To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: German courts.
Journal articles on the topic 'German courts'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'German courts.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Miller, Russell. "Rejecting Radbruch: The European Court of Human Rights and the Crimes of the East German Leadership." Leiden Journal of International Law 14, no. 3 (September 2001): 653–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156501000322.
Full textAbstract:
The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of the Convention in its judgement in the complaints of the former East German political and military leaders Streletz, Kessler, and Krenz. All three were convicted and sentenced to terms in prison by German courts in relation to the deaths of East Germans who were killed in attempts at fleeing across the fortified border between East and West Germany. Nonetheless, the Court's decision constitutes a clear rejection of the Radbruch Formula, which served as a central line of reasoning in the decisions of the German courts in the cases. The author addresses the Court's rejection of the Radbruch Formula, focusing especially on the distinct historical and political circumstances that existed after World War II and in 1989.
2
Love, Ben. "The International Court of justice: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening)." International Legal Materials 51, no. 3 (June 2012): 563–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/intelegamate.51.3.0563.
Full textAbstract:
On February 3, 2012, the International Court of Justice (‘‘ICJ’’ or ‘‘Court’’) issued a widely-anticipated judgment in a dispute over state immunity between Italy and Germany. The Court found that Italy violated its international law obligation to respect the jurisdictional immunity of the German state by: (i) allowing individuals to bring civil claims against Germany in Italian courts for violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945; (ii) declaring Greek judgments finding similar international law violations by Germany enforceable in Italy; and (iii) taking measures of constraint against public and non-commercial property owned by Germany in Italy. The Court accordingly found that Italy must ensure that the decisions of its courts infringing upon Germany’s immunity cease to have effect.
3
Vogl, Thomas. "French Influences on Germany’s Commercial Courts in the Nineteenth Century." Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 88, no. 3-4 (December 23, 2020): 469–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718190-00880a19.
Full textAbstract:
Summary The present contribution explores the extent of influence which French law had on the development of Germany’s commercial courts in the nineteenth century. Modern literature describes this influence as marginal, yet without further proof. The author takes this state of research as a starting point to compare the Napoleonic legislation on commercial courts with the German commercial court systems of the nineteenth century. However, the present contribution will start with an overview of the German legal situation at the end of the eighteenth century. This is followed by an examination of whether French law was transferred to Germany during the French occupation of large parts of Germany at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Against this background it is possible to fully analyse the influence which French law had on the further development of German commercial courts.
4
Rühl, Giesela. "Preparing Germany for the 21st Century: The Reform of the Code of Civil Procedure." German Law Journal 6, no. 6 (June 1, 2005): 909–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200014036.
Full textAbstract:
One of the most important dates in German legal history is 1 October 1879. On this day the four Imperial Judiciary Laws (Reichsjustizgesetze) became effective: the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung), the Law on the Organization of Courts (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) and the Bankruptcy Code (Konkursordnung). They replaced a large number of different organizational and procedural provisions in the existing German states and effectively established legal uniformity in civil and criminal procedure in the German Empire. More specifically, the Court Organization Law created a national system of courts for civil and criminal matters consisting of Local Courts (Amtsgericht), District Courts (Landgericht), Appeals Courts (Oberlandesgericht) and the Imperial Court of Justice (Reichsgericht). The Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bankruptcy Code provided the procedural framework for all these courts thereby bringing procedural unity to the German Empire for the first time.
5
Konyukhova, A. A. "Settlement of Tax Disputes in the Russian Federation and Germany." MGIMO Review of International Relations, no. 2(41) (April 28, 2015): 269–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2015-2-41-269-275.
Full textAbstract:
This article is devoted to the settlement of tax disputes in the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany. The features of the conflict settlement mechanism are both shown in the stage of administrative and judicial review. In accordance with German law, the administrative stage of dispute resolution, carried out by the tax authority, always precedes the filing of a complaint to a court. Consequently, the taxpayer submits his first application in writing to the tax authority that issued the tax act, though in some cases to a higher tax authority. This obligatory procedure was borrowed by the Russian tax system. The trial stage of tax dispute settlement in Germany is carried out by specialized courts, forming a two-level system for legal proceedings. Thus, the tax dispute submitted to the Court is settled first by the financial lands courts and then by the higher Federal Financial Court. However, the Federal Financial Court takes into consideration only certain categories of actions listed in the Act (the Regulations) of finance courts (Finanzgerichtordnung). In Russia appeals of administrative review of tax conflicts, unlike in the German system, are handled by arbitration and general jurisdiction courts. The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is the supreme judicial body for settling economic disputes and other cases considered by arbitration courts in implementing federal procedural judicial supervision over their activities and provides explanations regarding judicial practices. Arbitration courts established at the level of the Federation to resolve disputes involving commercial entities, e.g. enterprises and entrepreneurs, resolve the bulk of tax disputes. These courts are composed of specially created panels of judges known as bars, i.e. groups of judges who specialize in reviewing taxation cases.
