The institution litigation, the question whether the Federal Government as a defendant before the deployment of the Bundeswehr at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm in June 2007 had the approval of the German Bundestag have to obtain.
In the period from 06 until 08.06.2007 took place under German Presidency in Heiligendamm in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the 33rd Meetings of the World Economic Summit of the G8, under the motto "Growth and responsibility" instead.
The competent security authorities were in view of previous experience with the G8 summits assumed that not all of the announced demonstrations would be peaceful. In addition, the Federal Criminal Police classified the Federal Republic of Germany because of Islamist terrorism as a part of the Europe-risk area, should be expected, in the attacks during the summit with. The security authorities of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern then developed in close cooperation with other Security agencies a comprehensive security concept. It was assumed that in order to grasp the complex and comprehensive tasks, the limit of the performance of the everyday organization of the police would be exceeded.
The state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the federal government came ahead of the summit also expressed the opinion that Mecklenburg-Vorpommern occasion without assistance of the Federation and other countries to ensure the safety of the summit would be overwhelmed. By letter of 21.03.2006, the interior minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern turned to the Federal Minister of Defence and in general terms to support the armed forces by providing of accommodation, supply and disposal capacity, and yet to be specified technical equipment. The Federal Minister for Defence, said the interior minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern letter from 08.05.2006 the technical and logistic support in principle. It took the federal government and the country believe that these are among the measures to be taken to provide assistance.
to the services in the following support services to the armed forces were involved about 1,100 soldiers and civilian employees.
relates the arguments of the applicant in this case solely on the reconnaissance flights of Tornado aircraft, the use of surveillance systems Fennec (scout car), support in ensuring air safety, the establishment of a mobile medical emergency service and the deployment of military police forces.
The Home Office Mecklenburg-Vorpommern requested the use of Tornado aircraft for reconnaissance purposes, as the security agencies by police forecasts expected to deal that seek G8 summit opponents would, blocks to build on the access roads to Heiligendamm and Rostock-Laage. In particular, it was feared that they create Erddepots for tools and resources and manipulation make to blockade streets as undercutting or undermining would. The aim of the reconnaissance was the recognition of that.
The Tornado reconnaissance systems are equipped with a camera cassette, with the images using optical cameras and infrared sensors can be made and so the accurate detection of changes in the soil is possible.
The optical images are suitable according to the Federal Government as a defendant for lack of sufficient resolution but not to identify people.
The Federal Minister of Defence approved on 26.04.2007 the implementation of two reconnaissance flights. As a result, a total of seven missions with a Tornado aircraft were flown. The flight time was in each case between one and two and a half hours. The last flight was on the Reddelich populated protesters camp the minimum altitude of 500 feet for the duration of 1 minute and 22 seconds exceeded by 119 feet. Images on the flights were made to see where some people are, but they can not be identified. None of the flights, the cannons of the Tornado aircraft were resupplied. The cannons are an integral part of the tornadoes. With the naked eye, the mouth openings of only a small distance can be seen.
further requested the Ministry of Interior of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the use of nine closed Spähsystemen Fennec, consisting of a scout car to the ground reconnaissance. The Fennec is Spähsystem its amenities including optical sensors, day and night for the widespread observation of off-road sections suitable. The Federal Minister of Defense also approved this application on 04.06.2007.
The Spähsysteme were used to monitor areas and roads, and the approach routes to the summit participants and were instructed to observe and report observations to the police. It was not a recorded video or audio materials, primarily made no photos. The weapons facilities had been dismantled.
After the Home Office in the State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had requested the support to respond to threats from the air by flying objects were civilian, to ensure safety used in the air three AWACS aircraft as part of NATO's Association, an air situation picture generated.
was also the Air Force prepared before and during the G8 summit four aircraft and eight aircraft Fighter € phantom. On specific core hours were two fighter planes in the air to reduce response times for the case of the intervention to a minimum. The fighters were armed. In any case, they had to actually intervene.
sought to secure the emergency medical care during the summit, the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern also establishing a mobile medical emergency center of the Bundeswehr. That request came after the armed forces. The Institutions were run by medical soldiers.
To ensure the work of the 83 medical soldiers military police were deployed in shifts. This was according to the Federal Government measures for self protection and not to provide assistance. The medical soldiers and military police were uniformed and armed. They made on the grounds of the hospital's Bad Doberan and outside photos in which civilians are seen.
The Group of Alliance 90/The Greens in the German Bundestag requested to determine now that the federal government in that it has failed, before the deployment of the Bundeswehr at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, the German Bundestag to deal with it has violated the rights of the German Bundestag under Article 87a II GG.
