Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:33:40.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Matthias Hartwig

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.

On October 14, 2004 the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a judgment which gave rise to vivid reactions in the mass media and to a dispute between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In interviews, members of the Strasbourg court spoke about their disappointment in the German Court's unwillingness to implement decisions of the ECtHR while members of the German court referred to the necessity to respect national particularities. Whereas, normally, the ECtHR and the constitutional courts of the Member States of the Council of Europe are fighting side by side for human rights and, therefore, consider themselves as natural allies, this time their decisions, which seem to be incompatible, led to a dispute which attracted as much public interest as a film or theatre premiere.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2005 , pp. 869 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., articles in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, October 23, 2004, at 1; Süddeutsche Zeitung, October 20, 2004, at 4; Neue Züricher Zeitung, October 20, 2004, at 3; Berliner Zeitung, October 20, 2004, at 2; Die Welt, October 20, 2004, at 5.Google Scholar

3 See, e.g., Interview with President (ECtHR) Luzius Wildhaber, Der Spiegel (November 15, 2004), at 52 (President Wildhaber expressed concerns about the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, remarking that it might set a bad example for other Member States). See also the comments of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, underlining the binding force of the decisions of the ECtHR, see press release of the Council of Europe of October 21, 2004 – http://press.coe.int/cp/2004/516a(2004).htm, where she is quoted: “As Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I wish unequivocally to reaffirm that this discussion in no way puts into question the binding nature of the European Human Rights Court's judgments under Article 46 of the Convention and the obligation of States Parties to abide by such judgments.” See also Zeitung, Süddeutsche, October 23, 2004, at 4.Google Scholar

4 See Interview with President (BVerfG) Hans-Jürgen Papier, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, December 9, 2004, at 5; Interview with Judge (ECtHR) Renate Jaeger, Die Tageszeitung (TAZ), October, 28, 2004, at 10 (defending the position of the Federal Constitutional Court in stating that the ECtHR shall be very prudent in intervening in matters not concerning the relationship between the State and an individual, but between individuals, as is the case in conflicts concerning the parental custody) (Judge Jaeger's comments were particularily delicate as she was, at that time, still a Justice at the Federal Constituional Court, but had been elected to the ECtHR).Google Scholar

5 See Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

6 Decision of Wittenberg Local Court, (March 9, 2001) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

7 Decision of Naumburg Higher Regional Court, (June 20, 2001) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

8 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 1174/01 of July 31, 2001 (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

9 Decision of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court, (September 30, 2003) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

10 Decision of the Wittenberg Local Cout, (December 28, 2001) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

11 Decision of the Dessau Regional Court, (October 30, 2002) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

12 Decision of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court, (July 24, 2003) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

13 Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

14 Id.Google Scholar

15 Decision of the Wittenberg Local Court, (March 19, 2004) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)). As for the possibility of initiating new proceedings concerning parental custody even after a final decisions, see below.Google Scholar

16 Id.Google Scholar

17 Id.Google Scholar

18 See Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift (EuGRZ), (June 30, 2004), p. 749, 750.Google Scholar

19 Id. at 750Google Scholar

20 Id. at 751Google Scholar

21 Id. at 751Google Scholar

22 Id. at 751Google Scholar

23 Id. at 751Google Scholar

24 Id. at 751Google Scholar

25 Id. at 751Google Scholar

26 Article 6 of the Basic Law reads:Google Scholar

Article 6 [Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]

(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.Google Scholar

(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.Google Scholar

(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.Google Scholar

27 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).Google Scholar

28 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 31, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

29 Id. This reflects the undisputed qualification of the ECHR in internal law. See Hans-Joachim, Cremer, Zur Bindungswirkung von EGMR-Urteilen /Anmerkung zum Görgülü-Beschluß des BVerfGE vom 14. 10. 2004, Europäische Grundrecht Zeitschrift (EuGRZ) 686 (2004). See also Walter, Christian, Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als Konstitutionalisierungsprozeß, Zeitschrift für auslandisches öffentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (ZaöRV) (1999) (analyzing the possibilities for attaching a constitutional rank to the European Convention on Human Rights).Google Scholar