6
DELMARTINO, BART. "The End of the Road for the Prince? Sixty Years after the Czechoslovak Confiscation of Liechtenstein Property." Leiden Journal of International Law 19, no. 2 (June 2006): 441–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156506003372.
Full textAbstract:
In 1945 Czechoslovakia confiscated Liechtenstein property as reparation for the damage done by Nazi Germany. Private claims failed before the courts of Czechoslovakia, and international law did not provide Liechtenstein with a means of action against Czechoslovakia. When the property was on loan in Germany, a private case for recovery was declared inadmissible by the German courts, in line with Germany's international obligations. The European Court of Human Rights accepted these decisions. Liechtenstein, on the other hand, considered them to violate its sovereignty. In 2005, the International Court of Justice decided that it lacked temporal jurisdiction to rule on the issue.
7
Arena, Federico José. "Which Kind of Discretion in Constitutional Adjudication? A Discussion of Mher Arshakyan's The Impact of Legal Systems on Constitutional Interpretation: A Comparative Analysis: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court." German Law Journal 14, no. 8 (August 1, 2013): 1337–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200002285.
Full textAbstract:
In his paper The Impact of Legal Systems on Constitutional Interpretation: A Comparative Analysis: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court, Arshakyan carries out an interesting and detailed comparison between American and German constitutional courts by individualizing the properties shared by both courts and identifying the differences.
8
Klinger, Remo. "Exceedance of Limit Values for Fine Dust Particles: Violation of Community Law before German Courts." Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 3, no. 4 (2006): 300–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187601006x00542.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractFine dust limit values are being exceeded in many German cities. For this reason citizens living on particularly polluted roads have been taking legal action to enforce the adoption of action plans and immediate measures to reduce road traffic. Most of the early decisions by the German Administrative Courts have dismissed any rights of citizens to enforce the adoption of action plans or independent measures. These decisions have not followed the requirements of Community law regarding access by individuals to the national courts as prescribed by the ECJ because they deprive claimants in Germany of locus standi, and thereby prevent individuals from enforcing the limit values for fine dust particles in Germany. If German citizens are not allowed the right to claim legal protection, infringement proceedings against Germany are necessary. It is evident that sanctions pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 1999/30/EG do not exist in Germany. The analysis shows that there is an evident a conflict between EC law and German administrative law as applied by the German courts.
9
Reutter, Werner. "German State Constitutional Courts." German Politics and Society 39, no. 2 (June 1, 2021): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/gps.2021.390201.
Full textAbstract:
The article shows that two constitutional principles govern the election of justices and the composition of the 16 German state constitutional courts: democracy and the separation of powers. The recruitment of candidates, the vote on nominees in state parliaments, and the composition of benches of the courts in question support this assumption. There is no evidence indicating that a partisan takeover of German state constitutional courts has taken place. In addition, the majorities required for an appointment of justices of state constitutional courts seem less crucial than is often assumed.
10
Hartwig, Matthias. "Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitutional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights." German Law Journal 6, no. 5 (May 1, 2005): 869–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200014000.
Full textAbstract:
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.
11
Richter, Ida. "Nazi Crimes Before West German Courts." Journal of International Criminal Justice 18, no. 1 (March 1, 2020): 167–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaa016.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Fritz Bauer was one of the main figures of post-war West Germany who fought to bring Nazi perpetrators to trial before German courts at a time when the prevailing general climate and mentality was one of impunity and a need to make a ‘clean break’. This article investigates whether Bauer’s ideas can be set in relation to today’s notions of international criminal justice. Looking for this connection seems an obvious and necessary endeavour, since Bauer’s work focused on prosecuting Nazi crimes, which were dealt with initially by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, the first international criminal tribunal in history. However, this connection has rarely been studied. By taking the example of Bauer’s views on criminal responsibility of the staff at Auschwitz, expressed in relation to the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (1963-1965), this article demonstrates that his ideas stood out from common legal opinions in West Germany at the time. It also shows elements in his thinking corresponding to the concept of joint criminal enterprise in today’s international criminal law. The article will also argue that although Bauer’s far-reaching understanding of criminal liability made its way into legal practice only to a limited extent, this must be seen within the historical context of West German jurisprudence concerning Nazi crimes in the 1960s, the period in which Bauer worked.
