Content uploaded by Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff on Aug 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law of the German Federal Constitutional Court
... 564 Proportionality indicates a requirement of constitutional law that appeared in 1954 with respect to the constitutionality of a state election law. 565 According to Dieter Grimm, a former justice of the FCC, 'the proportionality principle was first mentioned by the FCC in BVerfGE 3, 383(1954), and it was consolidated in some cases. Since then, it has been used constantly by the court'. ...
Abstract
The specific aspects of the judicial independence in the dissertation are focused on the compositions of the constitutional courts, the official terms of offices of the judges guaranteed by the constitutions concerned, and the competencies of the constitutional courts of Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Myanmar. The other necessary features to establish judicial independence are also suggested in the dissertation according to the legal precedents. However, some commentaries dealing with the tenures in the selected countries of Myanmar, Poland, and Hungary are included proving the cases. Exploring the legal system of Germany under their Basic Law is also relevant because of the Federal Constitutional Court’s adequate protection of human rights.
Keywords: Judicial independence, composition of constitutional courts, term of office, competencies of the constitutional court, irremovability of judges, and human rights protection.
Absztrakt
Az értekezésben a bírói függetlenség aspektusai az alkotmánybíróságok összetétele, a bíráknak az alkotmányok által garantált mandátuma, valamint a magyar, a német, a lengyel és a mianmari alkotmánybíróságok hatásköre szempontjából állnak a fókuszban. A disszertáció a gyakorlat alapulvételével a bírói függetlenség megteremtéséhez szükséges további követelményeket is javasol. Az esetek alátámasztására néhány, Mianmarban, Lengyelországban és Magyarországon a hivatalok betöltését érintő kommentár is szerepel benne. A Szövetségi Alkotmánybíróság nyújtotta megfelelő emberi jogi védelem miatt fontos Németország jogrendszerének alaptörvény szerinti feltárása is.
Kulcsszavak: bírói függetlenség, alkotmánybíróságok összetétele, hivatali idő, alkotmánybíróság hatáskörei, bírák elmozdíthatatlansága, emberi jogok védelme.
This research focuses on the Proportionality test model of Competing Rights in practice in civil law countries (Germany and South Korea) and the Common Law System (United States and Canada). The research method used is a normative legal research method with statutory, comparative, and case approaches. The results show that the proportionality test is the "ultimate rule of law," a fundamental benchmark in judicial review, and has become a global constitutionalism recognised and applied internationally. Its application is structured and systematic with four test stages, such as German, Canadian, and South Korean models. Meanwhile, it is unstructured in the United States, and there is only one analytical tool (balancing test). In the case of decision, the four stages are only sometimes applied, but according to the needs of the analysis. If, at the third stage (necessity/minimal impairment), it is found that the object being tested is contrary to the Constitution, then the argumentation focuses on that analysis of it. The fourth stage is used if the case is more complicated and requires analysing the balance of norms and legal values. Meanwhile, in the Indonesian Constitutional Court practice, there is a proportional analysis, but it is partial, unstructured, and unsystematic. Therefore, in the future, it is essential to develop an Indonesian model of the principle of proportionality under the values of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.
The research focused on the proportionality analysis (proportionality principle) as a Legal Reasoning Method to decide competing rights caseS in the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) or Bundesverfassungsgericht. It is the ultimate rule of law, global constitutionalism value, and the benchmark for constitutional judges to review conflicts between individual rights and state interests. Hence, an analysis model for measuring conflicts of competence between the European Union and Germany. It is four stage assessment analysis: legitimate aims, suitable, necessary, and balancing (strict sense). The result of the research saw that it is used as a constitutional reasoning model in landmark decision cases in 2020-2022, namely: the European Central Bank asset case, the climate change case, the Election of a Vice-President of the Bundestag case, and the Bavarian Constitution Protection Act case. Based on these case reviews, it is well applied, systemised, structured, and comprehensive in each case. However, not all stages are used in competing rights analysis, especially the balancing test as the last analysis in proportionality.
