Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:52:22.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights According to the German Constitutional Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christian Tomuschat

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.

The Federal Republic of Germany counts among the earliest States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It ratified the ECHR on 5 December 1952, three years ahead of Italy, and hence found itself among the original members of the treaty system when the ECHR entered into force on 3 September 1953. For the new democratic Government, it was a decision of principle to affirm its willingness to cooperate peacefully within the group of European States, submitting to an international review mechanism with regard to all of its activities. Therefore, very shortly afterwards, it accepted also the individual application under Article 25 ECHR, which at that time was not yet compulsory for all States parties. For many years under the Nazi dictatorship, Germany had brought death and destruction to its neighbours. Now, organized under a democratic and liberal constitution, the Basic Law (BL), it wanted to manifest its newfound identity as a civilized State abiding by the rule of law.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2010 , pp. 513 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Its declaration under Article 25 ECHR was made on 5 July 1955. On that day, the individual application came into force since the applicable threshold of six States had been reached (Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, and the Federal Republic of Germany).Google Scholar

2 For a detailed analysis of the concept, see Michael Stolleis, Sozialistische Gesetzlichkeit: Staats- und Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft in der DDR (2009).Google Scholar

3 See Bernhard Graefrath, Menschenrechte und internationale Kooperation: 10 Jahre Praxis des Internationalen Menschenrechtskomitees 46 (1988).Google Scholar

4 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 29, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.Google Scholar

5 This principle was not included in the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, Aug. 23, 1978, 17 I.L.M. 1488.Google Scholar

6 See Christian Tomuschat, A United Germany within the European Community, 27 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 415, 418–23 (1990).Google Scholar

7 See Paul Kirchhof, Verfassungsrechtlicher Schutz und internationaler Schutz der Menschenrechte: Konkurrenz oder Ergänzung?, 20 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 16, 21 (1994).Google Scholar

8 See Karl Josef Partsch, Die Rechte und Freiheiten der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention 11 (1966).Google Scholar

9 See Klaus-Berto von Doemming, Rudolf Werner Füsslein & Werner Matz, Entstehungsgeschichte der Artikel des Grundgesetzes, in 1 Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts, Neue Folge 50, 56, 74 (Gerhard Liebholz ed., 1951).Google Scholar

10 The number of violations found was eighteen in 2009 as compared to sixt-one for Italy. During the fifty-year period from 1959 to 2009 the Federal Republic of Germany was “convicted” in ninety-nine cases whereas Italy accounted for 1,556 “convictions”.Google Scholar

11 The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court is by now reflected in 123 volumes. Most of the decisions relate to constitutional complaints. The names of private parties are never mentioned as is generally the case in German law reports. It is therefore not easy to make short-hand references, in particular when trying to check the identity of a decision published in a legal periodical with the same decision published in the official reports. In order to be on the safe side, the official registration number must be given—which is a clumsy method. The decisions of the Constitutional Court published on the internet are divided into small paragraphs by margin numbers hereinafter: mn). This also applies to the official translations established by the Court's services of decisions deemed to be of extraordinary importance. Unfortunately, in the bound volumes, these margin numbers are not reprinted.Google Scholar

12 Vogt v. Germany, App. No. 17851/91, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1995). The constitutional complaint had been dismissed by a panel of three judges of the Constitutional Court on 7 August 1990.Google Scholar

13 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court] 15 Dec. 1999, 101, 361.Google Scholar

14 Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2004).Google Scholar

15 Brauer v. Germany, App. No. 3545/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009).Google Scholar

16 M v. Germany, App. No. 19359/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009).Google Scholar

17 See Christoph Grabenwarter, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 63 nn. 117, 118 (2nd. ed. 2005).Google Scholar

18 Probstmeier v. Germany, App. No. 20950/92, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1997) (seven years); Klein v. Germany, App. No. 33379/96, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2000) (nine years); Becker v. Germany, App. No. 45448/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2002) (thirteen years); Trippel v. Germany, App. No. 68103/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2003) (five years and eight months); Voggenreiter v. Germany, App. No. 47196/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2004) (seven years); Kaemena and Thöneböhn v. Germany, Applications 45749/06 and 51115/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009) (more than five years).Google Scholar

19 Sürmeli v. Germany, App. No. 75529/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. at §§ 136–137 (2006). After many years, the Ministry of Justice on 8 April 2010 presented to the public a bill providing for protection against excessive length of proceedings, Bundeministerium der Justiz [Federal Ministry of Justice], Referentenentwurf: Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren [Draft Legislation: Law for Excessive Legal and Criminal Proceedings], http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/5bc6c6f3463ae4546c4110e72f1f340c/4467/RefE_Rechtsschutz_ueberlange_verfahren.pdf. This bill still has to be approved by the cabinet as a whole—and thereafter to be enacted as law by the parliamentary bodies.Google Scholar