30 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 46, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

31 Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift, (June 30, 2004), p. 751.Google Scholar

32 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 31, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

33 Firm case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court. See BVerfGE 34, 384 (395); BVerfGE 41, 126 (141); BVerGE 64, 135 (157). There has been a long discussion regarding how the Federal Constitutional Court can enforce the respect of the ECHR. See Hoffmeister, F., Die Europäische Menschrechtskonvention als Grundrechtsverfassung und ihre Bedeutung für Deutschland, Der Staat 365 (2001); J. Abr. Frowein, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, in 2 Festschrift für Wolfgang Zeidler 1770 (Fürst, W. et al. eds., 1987).Google Scholar

34 As for dualist and monist theories, see Partsch, Karl Josef, International Law and Municipal Law, in II Encyclpedia of Public International Law 1183, 1184 (R. Bernhardt ed. 1995).Google Scholar

35 Ingo Pernice, BVerfG, EGMR und die Rechtsgemeinschaft, Euroipäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 705 (2004); Cremer, supra note 29 at 687.Google Scholar

36 As for sovereignty as an international law concept, see Steinberger, Helmut, Sovereignty, in IV Encyclpedia of Public International Law 500 (R. Bernhardt ed. 2000).Google Scholar

37 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 35, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

38 Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

39 Id. at paras. 52 and 58.Google Scholar

40 Id. at para. 62.Google Scholar

41 Id. at para. 58.Google Scholar

42 Id.Google Scholar

43 See, e.g., BVerfGE 89, 1.Google Scholar

44 As it will be shown below, the question concerning the impact of the decisions of the ECtHR does not depend on the matter of the judgment, but on the procedural situation.Google Scholar

45 See, e.g., BVerfGE 93, 1 (22).Google Scholar

46 Odi èvre v. France, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 13, 2003), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Odi%E8vre%20%7C%20France&sessionid=2250292&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

47 von Hannover v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (June 24, 2004), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=speech%20%7C%20privacy&sessionid=225029 2&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

48 Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), para. 45, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

49 Interview with President (ECtHR) Luzius Wildhaber, Der Spiegel (November 15, 2004), at 52; Cremer, supra note 29 at 684.Google Scholar

50 It is in this line that the Federal Constitutional Court recently issued a temporary injunction to stop an extradition proceeding based on a European arrest warrant that had been issued by Spain. The Court explained that a German organ must have the possibility to check if the request of extradition is justified. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2236/04 of November 24, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041124_2bvr223604.html.Google Scholar

51 See BVerfGE 37, 271; BVerfGE 73, 339; BVerfGE 88, 155.Google Scholar

52 This expression is borrowed from Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations (1993).Google Scholar

53 See Limbach, Jutta, Die Kooperation der Gerichte in der zukünftigen europäischen Grundrechtsarchitektur, Europäische Grundrecht Zeitschrift (EuGRZ) 417 (2000).Google Scholar

54 The individual constitutional complainant before the Federal Constitutional Court is qualified as a remedy in the sense of art. 35 ECHR. See §§ 90 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (BVerfGG – Federal Constitutional Court Act).Google Scholar

55 Through 2002, covering almost 50 years, there have been only 57 cases against Germany before the ECtHR. Germany was found to be in violation of the ECHR in 31 cases. See Olaf Kieschke, Die Praxis des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und ihre Auswirkungen auf das deutsche Strafverfahrensrecht 246 (2003).Google Scholar

56 The case concerned the obligation of the State to protect the privacy and freedom of information. See von Hannover v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (June 24, 2004), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=speech%20%7C%20privacy&sessionid=2250292&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

57 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, para. 38, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

58 Klein, Eckart, Should the Binding Effect of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights be Extended, in Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective 706 (Paul Mahoney et al. 2000).Google Scholar