In this book, Aileen Kavanagh offers a fresh account of how we should protect rights in a democracy. Departing from leading theoretical accounts which present the courts and legislature as rivals for constitutional supremacy, Kavanagh argues that protecting rights is a collaborative enterprise between all three branches of government - the Executive, the legislature, and the courts. On a collaborative vision of constitutionalism, protecting rights is neither the solitary task of a Herculean super-judge, nor the dignified pronouncements of an enlightened legislature. Instead, it is a complex, dynamic, and collaborative endeavour, where each branch has a distinct but complementary role to play, whilst engaging with each other in a spirit of comity and mutual respect. Connecting constitutional theory with the practice of protecting rights in a democracy, this book offers an innovative understanding of the separation of powers, grounded in the values and virtues of constitutional collaboration.
The relationship between balancing and proportionality has not always been clear. Because part of the literature falls short of adequately differentiating between the two tools, many people have become conditioned to see an instance of proportionality whenever the word ‘balancing’ is dropped. As a consequence, the ubiquity of balancing brought about the feeling that proportionality is equally ubiquitous. In this article, I show that the proportionality test is necessarily linked to judicial review and how this link is key to understanding why not every instance of balancing is part of the proportionality test and that proportionality cannot be as ubiquitous as many have claimed. This has not only analytical relevance, but also institutional consequences.
The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany leads the judiciary’s independence by protecting human rights within the Basic Law’s legal framework. In this case, the jurisdiction of the Court is essential to analyse comprehensively. The first and foremost function is interpretation. It is concerned with the extent of a supreme federal authority’s rights and duties and the citizens who can enjoy the fundamental rights under the Basic Law. The rest are abstract judicial review, constitutional complaint, and concrete judicial review. These all seem to depend on the Court’s interpretation and the supremacy of human dignity. Therefore, the issues lie when human dignity becomes a constitutional principle to resolve economic, social, and political disputes within the constitutional framework both in Germany and the European Union in practice. This research will used qualitative approach method. According to the literature reviews, human dignity is supreme, but it does not mean absolute.
In several decisions that have been decided by the Mahkamah Konstitusi, some of the judges considerations only test norms with benchmarks contrary to the UUD NRI 1945 or not? However, MK has not tested the basis of the petition itself, there are limitation of rights, open legal policy, and the real harm felt by the petitioner. Therefore, it is necessary to have a principle of proportionality that can be used by judges to assist in deciding cases related to limiting rights and open legal policy. In order to know the concept of the principle of proportionality, it is necessary to conduct a comparative study between Indonesia and Germany by analyzing the concept and development of this principle. The method used is legal research with a statute approach, a case approach, a comparative approach and a conceptual approach. From the results of these studies, it was found that the principle of proportionality in Germany was well conceptualized and developed rapidly. In fact, this principle has become a general principle in the Germany Federal Constitutional Court. Meanwhile in Indonesia, this principle is still unknown and undeveloped like Germany.Keywords: The Principle of Proportionality; Legitimate Aim; Suitability; Neccesity; Balancing in Narrow Sense.AbstrakDalam beberapa putusan yang telah diputus oleh MK, beberapa pertimbangan hakim hanya menguji norma dengan tolak ukur bertentangan dengan UUD NRI 1945 atau tidak? Namun, MK belum menguji sampai kepada dasar dari permohonan itu sendiri, yaitu pembatasan hak, open legal policy, dan kerugian yang nyata dirasakan oleh pemohon. Maka dari itu, perlu adanya prinsip proporsionalitas yang dapat digunakan para hakim untuk membantu memutus perkara yang berkaitan dengan pembatasan hak dan open legal policy. Agar mengetahui konsep dari prinsip proporsionalitas, maka perlu melakukan studi perbandingan antara Indonesia dan Jerman dengan menganalisis konsep dan perkembangan prinsip tersebut. Metode yang digunakan adalah legal research dengan pendekatan statute approach, case approach, comparative approach dan conceptual appoach. Hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa prinsip proporsionalitas di Jerman telah terkonsep dengan baik dan berkembang dengan pesat. Bahkan prinsip tersebut telah menjadi prinsip umum dalam Germany Federal Constitutional Court. Sedangkan di Indonesia, prinsip tersebut masih belum dikenal oleh MK. Sehingga, proporsionalitas belum memiliki konsep yang jelas dan tidak berkembang seperti negara Jerman.Kata Kunci: Prinsip Proporsionalitas; Legitimate Aim; Suitability; Neccesity; Balancing in Narrow Sense.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.