20 However, Article 28 (1) (b) as amended by Protocol No. 14 makes reference to a “well-established case-law of the Court.”Google Scholar

21 Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden, App. No. 5614/72, Eur. Ct. H.R. at § 50 (1976), James et al. v. UK, App. No. 8793/79, Eur. Ct. H.R. at § 84 (1986); Observer and Guardian v. UK, App. No. 13585/88, Eur. Ct. H.R. at § 76 (1991).Google Scholar

22 Original Act of Approval of 7 August 1952, Bundesgesetzblatt [Register of German Federal Law] BGBl. II at 685.Google Scholar

23 BVerfGE 74, 358 (370); BVerfGE 82, 106 (114); BVerfGE 111, 307 (316 n.) (Görgülü case); BVerfGE 120, 180 (200) (Caroline von Hannover case); and most recently the decision of 4 Feb. 2010, available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20100204_2bvr230706.html, margin number 21.Google Scholar

24 This view is defended in particular by Albert Bleckmann, Verfassungsrang der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention?, 21 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 149, 153 (1994). See also Frank Hoffmeister, Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als Grundrechtsverfassung und ihre Bedeutung in Deutschland, 40 Der Staat 349, 367 et seq. (2001), Georg Ress, Verfassungsrechtliche Auswirkungen der Fortentwicklung völkerrechtlicher Verträge, in Festschrift für Wolfgang Zeidler 1775, 1789–96 (Walther Fürst, Roman Herzog & Dieter C. Umbach eds., 1987), Christian Walter, Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als Konstitutionalisierungsprozess, 59 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 961, 974–77 (1999). These authors suggest that the Strasbourg system for the protection of human rights should be considered as a supranational organization pursuant to Article 24 (1) BL the decisions of which might therefore partake of the same precedence as that granted to the decisions of the system of European integration.Google Scholar

25 BVerfGE 74, 358 (370); BVerfGE 120, 180 (200).Google Scholar

26 BVerfGE 74, 358 (370); BVerfGE 111, 307 (317).Google Scholar

27 For the latest affirmations of this principle, see BVerfGE 111, 307 (317) (referring at mn 33 to “commitment to international law”) (official English translation available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104en.html); BVerfGE 123, 267 (347) (referring at mn 225 to the Lisbon Treaty and the “principle of openness towards international law”) (official English translation available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html).Google Scholar

28 BVerfGE 74, 358 (370).Google Scholar

29 Id. Google Scholar

30 BVerfGE 83, 119 (128).Google Scholar

31 BVerfGE 111, 307 (317); BVerfGE 120, 180 (200).Google Scholar

32 See decision of 4 Feb. 2010, supra note 23 (concerning the obligations entailed by a violation of the right to life).Google Scholar

33 BVerfGE 112, 1, mn 139 (41) (English translation available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041026_2bvr095500en.html).Google Scholar

34 Görgülü v. Germany, Application 74969/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2004); BVerfGE 111, 307 (English translation available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104en.html).Google Scholar

35 See id. at 308–13 (giving a detailed account of the facts by the Constitutional Court).Google Scholar

36 See 1 BvR 1174/01, BVerfGE 111, 307. No grounds were given. German Law Journal [Vol. 11 No. 05 522 Convention on Human Rights nor in interpreting national fundamental rights could domestic courts be bound by the decisions of the ECtHR.37 This decision prompted Mr. Görgülü to return to the Constitutional Court, complaining this time not only that his right to protection of the family under Article 6 (1) BL had been violated, but that the light-handed treatment of the judgment of the Strasbourg Court was contrary to his right to see the rule of law respected. The examination of the grounds set out by the Constitutional Court to affirm the well-foundedness of the constitutional complaint must take into account the fact that shortly before, in Caroline von Hannover v. Germany,38 the Constitutional Court had suffered a rebuff from Strasbourg in matters of protection of personality rights against the publication of photos invading the private sphere of a celebrity. It appears from comments published by members of the Constitutional Court39 that the Court had serious reservations with regard to that judgment. They emphasize that the drawing of demarcation lines between protected rights, on the one hand, and public interests which also involved private interests of third parties on the other hand, should be handled by the Strasbourg Court with great care and circumspection, leaving wide room to national perceptions. The Constitutional Court therefore seized the opportunity provided by the Görgülü case to manifest its understanding of the mutual relationship between the two systems of protection and their main guarantors. It is therefore not the concrete outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court which gave and may still give rise to concern. In the case at hand, the controversial decision of the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg was set aside. However, the observations of the Constitutional Court were found by most observers to take a stance that was seemingly at variance with the Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit, which was emphasized at the same time. The misgivings one must have when reading the Constitutional Court's Görgülü decision commence in the first lines of the observations on the merits of the case. The Court deliberately abstains from stating that a judgment of the Strasbourg Court must simply be executed, but confines itself to observing that “the authorities and courts of the Federal Republic of Germany are obliged, under certain conditions, to take account of theGoogle Scholar

