Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:38:14.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Casenote –– Human Dignity as a Matter of Legislative Consistency in an Ideal World: The Fundamental Right to Guarantee a Subsistence Minimum in the German Federal Constitutional Court's Judgment of 9 February 2010

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Claudia Bittner

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect shall be the duty of all state authority.” It is with this proclamation in Article 1(1) Basic Law (“Grundgesetz” or “GG”) that the German Constitution starts its section on fundamental rights. When the Parliamentary Council formulated this basic right, they had in mind the denial of fundamental rights during the period of National Socialism and the atrocities of the Holocaust. The framers, however, did not envisage a constitutional right to state benefits despite Article 151(1) of the Weimar Imperial Constitution of 1919 linking the ordering of economic life with the purpose of ensuring a dignified existence for all. Utilizing a constitutional originalism approach the German Federal Constitutional Court (“FCC”) never could have arrived at what is referred to as the Hartz IV decision. This decision creates a constitutional right to guarantee by law a subsistence minimum based on Article 1(1) GG in conjunction with the social state principle in Article 20(1) GG. The decision can be read as—possibly the first—conceptualisation of a constitutional socio-economic right to statutory state benefits by a Constitutional Court.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 11: Special section - The Hartz IV Case and the German Sozialstaat , 01 November 2011 , pp. 1941 - 1960
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 For a very thorough presentation of the FCC's adjudication on human dignity in the English language see Henk Botha, Human Dignity in Comparative Perspective, 2 STELL. L. Rev. 171, 178–96 (2009).Google Scholar

2 Id. at 179. Article 151(1) of the Weimar Imperial Constitution (WRV) states that the ordering of economic life should conform to the principles of justice, with the goal of achieving a dignified existence for all. Within these limits economic freedom of the individual has to be secured.Google Scholar

3 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL 4/09 of 9 Feb. 2010 (Hartz IV). Citations refer to the official collection of the FCC's decisions at senate level Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE 125, 175] and to the English translation available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ls20100209_1bvl000109en.html (last visited 16 Nov. 2011), cited as bverfg.de.Google Scholar

4 Article 20(1) GG (social state principle) reads: “The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.”Google Scholar

5 It appears that a comparison with the Supreme Court of India's adjudication on the protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution of India) read in conjunction with the directive principle of policy that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood (Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India) could be very interesting. For a brief overview on the Supreme Court of India's adjudication in this field see M.B. Shah, The Indian Supreme Court Acknowledges the Right to Food as a Human Right, Entwicklung und ländlicher Raum 24–26 (2006), available at http://archiv.rural-development.de/fileadmin/rural-development/volltexte/2006/01/ELR_dt_24-26.pdf (last visited 9 Nov. 2011).Google Scholar

6 BVerfGE 1, 97 (104), 1 BvR 220/51 of 19 Dec. 1951 (Ger.).Google Scholar

7 See Aubel, Tobias, Das Gewährleistungsrecht auf ein menschenwürdiges Existenzminimum, in Linien der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts erörtert von den wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern, Vol. 2, 173, 273, 275 (Sigrid Emmenegger & Ariane Wiedemann eds., 2011).Google Scholar

8 BVerfGE 82, 60, 1 BvL 20/84, 1 BvL 26/84, 1 BvL 4/86 of 29 May 1990 (Ger.).Google Scholar

9 Case no. 1 BvR 540/91, in Informationen zum Arbeitslosenrecht und Sozialhilferecht (info also) 154 (1991).Google Scholar

10 Bundessozialhilfegesetz (BSHG).Google Scholar

11 See BVerfGK 5, 237 [official collection of the FCC's decisions at chamber level], 1 BvR 569/05 of 12 May 2005 (Ger.).Google Scholar

12 See BVerfGK 14, 99, 2 BvR 840/06 of 24 July 2008 (Ger.).Google Scholar

13 This point was already well established in the adjudication of the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht). See BVerwGE 1, 159 (161), V C 78.54 of 24 June 1954 (Ger.).Google Scholar

14 Aubel, supra note 7, at 273, 275; Kingreen, Schätzungen, “ins Blaue hinein:” Zu den Auswirkungen des Hartz IV-Urteils des Bundesverfassungsgerichts auf das Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz, 2010 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 558. For a different view, see Egidy, The Fundamental Right to the Guarantee of a Subsistence Minimum in the Hartz IV Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 12 German. L.J. 1961, 19760 (2011).Google Scholar

15 This insurance scheme is now found in the Seventh Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB VII).Google Scholar