The request is directed to the interpretation of the Basic Law in the event of disputes concerning the rights and obligations of constitutional bodies. So here there is an institution litigation, for which the Federal Constitutional Court under Article 93 I No. 1 Basic Law, § § 13 I No. 5, § § 63 ff BVerfGG is responsible. In the relationship between the German Bundestag and Federal Government legislative powers and other rights of participation of the German Bundestag are rügefähig. Here is the part of the fraction, a lack of cooperation on the deployment of the armed forces alleging the occasion of the G8 summit.
is questionable, but whether the applicant is a fraction of the German Bundestag in the organ proceedings under § § 13 No. 5, § § 63 ff BVerfGG party to. As a member of the German parliament, it could make under § 64 Law on the FCC's participation rights through a genuine process shaft as claimed.
comes as an application has this omission of the defendant into consideration. The involvement of the German Bundestag was omitted in this case. This is also the federal government would be attributable to a defendant. Due to the nature of the Bundeswehr as a parliamentary army and because of the provisions of Article 87a II GG GG in conjunction with Article 35, the participation of the German Parliament was constitutionally due. The applicant would like found know that the use of the armed forces without sufficient constitutional authorization had been ordered and therefore rights of the German Parliament for the purposes of § 64 Federal Constitutional Court Act had been violated.
The applicant is also based on their application for power. For this it is sufficient that the alleged injury is not on the facts put forward to exclude from the outset. Article 87a II GG have the function to ensure the rights of the German Parliament to legislate. For the competence-protective nature of Article 87a II GG also speak to the Basic Law to the Parliament in general questions of the armed forces play a strong role assigns. Article 87a II GG is the opinion of the applicant not only a character objectively legal. The request for authority to here result directly from Article 87a II GG, ie, the Constitution reserved for use of the armed forces in the interior.
is the request, according to the applicant also justified because there had been in the use of Tornado aircraft, armored cars Fennec, the fighters, the military police and medical soldiers for a deployment of the armed forces within the meaning of Article 87a II GG and this can not be based on Article 35 GG, especially not to have Article 35 I GG, can.
The defendant claims that the request is unfounded, however. II § 64 requires the applicant to the Federal Constitutional Court Act, provided the Standard has been violated by the failure was. The applicant designates this Article 87a II GG GG in conjunction with Article 35 injured as standards. These are, however, the German Bundestag, however, give no rights body. Article 87a II GG has a purely objective content.
The character of the Bundeswehr as a parliamentary army would establish an unwritten parliamentary approval for use of armed forces, but not the subjective legal nature of Article 87a II GG. ceiling, even if Article 87a II GG is protecting third, then the injured as alleged by the applicant individual right not subject to the procedure. The violation is clear from the excess of the threshold used. It would have been but also may change as the previous involvement of the German Bundestag nothing. A concurring decision could have a bet with the Article 87a II GG is not compatible, are not constitutional. In this case, rather a constitutional amendment was necessary.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the application in institutions action is clearly unfounded.
outset, the Court clearly the organ dispute on the interpretation of the Basic Law in the event of disputes concerning the rights and obligations of constitutional bodies, acc. Article 93 I No. 1 Basic Law aims. The Basic Law was the German Parliament as a legislator, but not used as a comprehensive "legal supervisory authority" over the federal government. From the Basic Law can not have its own legal rights of the German Parliament to the effect that any material or formally unconstitutional actions remain under the Federal Government.
with rights within the meaning of § 64 I BVerfGG are therefore only meant those rights that are conferred upon the applicant to ensure the exercise of his powers. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has therefore recognized that fundamental rights such as rights of the German Bundestag in the sense of § 64 I BVerfGG not able to justify. A right within the meaning of § 64 I BVerfGG grows beyond the German Bundestag not every provision of the Basic Law with a view to a result that can be modified by Article 79 I, II GG none of these provisions without the assistance of the German Bundestag or repealed. Only when a provision creates rights or obligations even in the sense of § 64 I Federal Constitutional Court Act, may be befugtermaßen alleging its violation.
What is lacking in the opinion of the Constitutional Court already at the request of competence. The application of the Group is therefore already permitted.
Assuming a violation of Article 87a II GG fact that the armed forces would have been used in, not that it was the defense and that this was not allowed in the Basic Law explicitly, would have according to the Federal Constitutional Court, by a prior consent of the German Bundestag no constitutional state can be produced. Through the cooperation of the German parliament would be a constitutional violation of the defendant is not cured, but at deepened. In the case of exceeding the limits of Article 87a II GG to produce a constitutional state rather a constitutional amendment was necessary.
The application noted that the acceptance of one of caught up in dispute in the use of the armed forces and not by the rights of the German Parliament have been violated, remains evident in the matter without success. It is not obvious, Article 87a II GG that could be an appropriate requirement for consent to remove. The Constitutional Court has derived only for international use of the Bundeswehr, the requirement of the constitutive agreement of the German Bundestag. authorized
In relation to internal use of the armed forces in the defense case, that is where the armed forces under Article 87a III GG are or may be authorized to protect civilian property and to carry out tasks of traffic control, there is the involvement of the legislative bodies of the the German Bundestag with the consent of the Bundesrat to be taken prior authentication of the defense case.