12
McAdams, A. James. "The Honecker Trial: The East German Past and the German Future." Review of Politics 58, no. 1 (1996): 53–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500051664.
Full textAbstract:
Fifty years after the Nuremberg tribunals, Germany is once again caught up in a series of controversial trials involving former dictators. This time, officials of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) sit in the docks. Some observers have criticized these proceedings, maintaining that they will result in the imposition of an arbitrary form of “victor's justice.” Others have claimed, in contrast, that the cumbersome German Rechtsstaat (“state under the law”) will prove incapable of responding to public demands for retribution. In this article, the author maintains that Germany's courts have not been at a loss in answering these complaints. By grounding their judgments in preexisting East German law, the courts have managed to bring some of the GDR's former leaders to justice while at the same time guaranteeing most defendants the full protection of the rule of law. In the process, the courts have even conveyed an important message about the terms under which both German populations will be brought back together again.
13
Berger, Helge, and Michael Neugart. "How German Labor Courts Decide: An Econometric Case Study." German Economic Review 13, no. 1 (February 1, 2012): 56–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0475.2011.00539.x.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Courts are an important element in the institutional framework of labor markets, often determining the degree of employment protection. German labor courts provide a vivid example in this regard. However, we know relatively little about court behavior. A unique dataset on German labor court verdicts reveals that social and other criteria like employee characteristics, the type of job, local labor market conditions and court composition influence court decisions. At least as striking is that workers’ chances to win depend on where and when their cases are filed. This generates considerable ex ante uncertainty about outcomes.
14
Scheuing, Dieter H. "The Approach to European Law in German Jurisprudence." German Law Journal 5, no. 6 (June 1, 2004): 703–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200012803.
Full textAbstract:
To adequately assess the approach to European law in German jurisprudence is an impossible task to fulfill, yet one which is indispensable.The impossibility of such an attempt becomes clear if one realizes the multitude and variety of courts and judicial procedures existing in the Federal Republic of Germany. Our present judicial system is composed of 1,162 national courts with a total of about 21,000 judges.1 Eight of these courts are federal courts, the others are courts of the Länder, i.e. of the sixteen Member States of the Federation.
15
Trifonov, S. G. "CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY AND LAND CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND THEIR PLACE IN THE SYSTEM OF STATE AUTHORITIES." Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Juridical science 6 (72), no. 2 (2020): 92–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.37279/2413-1733-2020-6-2-92-101.
Full textAbstract:
The article examines and analyzes the legal status of the constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, examines the functions inherent in this body of constitutional jurisdiction of Germany, the features of its place in the system of bodies of the Federal German state, also pays attention to the land constitutional courts and the features of their status and functioning.
16
Schmidt, Susanne K. "A Sense of Déjà Vu? The FCC's Preliminary European Stability Mechanism Verdict." German Law Journal 14, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200001693.
Full textAbstract:
Over the summer of 2012, the pending verdict of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) was a topic of much speculation not only in Germany and in the European Union (EU), but also on the international level. Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was quoted as threatening to leave a meeting, were she to hear again “Bundesverfassungsgericht.” That decisions of a German non-majoritarian institution have such transnational repercussions while being guided by German laws and national considerations is nothing new. The Bundesbank's D-Mark rule was comparable and effectively pushed the introduction of the euro along. But also previous landmark rulings of the FCC on European integration raised cross-border attention, given that the Constitutional Court has the final say on German politics, and the biggest member state and economy of the EU can hardly be ignored. Moreover, being one of the most powerful constitutional courts in Europe, and certainly the one whose judgments receive most attention, rulings of the FCC are not only often cited but may also serve as a role model for other constitutional courts. Protest coming from this angle may therefore multiply.