16 BVerfGE 75, 348 (360), 1 BvR 762/85 of 20 May 1987 (Ger.).Google Scholar

17 See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1961. The reforms were named after their architect, Peter Hartz, a member of the Board at Volkswagen in charge of personnel and the advisor to chancellor Schröder at the time.Google Scholar

18 Sozialgesetzbuch Drittes Buch (SGB III).Google Scholar

19 The shortening and lengthening of this period of time—currently 6 to 24 months according to § 127 of the Third Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB III)—has been a preferred field of action to make statements of social policy according to the outcome of the latest election.Google Scholar

20 See Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) § 12.Google Scholar

21 See Twelfth Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB XII).Google Scholar

22 See Fifth Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB V) §251(4).Google Scholar

23 See Sixth Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB VI) §170(1) (valid from 1 Jan. 2005 to 31 Dec. 2010).Google Scholar

24 This mechanism is one of the reasons why the Court held the law to be unconstitutional under the consistency requirement. See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (242, 243), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg. de at para. 183, 184 (Ger.). The amending legislation found a new formula to provide for the adjustment of the standard benefit; see the Law on the Ascertainment of Standard Needs and on the Amendment of the Second Book and Twelfth Book of the Code of Social Law (Regelbedarfs-Ermittlungsgesetz) § 8, 2011 BGBl (Federal Law Gazette) 453.Google Scholar

25 See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1963.Google Scholar

26 Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) § 11.Google Scholar

27 Lawsuits in the social courts are free of cost for the claimants (Sozialgerichtsbarkeit [SGG] [Statute on Social Jurisdiction] § 183), regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.Google Scholar

28 A lot of claims in the social courts do not deal with the level of benefits, but with a bundle of other questions such as: what effort a person has to make in order to get back into work; whether the flat in which he or she is living is appropriate and has to be, therefore, fully paid for; how different kinds of income are to be counted against the need as expressed in the standard benefit; what kind of associated living counts as a “joint household” with the consequence of an aggregation of incomes and needs of the persons living together, etc.Google Scholar

29 An exception is the additional benefit that those previously entitled to unemployment benefit received for a limited period of time under Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) § 24, effective until 31 Dec. 2010, which cushioned the shift from unemployment benefit to Hartz IV. See supra Section C.I.Google Scholar

30 According to Article 100(1) GG. The Higher Social Court of Hesse, proceedings 1 BvL 1/09, addressed specifically the children's benefits. See Hessisches Landessozialgericht [Higher Social Court of Hesse] L 6 AS 336/07 of 29 Oct. 2008 (Ger.).Google Scholar

31 See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1962.Google Scholar

32 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (225, 226), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg. de at para. 141 (Ger.).Google Scholar

33 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (225-227), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg. de at para. 142–44 (Ger.)Google Scholar

34 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (226), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg. de at para. 143 (Ger.).Google Scholar

35 On this aspect, see Timo Hebeler, Ist der Gesetzgeber verpflichtet, Gesetze zu begründen?, 18 Die öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 754 (2010). The procedural approach was not entirely new but well established in the adjudication of the Federal Administrative Court. See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1975; Rothkegel, Ralf, Ein Danaergeschenk für den Gesetzgeber, 2010 Zeitschrift für die sozialrechtliche Praxis (ZFSH/SGB) 135, 141.Google Scholar

36 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (238), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg. de at para. 173 (Ger.). Therefore, Egidy, supra note 14, at 1961-62, is too harsh.Google Scholar

37 The empirical evaluation and interpretation undertaken by the Ministry in preparation for the amending legislation rendered the result that the children's entitlements prior to January 2011 had actually been too high. They were, however, not reduced in the amending legislation. See Law on the Ascertainment of Standard Needs and on the Amendment of the Second Book and Twelfth Book of the Code of Social Law § 8, supra note 24.Google Scholar

38 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (232-238), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg. de at para. 159–172 (Ger.).Google Scholar

39 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175 (238); bverfg. de at para. 171.Google Scholar

40 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175 (238, 239); bverfg. de at para. 175.Google Scholar

41 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175 (238, 239); bverfg. de at para. 175, 176.Google Scholar

42 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (237, 238), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 171 (Ger.).Google Scholar

43 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175 (259, 260); bverfg.de at para. 220.Google Scholar

44 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175; bverfg.de headnote 1.Google Scholar

