 2d Senate), January 28, 1998.On January 28, 1998, a chamber of the German Constitutional Court decided that the Court would not deal with a constitutional complaint brought before it by Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, Head of State of die Principality of Liechtenstein. In effect, the chamber thus upheld the decisions made by the civil courts rejecting the Prince's attempt to recover a family painting confiscated by Czechoslovakia and currently on loan to a German museum.

Balancing and judicial self-empowerment: A case study on the rise of balancing in the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
NIELS PETERSEN
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Argumentation Framework ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

AbstractMany critics of the proportionality principle argue that balancing is an instrument of judicial self-empowerment. This contribution argues that the relationship between balancing and judicial power is more complex. Balancing does not necessarily create judicial power, but it presupposes it. This argument is confirmed through a case study of the German Federal Constitutional Court. The analysis shows that the German Constitutional Court was very reluctant to base decisions, in which it overturned legislation, on balancing in the first two and a half decades of its jurisprudence. However, in the late 1970s, once the Court had strengthened its own institutional position, it increasingly relied on balancing when declaring laws as incompatible with the constitution. Then, balancing developed into the predominant argumentation framework of constitutional review that it is today in the Court’s jurisprudence.

The German Federal Constitutional Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 279-356
Author(s):  
Anuscheh Farahat
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
New Era ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Post War ◽  
Nazi Era ◽  
German Constitutional Law ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court

This chapter discusses the German constitutional court, otherwise known as the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht; ‘BVerfG’). It first traces the development of the German process of constitutional jurisdiction from its pre-Nazi era roots to its astounding post-war transformation into one of the world’s leading courts. The chapter looks at the challenges inherent in the founding of the BVerfG before providing an overview of the organization and role and functions of the BVerfG. It shows how the BVerfG acts as the ‘guardian’ of German constitutional law. To conclude, this chapter reflects on the increasing Europeanization of constitutional law and what it means for the BVerfG to navigate this new era of constitutional pluralization.

scholarly journals Soberanía y democracia en el discurso europeo del Tribunal Constitucional alemán : ¿una nueva defensa ad extra de la democracia? = Sovereignty and democracy in the european speech of the Constitutional German Court

2013 ◽  
pp. 259
Author(s):  
Leonardo Álvarez Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
Political Identity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Constitutional Tradition ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

Este trabajo se ha propuesto analizar la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán sobre al proceso de integración europeo. Las categorías de soberanía y democracia, los dos pilares en los que se ha apoyado tradicionalmente su argumentación, se han concebido como cualidades de un ordenamiento nacional. Por ello, la naturaleza, las funciones y límites de la UE se han definido por el Tribunal Constitucional Federal a partir de categorías de derecho interno. Este trabajo ha tratado de demostrar cómo desde la Sentencia sobre el Tratado de Lisboa (2009), se han parecido sentar las bases para definir los conceptos soberanía y democracia, a partir de la tradición constitucional común de los Estados miembros. En definitiva, de lo que modernas escuelas de pensamiento científico denominan un iuspublicum europaeum. Esta transformación metodológica se lleva cabo por el Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán retornando a la concepción material de democracia presente en su jurisprudencia de los años 50 y 60. Si esta sirvió entonces para construir una democracia militante ad intra frente a los enemigos de la democracia, es posible que pueda servir también ahora para la defensa militante ad extra de la democracia. El respeto de la identidad política alemana impuesta a la UE en la Sentencia Lisboa puede hablar a favor de ello.This paper analyzes the German Federal Constitutional Court case-law about the European integration process. Both concepts of sovereignty and democracy, base of its reasoning, have been constructed as related to a national legal system. Therefore, the nature, functions and limits of the EU has been determined by the BVerfG in relation to state categories. This paper tries to show how since Lisbon’s ruling (2009), the bases for a definition of sovereignty and democracy from the point of view of the common constitutional tradition of Member States may have been established. That’s to say, what modern Schools for Scientific Thought call iuspublicum europaeum. The German Federal Constitutional Court makes this methodological transformation returning to the material concept of democracy established during the 50’s and 60’s. If it was then used in order to construct a militant democracy ad intra against the enemies of democracy, it may be now used to the militant defense ad extra of democracy. The respect for German political identity imposed by Lisbon’s ruling supports this idea.

Avena and Sanchez-Llamas Come to Germany – The German Constitutional Court Upholds Rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Gogolin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
The U.S

Much attention has been given to a series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the effects of the decisions of the International Court of Justice interpreting the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. On 19 September, 2006, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - German Federal Constitutional Court), has made its first judgment on the issue. The decision is significant for international law and even more specifically for U.S. jurists: Its outcome differs significantly from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Blind Date Between Familiar Strangers: The German Constitutional Court Goes Luxembourg!

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-382
Author(s):  
Asteris Pliakos ◽  
Georgios Anagnostaras
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
New Era ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Institutional Relationships ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

Preliminary references by national constitutional courts are not an everyday occurrence in Union law. No surprise, therefore, that they attract considerable publicity and give rise to a significant amount of academic comment. However, the recent preliminary request of the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) inGauweilerconstitutes undoubtedly the most important and historic preliminary reference made thus far by a constitutional court. This is not only because it is the very first preliminary request of this particular court, inaugurating potentially a whole new era in its institutional relationships with the Court of Justice and paving the way for other national constitutional courts to make more regular recourse to the preliminary reference procedure; but also because it relates to an issue of central importance for the process of European integration with far reaching economic and political repercussions.

scholarly journals The Administrative State, Front and Center: Studying Law and Administration in Postwar America

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reuel E. Schiller
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
History Textbooks ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
World War ◽  
Historic Site ◽  
Postwar America ◽  
The Public ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
The Subject

More than any other case from the postwar period,Brown v. Board of Educationhas captured the attention of historians and the public alike. The case itself, and the NAACP's campaign that led to it, have been the subject of books and articles beyond counting. In many history textbooks it is the only court case mentioned between the end of World War II and the early 1960s. It is one of a handful of cases that is recognized by the public at large and is surely the only Supreme Court case that has its own National Historic Site.

Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 451-511
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional

451Economics, trade and finance — European Monetary Union — Fiscal sovereignty — Public debt — Monetary policy — Economic policy — European Union — Asset purchase programme — Quantitative easing — Central banks — European Central Bank — European System of Central Banks — BundesbankTreaties — Treaty-making powers — Constitutional limitations on treaty-making powers — Transfers of powers by States to intergovernmental and other transnational authorities — Whether compatible with constitutional prerogatives of national parliament — Overall budgetary responsibility — Basic Law of GermanyInternational organizations — European Union — Powers — Member States as masters of the treaties — Principle of conferral — Whether Union having competence to determine or extend its own powers — Principle of subsidiarity — Court of Justice of the European UnionRelationship of international law and municipal law — European Union law — Interpretation — Application — Judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union — Weiss — Principle of proportionality — Whether application of EU law having absolute primacy — Whether German Federal Constitutional Court having absolute duty to follow judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union — Compatibility with Basic Law of Federal Republic of Germany — Openness of German Basic Law to European integration — Whether purchase programme ultra vires — Whether ultra vires acts applicable in Germany — Whether having binding effect in relation to German constitutional organsJurisdiction — European Union institutions — Whether jurisdiction of German Federal Constitutional Court extending to Court of Justice of the European Union and European Central Bank — Whether acts of EU institutions subject to national constitutional review — Ultra vires review — Review of core identity of national constitution — Whether application of EU law having absolute primacy — Whether absolute duty to follow judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union — The law of Germany

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document