17
Kurtishi, Emir. "The Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany." SEEU Review 15, no. 2 (December 1, 2020): 143–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/seeur-2020-0023.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Decisions made so far by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have always been characterized by their writing and content, even down to details, precision, accuracy, professional legal style of writing, always clear in the elaboration and adjudication of cases from its competence, but surprisingly, in our country, only a few have paid attention to the German Court in a scientific context, which can be seen from the only few materials we possess in the Albanian language. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of this Court, so that the comparative aspects can be made, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages, in case of dictating the state need for reform of the Constitutional Courts. Those who have institutionalized this constitutional institution know its value in the system of constitutional justice, which performs it in terms of protection of constitutions, its principles and value, and most importantly in the protection of freedoms and rights of human beings and citizens. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, to this date, has conveyed the efficiency of the protection of the German legal order, the serious approach and law interpretation, for the protection of freedoms and human rights, which ranks this court into a high level among all other powers in the German law system. The author, in the following paper, gives an overview of this Court starting with its history, organization and functioning, which today undoubtedly constitutes one of the most important constitutional courts in the world.
18
Voβkuhle, Andreas. "Multilevel cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund." European Constitutional Law Review 6, no. 2 (June 2010): 175–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1574019610200020.
Full textAbstract:
Broad concept of constitutional jurisdiction – Triangle between Karlsruhe, Strasbourg and Luxembourg – European vocation of the German Constitutional Court and Basic Law – European Convention on Human Rights – Karlsruhe decisions can be reviewed in Strasbourg – Human rights-related constitutional court – European Court of Justice developed into constitutional court of the Union – Verbund between three courts – No simplistic hierarchy – Verbund techniques – Dialogue in Human Rights; Interplay in Integration – Federal Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights functionally comparable – Both Courts seek substantive coherence as Verbund technique – Federal Constitutional Court commits all German authorities to the Convention – Federal Constitutional Court and ECJ – Principle of openness to European Law – Sharing and assigning responsibilities in complex system – Solange, ultra vires and identity review – Responsibility for integration, due by Court and other German bodies – Federal Court contributes to common European Constitutional order – Europe-wide discursive struggle and ‘Lernverbund’
19
Kehoe, Thomas J., and Elizabeth M. Greenhalgh. "Bias in the Treatment of Non-Germans in the British and American Military Government Courts in Occupied Germany, 1945–46." Social Science History 44, no. 4 (2020): 641–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2020.25.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractNon-Germans—particularly “displaced persons”—were routinely blamed for crime in occupied western Germany. The Allied and German fixation on foreign gangs, violent criminals, and organized crime syndicates is well documented in contemporary reports, observations, and the press. An abundance of such data has long shaped provocative historical narratives of foreign-perpetrated criminality ranging from extensive disorder through to near uncontrolled anarchy. Such accounts complement assertions of a broader and more generalized crime wave. Over the last 30 years, however, a literature has emerged that casts doubt on the actual extent of lawlessness during the occupation of the west and, in turn, on the level non-German participation in crime. It may be that extensive reporting of non-German criminality at the time reflected the preexisting bigotries of Germans and the Allies, which when combined with anxieties about social and societal integrity became focused on the most marginalized groups in postwar society. This process of “group criminalization” is common and can have different motivations. Regardless of its cause, it was clearly evident in postwar western Germany and we hypothesized that it should have created harsher outcomes for non-German versus German criminal defendants when facing the Allied criminal justice system, such as greater rates of conviction and harsher punishments. This hypothesis was tested using newly collected military government court data from 1945 to 1946. Contrary to expectations, we found a more subtle bias against non-Germans than expected, which we argue reveals important characteristics about the US and British military government criminal justice system.
20
Milon, Alice, and Renaud Bouvet. "Scientific Uncertainty in Courts. A France-Germany Comparative Perspective on Litigation surrounding Hepatitis B Vaccination." European Journal of Health Law 26, no. 1 (February 15, 2019): 5–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718093-12261414.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Litigation concerning hepatitis B vaccination provides a good illustration of the difficulties courts encounter when deciding on compensation claims in which scientific uncertainty, whether real or perceived, is present. Despite the difference in approach to vaccination – an obligation in France and a recommendation in Germany –, their vaccine coverage is comparable, as are their regimes of compensation for damage attributed to vaccination, whether on the basis of producer liability or national solidarity. Confronted with scientific uncertainty, German and French courts choose to make use of presumptions to establish legal causality that is not contingent on scientific causality. German and French case law diverge however, with regard to their relationship to scientific criteria of causality, the volume of court cases, and consideration of claims, highlighting what seems to be a distinctive situation in France.