59 Id.Google Scholar

60 See Gottwald, Peter, in Zivilprozessrecht 953 (Rosenberg, /Schwab, /Gottwald, eds. 1993).Google Scholar

61 Decision of October 14, 2004 para. 40; Jörg Polakiewicz, Die Verpflichtungen der Staaten aus den Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 217 (1993); Helmut Steinberger, Human Rights Law Journal 402, 407 (1985); Art. 53, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 725 (Frowein/Peukert, 2nd ed., 1985).Google Scholar

62 Cremer, supra note 29 at 690.Google Scholar

63 This has also been pointed out by the Federal Constitutional Court. See Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, para. 51, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

64 Herzog, R., Art. 20, in Grundgesetzkommentar (Maunz, /Dürig, eds.).Google Scholar

65 Art. 35 ECHR.Google Scholar

66 Decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court, Case Nr. 245/91, Boletin de jurisprudencia constitucional, (December 16, 1991), p. 86.Google Scholar

67 Id. at 93.Google Scholar

68 Id.Google Scholar

69 Decsions of the Conseil d'Etat, Case Nr. 257682, Actualités juridique du droit administrative, (February 11, 2004), p. 439.Google Scholar

70 Court of Appeal, (September 19, 2000) (cited in Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R. (July 8, 2003), p. 4).Google Scholar

71 §§ 33 and 363 a Criminal Procedural Code of Austria; France, § 359 sec. 6 of the German Criminal Procedural Code, Art. 525 sec. 5 of the Greek criminal procedural code; Art. 413 sec. 4 No. 2 of the Russian Criminal Precedural Code; art. 540 sec. 3 of the Polish Criminal Constitutional Code; art. 626-1 to 626-7 of the French Criminal Procedural Code; as for the application of the reopening procedure, Régis de Gouttes, La procedure de réexamen des decisions pénales après un arrět de condamnation de la cour européenne des droits de l'homme, in: Libertés, justice, tolerance, Mélanges en homage au Doyen Gérard Cohen-Jonathan, p. 563 ss.; art. 443 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Luxemburg; Section 6 of the European Convention Act of August 19, 1987; § 391 No. 2 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Norway and § 407 para. 1 No. 7 of the Civil Procedural Code of Norway; § 406 of the Criminal Procedural Code of HungaryGoogle Scholar

72 § 407 para. 1 No. 7 of the Civil Procedural Code of Norway; Section 6 of the European Convention Act 1987 (Act. No. XIV) of Malta which refers to all cases in which a decision of the ECtHR declared that a national decision is violating the ECHR.Google Scholar

73 1998 (BGBl. I S. 1802).Google Scholar

74 One may observe an interesting difference with the respective situation in constitutional law. See § 79 para. 1 BVerfGG (allowing the reopening of all criminal matters in which a person has been convicted on the basis of a law later declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court; thus, the possibility of reopening one's case is not limited to the persons who lodged an individual constitutional complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court).Google Scholar

75 But it is really remarkable that the Spanish parliament did not implement the decisions of the Spanish Constitutional Court by introducing a legally based procedure for the review of cases declared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In Spain the possibility of review is exclusively based on the case-law of the Constitutional Court.Google Scholar

76 Domestic courts concluded from these circumstances, that no obligation to this end can be derived from the ECHR: “In any event, we doubt whether Article 46 requires the re-opening of convictions.” Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 4.Google Scholar

77 Saidi v. France, 261-C Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) at para 46; ECtHR Lyons v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003); Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H. R., (September 20, 1994), para. 44. In the same sense, see the European Commission on Human Rights DR 83-A, 48 (55), (Kremzow case).Google Scholar

78 Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 10.Google Scholar

79 Recommendation No. R (2000) 2, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=334147&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75 Google Scholar

80 Jens Meyer-Ladewig/Hans Petzold, Die Bindung deutscher Gerichte an Urteile des EGMR, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 18 (2005); Cremer, supra note 29 at 691; Frowein, Zeitschrift für auslandisches öffentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (ZaöRV) 286 (1986) (suggesting a political change; but he does not think that de lege lata an obligation to introduce a procedure to reopen a case can be derived from the ECHR).Google Scholar