A general right of approval of the German Bundestag Relation to specific uses of the Bundeswehr in its territory is not to refer to the Basic Law now. This applies regardless of whether the defense case exists, for even Article 87a GG III does not include the approval of the German Bundestag on the actual use of armed forces.
The Constitutional Court had also addressed in his previous case law the defense of parliamentary approval constitutional law only as an effective co-decision rights of the German Parliament in matters of foreign violence. The court had held that the Basic Law, the decision on war and peace the German Bundestag not only with regard to the finding of the defense case, but also for use has transferred armed forces in systems of mutual collective security within the meaning of Article 24 II GG. The federal government is empowered thereby to further develop the contractual basis for a system of mutual collective security in the forms of international law without the participation of the German Bundestag, as long as it has issued with the approval of statutory authorization does not go and therefore not ultra vires acts. The Alliance policy freedom of the federal government ends where it comes to be located within the state as to whether the Bundeswehr soldiers participate in a particular application, which was agreed in the Alliance. The responsibility for this lies in the hands of the German Bundestag.
But it is not clear to what extent equity securities of the German Parliament in view of uses of the Bundeswehr in the interior could also exist where the Constitution it does not provide for themselves, that is, over that of Article 87a III GG underlying specified statement of defense out. From the context of foreign missions of the Bundeswehr designation used as a parliamentary army alone can derive no authority of the German Bundestag.
Even where taking into account the support of the application the request of the applicant can be understood as meaning that they would like it to put it to use the armed forces with a view of the Constitution subject to the Article 87a II GG to a constitutional basis, and thus lacked the rights of the German Parliament have been violated, the application is unsuccessful. Article 87a II GG can not convey a right of the German Parliament for the purposes of § 64 I Federal Constitutional Court Act. The Constitutional Court has so far
expressly left open the question whether Article 87a II GG have expertise protective nature, and thus creates rights within the meaning of § 64 I Federal Constitutional Court Act. To what the applicant is found to do this and also otherwise, nothing indicated that this issue should now be answered in their favor.
, the Armed Forces are used for non-defense only, under Article 87a II GG, where the Basic Law expressly permits. Article 87a II GG is, therefore, the principle can be seen that in any case need a deployment of the armed forces in the interior, but not providing the defense, a constitutional basis. For jobs in the norm in the country who go beyond the Basic Law approved cases, therefore, a constitutional amendment is required. In the case of exceeding the limits of Article 87a II GG to the German parliament would be affected only in his capacity as a legislator verfassungsändernder. The position as verfassungsändernder legislature grants the German Bundestag, but just not have a right within the meaning of § 64 I a Federal Constitutional Court Act. Him otherwise by way of an abstract body dispute procedure Control of the constitutionality of the conduct of the defendant's absolutely possible. The German Bundestag (or its fractions), the violation of a provision of the Basic Law only befugtermaßen notice of litigation in the organ, if this gives him his own rights and obligations founded. Article 87a II GG gives the German Bundestag, but beyond the constitutional reservation no rights.
Even the wording of the rule is not a guide to refer to the fact that the German Parliament here right within the meaning of § 64 I Federal Constitutional Court Act would be transferred. The German Bundestag is not mentioned in Article 87a II GG.
takes of this case were involved, the Federal Constitutional Court are more likely to that the complaint raised, was to serve primarily the assertion of possible breaches of fundamental rights. Main concern of the applicant whether to certify that the overflights of the demonstrators camps with Tornado aircraft, the taking of photographs from the air as well as the observation by the Spähsysteme "Fennec" the fundamental rights of demonstrators and top opponents have violated.
But even if one were to assume that the measures taken would have interfered with fundamental rights, could not the German Bundestag infringing rights of individuals make in the way of the institution at issue before the Federal Constitutional Court argued. This is also the case that the threshold for use of the armed forces within the meaning of Article 87a II GG was exceeded. The complaint of violations of fundamental rights in the constitutional process must also be in this situation the parties concerned, by means of individual constitutional complaint pursuant. Article 93 I No. 4 a GG, are reserved.
Conclusion: state organization law proceedings, as here, the treated organ litigation, deserve more special attention. In the first state audit body of litigation are especially popular. This is also true in the present Judgement, even if the Constitutional Court the application can already fail at the request of competence.
Because of the constitutional reservation for Bundeswehr missions within the country, beyond the GG in cases other go, a constitutional amendment necessary. The German Bundestag is thus regarded in its position as verfassungsändernder legislature, which he acknowledges in principle no individual rights within the meaning of § 64 I Federal Constitutional Court Act. From Article 87a II GG is the German Bundestag, beyond the constitutional reservation, fail to make your own rights.
BVerfG v. 04.05.2010 - 2 BvE 5 / 07
Federal Constitutional Court, Press Release No. 35/2010 01.06.2010 v.
0 comments:
Post a Comment