21
Dalügge-Momme, Natascha. "Englische Gerichtsverhandlungen in Deutschland und Europa." Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 66, no. 2 (April 17, 2020): 278–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/babel.00154.mom.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Time and again, the topic of “Proceedings in English at German courts’ haunts the German media. Despite the failure of this experiment in some German cities, others keep trying again and again. This is intended to secure Germany as a court location in the long term. Other countries in Europe, such as Belgium, the Netherlands or France, have also been toying with these possibilities. What are the results there? Have they led to the expected securing of the place of jurisdiction? Are all those involved in the proceedings, such as judges, public prosecutors and lawyers, any witnesses, clerks, court ushers, the office and the interested public up to the challenge of following or conducting the proceedings in a language foreign to them? What are the experiences?
22
Taylor, Greg. "Scientology in the German Courts." Journal of Law and Religion 19, no. 1 (2003): 153. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3649169.
Full text
23
Rohe, Mathias. "Islamic Law in German Courts." Hawwa 1, no. 1 (March 1, 2003): 46–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156920803100420270.
Full text
24
Görlitz, Franziska, Juliane Hubert, Jasmin Kucher, Moritz Scheffer, and Patrick Wieser. "“Tatprovokation” – The Legal Issue of Entrapment in Germany and Possible Solutions." German Law Journal 20, no. 4 (May 2019): 496–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.33.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIncitement by police officers is a well-known and often utilized police measure in the German investigation process. Yet, when it comes to prosecuting the perpetrators, a moral conflict arises. Should a State, bound by its own constitution and committed to protect its citizens, be allowed to incite or support a possible offender and afterwards judge on his or her wrongful actions? After Germany’s higher courts had to deal with multiple cases of entrapped perpetrators, there has been a strong debate about the admissibility, requirements, and consequences of entrapment within the German legal system. International and national courts as well as scholars represent different legal standpoints in this regard. In particular, the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the German Federal Court of Justice differ significantly in their results. As Germany ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore has to adhere to the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling, an additional legal conflict arises. This article depicts and discusses the most relevant approaches to resolve this moral and legal conflict and satisfy both the need for effective prosecution and the procedural rights of the individual person subject to the act of entrapment. Additionally, recent legislative ambitions are presented.
25
Bornkamm, Paul Christoph. "State Immunity Against Claims Arising from War Crimes: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice inJurisdictional Immunities of the State." German Law Journal 13, no. 6 (June 2012): 773–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200020733.
Full textAbstract:
The recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in theCase Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy; Greece Intervening) marks the climax of a series of legal proceedings before Greek, Italian, and German courts, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stretching over a period of more than fifteen years. The international community had eagerly awaited the ICJ's findings on the issue at the heart of the dispute, namely the scope of state immunity before foreign courts in cases concerning claims arising from serious violations of international humanitarian law. While most expected the Court to rule in favor of Germany and to uphold state immunity in principle, it was unclear whether the Court would acknowledge the increasing erosion of immunity with respect to serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. To the disappointment of many, the Court took a conservative approach and rejected the idea of an emerging exception from state immunity.
26
Baliura, Anna. "Peculiarities of court proceedings in insolvency cases under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany." Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, no. 1 (April 15, 2020): 407–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.1.2020.80.
Full textAbstract:
The present article represents the results of the analysis of the German model of court proceedings in insolvency cases. In particular, within the framework of our research we have analysed specific aspects of the use of terminological apparatus, inter alia, we have traced the differences of the use of terms ‘insolvency’ and ‘bankruptcy’ under the laws of Germany. Besides, the article covers jurisdiction rules in insolvency cases and provides key characteristics of enforcement proceedings in respective cases. The present article contains in-depth analysis of criteria for recognition the debtor’s insolvency, namely, inability to pay, threatening inability to pay and over-indebtedness. During our research we have also identified and analysed legislative grounds for rejection of the debtor’s or creditors’ application initiating insolvency proceedings.
Further, the article clearly indicates the functions and powers of the court, as well as the rights and obligations of the parties at each stage of court proceedings in insolvency cases, notably, imposition by the court of security measures, namely, appointment of insolvency practitioner and restriction of the right to dispose of the debtor’s property, adoption or rejection by the court of insolvency recovery plan submitted by the debtor or appointed insolvency practitioner. This article also highlights time frames for realization of the above-mentioned rights and obligations and for the entire insolvency proceedings itself.
