German court ruling is a boost for Green Party

Headline GERMANY: Climate ruling is a boost for Green Party

German court decision could delay EU recovery fund

Headline GERMANY: Constitutional court could hurt recovery fund

Exploring gender disparities in the prosecution of theft cases: Propensity score matching on data from German court files

This article engages in the discussion about gender disparities in prosecutorial decision-making. Appling propensity score matching after multiple imputation on data drawn from case files, the article examines differences in the prosecutorial treatment of male and female defendants in cases of minor theft in Germany. The matched data reveal significant differences between genders in the prosecutorial conclusion of proceedings: whereas dismissals because of other imposed sentences are more frequently imposed on male defendants, disposals with penalty fees are more common for female defendants. Hence, contrary to existing literature, the present study reveals harsher prosecutorial treatment of women because they have to pay penalty fees more frequently. The findings are contextualized with the focal concern hypothesis, which suggests that stereotypes influence decision-making in criminal proceedings. Together with the determination that women are more likely to pay fines or penalty fees completely and on time, this leads to the assumption that efficiency considerations by prosecutors influence their decision and make the imposition of penalty fees more attractive from an economic point of few.

A Long Time Coming

The commentary, especially from abroad, on the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment concerning the bond-buying programme undertaken by the European Central Bank (ECB) conveys the impression that something unimaginable has occurred. The German court has refused to follow the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thereby setting “a bomb under the EU legal order.”1 Yet there is nothing new about the risk of conflict between the two courts. It came about when the Court of Justice of the European Union implicitly presumed, in 1963,2 and explicitly declared, in 1964,3 that European law takes precedence over domestic law, even over domestic constitutional law. This view was by no means without alternative, given that the Treaties of Rome do not address the precedence of Community law. The Member States involved in the dispute denied having agreed to any such precedence in the Treaties. Even the CJEU’s Advocate General was unable to find any basis in the Treaties for the precedence of European law.4 The CJEU derived the precedence of European law from the purpose of the European Economic Community.5 It argued that there could be no common market if each Member State applied and interpreted European law however it saw fit.

German court ruling underlines ECB vulnerability

Headline EU: German ruling exposes ECB difficulties

Western Prisoners of War Tried by Court Martial for Insults to the Führer and Criticism of Nazi Germany

The fact that the Geneva Convention of 1929 placed prisoners of war (POWs) under the laws in effect in the army of the detaining state meant that western POWs in Nazi Germany were exposed to the extremely repressive Nazi wartime legislation. Hundreds of western POWs had to appear in front of German court martials as a result of a joke on Hitler, a critical comment on the conditions of captivity or the behavior of German soldiers. They were judged under the Nazi anti-subversion laws, which led to thousands of death sentences for civilians and German soldiers (although none for a western POW). Even private remarks in a letter to family could lead to several years in military prison. German judicial practice against POWs became more repressive as cases multiplied and as the judges and civilian witnesses became more nervous toward the end of the war, leading to rapid and harsh judgments based on dubious evidence and frivolous denunciations. The court martials sometimes reflected the attitudes and subversive thoughts of German witnesses. The fact that the sentences were legal according to the Geneva Convention of 1929 prompted the drafters of the 1949 Geneva Convention to revise the provisions for trials of POWs.