37 Summary given by the Constitutional Court. See BVerfGE 111, 307 (312–13) (official English translation at mn 17–18).Google Scholar

38 Von Hannover v. Germany, App. No. 59320/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2004). For approving comment, see John Rolf Stürner, Case Note, 59 Juristenzeitung 1018–21 (2004); Peter J. Tettinger, Steine aus dem Glashaus, 59 Juristenzeitung 1144–46 (2004).Google Scholar

39 See Hoffman-Riem, infra note 46, Papier, infra note 47.Google Scholar

40 BVerfGE 111, 289 (315) (English translation at mn 29).Google Scholar

41 Id. at 324 (English translation at mn. 50).Google Scholar

42 This was not perceived by André Nollkaemper. See André Nollkaemper, Rethinking the Supremacy of International Law, 65 J. Pub. L. 65, 77 (2010).Google Scholar

43 BVerfGE 111, 307 (332) (English translation at mn 69).Google Scholar

44 Id. at 324 (English translation at mn 50).Google Scholar

45 Id. Google Scholar

46 Jochen Abr. Frowein, Die traurigen Missverständnisse. Bundesverfassungsgericht und Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, in Weltinnenrecht: Liber amicorum Jost Delbrück 279, 286 (Klaus Dicke et al. eds., 2005), rightly points out that an infringement of substantive norms of constitutional law by implementing a decision of the Strasbourg Court is “inconceivable.” Hardly persuasive is the defence by Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, Kontrolldichte und Kontrollfolgen beim nationalen und europäischen Schutz von Freiheitsrechten in mehrpoligen Rechtsverhältnissen, 33 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 492, 497–99 (2006).Google Scholar

47 Unfortunately, the former President of the Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, strongly supported the less than felicitous holdings of the Court. See Umsetzung und Wirkung der Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte aus der Perspektive der nationalen deutschen Gerichte, 33 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 1, 3 (2006). See also his interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Dec. 9, 2004, at 5.Google Scholar

48 For a detailed account of the complex facts, see the decision of the Constitutional Court of 10 June, 2005, 32 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 426 (2005)Google Scholar

49 Order of 28 December 2004, 31 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 809 (2004).Google Scholar

50 Decision of the Constitutional Court, supra note 48.Google Scholar

51 BVerfGE 111, 307 (319) (English translation at mn 35).Google Scholar

52 We agree with the criticisms expressed by Frowein, supra note 46, at 281, 284 n.; and Luzius Wildhaber, Bemerkungen zum Vortrag von BVerfG-Präsident Dr. H.-J. Papier auf dem Europäischen Juristentag 2005 in Genf, 32 Europaische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 743–44 (2005).Google Scholar

53 See Wildhaber, supra note 52, at 744.Google Scholar

54 BVerfGE 120, 180 (English translation available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20080226_1bvr160207en.html). The Constitutional Court refers explicitly to the judgment of the ECtHR in Gourguenidze v. Georgia, App. No. 71678/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2006). See also comments by Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, Die Caroline II-Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 62 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 20–26 (2009).Google Scholar

55 Oliver Dörr, Rechtsprechungskonkurrenz zwischen nationalen und europäischen Verfassungsgerichten, in Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1088, 1097 (2006) (suggesting that the sovereignty reservation claimed by the Constitutional Court will remain without any great practical relevance).Google Scholar

56 BVerfGE 123, 267.Google Scholar

57 See, e.g., Christoph Schönberger, Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht's Epigones at Sea, 10 Germ. L.J. 1201–18 (2009), Daniel Thym, In the Name of Sovereign Statehood: A Critical Introduction to the Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, 46 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1795–822 (2009), Christian Tomuschat, Lisbon: Terminal of the European Integration Process?, 70 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (forthcoming 2010).Google Scholar

58 Especially Chamber decision of 4 February 2010, supra note 23, which faithfully implements the doctrine of the ECtHR on the procedural obligations entailed by a violation of the right to life.Google Scholar