45 Hebeler claims that the FCC had already derived an entitlement from Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 20(1) GG. See Hebeler, supra note 36, at 756. However, the cited decision on child benefits did not formulate a claim against the state but stated that the reduction of child benefits for tax paying parents did not affect the state's duty derived from the social state principle to create the minimum conditions for an existence in human dignity. See BVerfGE 82, 60 (85), 1 BvL 20/84, 1 BvL 26/84, 1 BvL 4/86 of 29 May 1990 (Ger.). Egidy points out that none of the decisions that the FCC cites in support of the fundamental right to the guarantee of a subsistence minimum deals with an entitlement of the individual to social benefits that might be derived directly from the Constitution. See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1971. Berlit sees a consolidation of the prior adjudication but no quantum leap. See Uwe Berlit, Paukenschlag mit Kompromisscharakter – zum SGB II-Regelleistungsurteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 9 Februar 2010, 2 Kritische Justiz (KJ) 145, 147 (2010).Google Scholar

46 See Aubel, supra note 7, at 275, 276. See also Egidy, supra note 14, at 1971 (including Egidy's succinct formula, “right to a specification of statutory entitlements”).Google Scholar

47 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (225, 259), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 140, 220 (Ger.).Google Scholar

48 See Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) § 21(6).Google Scholar

49 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (224, 225), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 138 (Ger.).Google Scholar

50 See Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) §§ 28, 29 (valid from 1 April 2011).Google Scholar

51 “Expenditure which is to be taken into account in fiscal terms and means-tested social benefits may come to divergent amounts.” Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (232), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 158 (Ger.).Google Scholar

52 See Aubel, supra note 7, at 283.Google Scholar

53 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (232), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010, para. 158 (Ger.).Google Scholar

54 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175 (223); bverfg.de at para. 135. For a comparable phrasing of a right to live with human dignity, note a decision by the Supreme Court of India addressing the right of a detainee to have contact with her children, but not the right to entitlement of social benefits. The Court found that:Google Scholar

55 See Botha, supra note 1, at 189, 190.Google Scholar

56 “Uniform fundamental rights guarantee [that] which encompasses both the physical existence of the individual, that is food, clothing, household goods, housing, heating, hygiene and health … and ensuring the possibility to maintain inter-human relationships and a minimum of participation in social, cultural and political life, given that humans as persons of necessity exist in social relationships.” Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (223), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 135 (Ger.).Google Scholar

57 See Aubel, supra note 7, at 280.Google Scholar

58 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (223), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 135 (Ger.). Egidy acknowledges this essential argument in the Court's decision, but advocates such a splitting up of the right to the guarantee of a subsistence minimum in its two parts. See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1966, 1972.Google Scholar

59 See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1972.Google Scholar

60 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (224, 225), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 138 (Ger.). Accord Sönke E. Schulz, Neues zum Grundrecht auf Gewährung des menschenwürdigen Existenzminimums, 2010 Die Sozialgerichtsbarkeit (SGB) 201, 206. Contra Rothkegel, supra note 35, at 143.Google Scholar

61 See Aubel, supra note 7, at 278, 279.Google Scholar

62 The principle of consistency or congruity (“Folgerichtigkeit”) plays a prominent role in the Court's adjudication on tax law. See Aubel, supra note 7, at 287; Thiemann, Christian, Das Folgerichtigkeitsgebot als verfassungsrechtliche Leitlinie der Besteuerung, in Linien der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts erörtert von den wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern, Vol. 2, 206 (Sigrid Emmenegger & Ariane Wiedemann eds., 2011).Google Scholar

63 See Aubel, supra note 7, at 287.Google Scholar

64 See Christian Burkiczak, Der Vorbehalt des Gesetzes als Instrument des Grundrechtsschutzes, in Linien der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts erörtert von den wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern, Vol. 2, 129, 144 (Sigrid Emmenegger & Ariane Wiedemann eds., 2011).Google Scholar

65 See Rothkegel, supra note 35, at 135 (“Danaergeschenk”).Google Scholar

66 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (225), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 140 (Ger.).Google Scholar

67 See Egidy, supra note 14, at 1975; Rixen, Stephan, Verfassungsrecht ersetzt Sozialpolitik? “Hartz IV” auf dem Prüfstand des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 14 Sozialrecht 81, 85 (2010).Google Scholar

68 See Andy Groth, Entspricht die neue Regelleistung den Anforderungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts?, 20 Neue Zeitschrift Für Sozialrecht (NZS) 571, 574 (2011).Google Scholar

69 See Rixen, supra note 67, at 87.Google Scholar

70 For such a legislative approach in the United States, see the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.Google Scholar

71 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (225), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010, para. 140 (Ger.).Google Scholar

72 Id. BVerfGE 125, 175 (225); bverfg.de at para. 204.Google Scholar

73 The legislature transplanted the Court's formula into a statutory provision, see Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) §21(6), valid form 1 April 2011, thus leaving to the social courts the task of defining what such a need could actually be.Google Scholar

74 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (252), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 204 and Ruling No. 3 (Ger.).Google Scholar