81 The Committee of Ministers says that the reopening of the proceedings will be the only possibility to redress the effects of a violation only in exceptional circumstances. See Recommendation of January 19, 2000. This discounts the possibility that a violation of the ECHR by a domestic court decision is ongoing.Google Scholar

82 The argumentation can be found in the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in the Pakelli case, NJW 1986, 1425; see Walter, Christian, Nationale Durchsetzung, in Konkordanzkommentar para. 50 (Grote, /Marauhn, eds., forthcoming).Google Scholar

83 Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 11.Google Scholar

84 This has been again confirmed. See Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 10.Google Scholar

85 Régis de Gouttes, La procédure de réexamen des décisions pénales apr's un arret de condamnation de la Cour européene des droits de l'homme, in I Libertes, justice, tolerance, Melanges en homage au Doyen Gerard 568 (Cohen-Jonathan ed. 2004). Since 2001 when the criminal procedural code was amended, 20 requests for collateral proceedings were lodged and 11 were declared admissible. In no case was the result of the final decision more favourable than the decision declared incompatible with the ECHR by the ECtHR.Google Scholar

86 There is a certain discussion in the doctrine of civil procedural law concerned with whether decisions in this field can ever be final in a material sense, because, as will be shown later, they can be reversed at any time if the child's best interest so requires. See Uwe Diederichsen, § 1696 para. 1, in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Palandt ed.); Decision of the Federal Court of Justice, Neue Juristisches Wochenschrift Rechtsprechung Report (NJW-RR), (1986), 1130. However, these decisions are final in a formal sense, i.e. they are not subject to an ordinary remedy.Google Scholar

87 Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), para. 46, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

88 Diederichsen, supra note 86. This is the case because the possibility of changing a decision on parental custody is disruptive of legal certainty, and only overwhelming interests can justify such a measure. Therefore, the parent's interest cannot overcome the binding force of a decision on custody.Google Scholar

89 Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), paras. 44 to 46, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.Google Scholar

90 See, e.g., Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2790/04 of December 28, 2004, para. 33, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20041228_1bvr279004.html (the Court expressly pointed out that, if access to the child has been granted to the father by an ordinary court and the Federal Constitutional Count later comes to the conclusion that this decision violated the rights of the child at the time when the decision was taken, the ordinary court would not be bound by its previous decision if it has to decide again on whether a continuation of contact with the father is in the best interest of the child).Google Scholar

91 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, para. 66, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).Google Scholar

92 Id. at para. 61.Google Scholar

93 Id.Google Scholar

94 Id. at para. 62.Google Scholar

95 In the actual interpretation, art. 46 ECHR attaches binding force to the decisions of the ECtHR only in general terms, without giving a solution to the problem of how final domestic decisions can be reviewed.Google Scholar

96 One can compare this approach to a certain extent with the approach of the Spanish Constitutional Court. See Decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court, Case Nr. 245/91, Boletin de jurisprudencia constitucional, (December 16, 1991).Google Scholar

97 See Verfassungsnovelle Bundesgesetzblatt 1964/59. Pursuant to this act, the ECHR has the rank of constitutional law. See also Nowak, Manfred, Allgemeine Bemerkungen zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention aus völkerrechtlicher und innerstaatlicher Sicht, in Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention in der Rechtsprechung der österreichischen Höchstgerichte 49 (Ermacora, /Nowak, /Tretter, eds., 1983); Jochen Frowein, Einleitung, in Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 4 (Frowein, /Peukert, eds., 1985).Google Scholar

98 As explained above, Austria only provides a collateral procedure in criminal matters.Google Scholar

99 William Shakespeare, Julius Cesar, Act III Scene 2.Google Scholar

100 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2790/04 of December 28, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20041228_1bvr279004.html.Google Scholar

101 Jörg, , Berkemann, § 32 para. 173, in Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (Umbach, /Clemens, eds.). See BVerfGE 6, 1 (4); BVerfGE 27, 179 (182); BVerfGE 80, 360 (364); BVerfGE 82, 54 (57).Google Scholar