75 Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) § 23, valid until 31 December 2010.Google Scholar

76 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (254), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 207 (Ger.). Another example could be recurring costs for irrefutably necessary health care items needed in special situations and not covered by the mandatory health insurance paid for by the state.Google Scholar

77 This limitation was again stressed in the order of 24 Mar. 2010. See 1 BvR 395/09 of 24 Mar. 2010, para. 6 (Ger.), available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20100324_1bvr039509.html. The limitation was, however, overlooked by the Federal Social Court in its judgment of 18 Feb. 2010. See Bundessozialgericht [BSG] [Federal Social Court], 18 Feb. 2010, Entscheidungen des Bundessozialgerichts [BSGE], B 4 AS 29/09 R of 18 Feb. 2010, BSGE 105, 279 (291) (Ger.). The FCC's formulation of the hardship clause was adopted by the legislature in § 21(6) of the amended Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II). A claim to additional benefits is defined as irrefutable if the need cannot be covered by benefits of third parties or using cost-saving methods and if the special need differs substantially from the average need.Google Scholar

78 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (223, 224, 256), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010, bverfg.de at para. 136, 212 (Ger.).Google Scholar

79 “It is ordered that until the legislature enacts new provisions, this claim can be asserted directly, taking into account the grounds of the decision, on the basis of Article 1(1) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 20(1) of the Basic Law, with the costs being borne by the Federation.” See id., BVerfGE 175, 177; bverfg.de, at No. 3 of the Court's ruling (Ger.).Google Scholar

80 Kingreen sees human dignity weakened by the Hartz IV decision. See Kingreen, supra note 14, at 558. Botha refers to academic writing prior to the Hartz IV decision claiming that according dignity a too extensive meaning would either paralyse government or detract from the absolute nature of Article 1(1) GG. See Botha, supra note 1, at 183.Google Scholar

81 For this rather lyrical formulation with respect to the usually speedy response of state or federal officials to Supreme Court decisions in the United States, see Sandra Day O'Connor, The Majesty of the Law 44 (2003).Google Scholar

82 See Law on the Ascertainment of Standard Needs and on the Amendment of the Second Book and Twelfth Book of the Code of Social Law § 8, supra note 25. For an overview, see Groth, supra note 68.Google Scholar

83 This exception is not negligible as the reference group of one-person households (with the lowest 15% income) spent €8,11 on alcohol and €11,08 on tobacco per month; this would amount to more than 5% of the new standard benefit of €364. See Bundestag Drucksache [BR] 17/3404, 53 (Ger.); see also Groth, supra note 68, at 574.Google Scholar

84 See Second Book of the German Code of Social Law (SGB II) § 31.Google Scholar

85 For some additional remarks on the necessary consideration of different needs, see Aubel, supra note 7, at 297, 298.Google Scholar

86 Id. See also 1 BVerwGE 159 (161), V C 78.54 of 24 June 1954 (Ger.).Google Scholar

87 See Rixen, supra note 67, at 86, 87.Google Scholar

88 Cases no. 1 BvL 10/10, 1 BvL 2/11 pending.Google Scholar

89 Procedure of concrete judicial review: Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen, [NRW LSG] [The Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia], Vorlagebeschluss, L 20 AY 13/09 of 26 Jul. 2010, juris; NRW LSG, Vorlagebeschluss, L 20 AY 1/09 of 22 Nov. 2010, juris.Google Scholar

90 For criticism of the Court for failing to give any guidance as to what might lead the legislature in making these unavoidable valuations, see Rothkegel, supra note 35, at 145.Google Scholar

91 See BVerfGK 6, 323 (325–26), 1 BvR 1178/05 of 7 Nov. 2005 (Ger.).Google Scholar

92 See Sozialgericht Mannheim [Social Court of Mannheim], S 9 AY 2678/11 ER of 10 Aug. 2011, juris.Google Scholar

93 Aubel, supra note 7, at 278–79.Google Scholar

94 But see Ronald Dworkin, The Secular Papacy: Presentation, in Judges in Contemporary Democracy: An International Conversation 44, 45 (Robert Badinter & Stephen Breyer eds., 2004) (criticizing such a concept of a right).Google Scholar

95 See Hartz IV, BVerfGE 125, 175 (258), 1 BvL 1/09 et al. of 9 Feb. 2010; bverfg.de at para. 217 (Ger.).Google Scholar

96 See Rothkegel, supra note 35, at 135 (speaking of a “Pyrrhic victory” for the claimants).Google Scholar

97 Id. at 145.Google Scholar

98 For the concept of rights as trumps, see Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously XI (1977). See also Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle 198, 359 (1985).Google Scholar