The article reflects evolution of German court’s approach to foreign proceedings in insolvency cases, as well as to decisions of foreign courts in case of this category from total non-recognition to recognition and incorporation of respective rules into the legislation of Germany on cross-border insolvency. The evolution in question is sustained by glaring court practice in this regard.
The present article provides quantitative conclusions on peculiarities of the entire insolvency system of Germany and, particularly, of German model of court proceedings in insolvency cases.
27
Sanger, Andrew. "I. IMMUNITY OF STATE OFFICIALS FROM THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF A FOREIGN STATE." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 62, no. 1 (January 2013): 193–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002058931200053x.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn Khurts Bat, the English High Court held that Mr Bat, a Mongolian State official charged with committing municipal crimes on German territory, was not immune from the jurisdiction of German courts and could therefore be extradited to Germany. This article examines the three theories of immunity put forward in that case: (1) special missions immunity, (2) high-ranking official immunity, and (3) State immunity. It focuses on the question of whether State officials charged with municipal crimes may plead immunity ratione materiae from the criminal jurisdiction of a foreign State by examining key examples of State practice.
28
Kment, Martin. "Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Planungsrecht." Die Verwaltung 51, no. 4 (October 1, 2018): 559–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.3790/verw.51.4.559.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the last five years (2014– 2018) judgements of the German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) have significantly influenced the German planning law (Baugesetzbuch). This article provides a representative overview of these decisions. It also explains their influence on the German planning law with a particular emphasis on the law of urban landuse planning (Bauleitplanung) and building consents (Baugenehmigung). The article also takes into account some decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) as well as the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). Both courts have adjudicated on compensation for expropriation. Furthermore, the German Federal Constitutional Court has given advice on the preservation of deficient plans whereas the German Federal Court of Justice also delivered judgements on urbanistic contracts.
29
Safferling, Christoph, and Gurgen Petrossian*. "Universal Jurisdiction and International Crimes in German Courts – Recent Steps Towards Exercising the Principle of Complementarity after the Entry into Force of the Rome Statute." European Criminal Law Review 11, no. 2 (2021): 242–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2021-2-242.
Full textAbstract:
This article deals with recent developments in Germany in relation to international criminal cases. It describes how the German courts interpreted and applied the law on the cases and on the international crimes committed outside of Germany. In addition, it raises the alternative criminal prosecution of the persons who were involved in the international criminal activities abroad. Since 2015 the workload of German judiciary because of the active prosecution of international crimes was dramatically increased. Cases of international crimes are now part of everyday life for public prosecutors and courts in Germany. The number of cases has also led to the establishment of a modern jurisprudence on international criminal law. These developments are also of great interest outside of Germany, but remain largely unknown.
30
Krey, Volker, and Oliver Windgätter. "The Untenable Situation of German Criminal Law: Against Quantitative Overloading, Qualitative Overcharging, and the Overexpansion of Criminal Justice." German Law Journal 13, no. 6 (June 2012): 579–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200020678.
Full textAbstract:
It is a well-established fact that German criminal trial courts are unacceptably and unreasonably overloaded. The German Federal Constitutional Court—Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG—and the Federal Supreme Court of Justice—Bundesgerichtshof, BGH—frankly admit this fact. Even those legal scholars who are critical towards trial courts emphasize such overloading. This overloading is aggravated in the context of austerity measures, which seem to be based on a system that can briefly be described as follows: In principle, the BGH is not, if ever then only slightly, affected, and the State Courts of Appeals—Oberlandesgerichte, OLG—are not affected in an extensive manner. In contrast, the trial courts fare differently: The Higher District Courts — Landgerichte, LG—are typically severely affected by such austerity measures, while the Lower District Courts — Amtsgerichte, AG—are affected brutally. Pursuant to the authors’ view, this practice demonstrates an evident disregard for the trial courts, despite the fact that their speedy as well as convincing settlement of criminal cases is of the utmost importance for the law in action and a constitutive element of criminal proceedings under the rule of law. Hence, the guarantee of an effective criminal justice system — Gewährleistung einer effektiven Strafrechtspflege—is rightly recognized as a fundamental element of the rule of law.
31
Schwerdtfeger, Angela. ""Schutznormtheorie" and Aarhus Convention- Consequences for the German Law." Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 4, no. 4 (2007): 270–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187601007x00460.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe Aarhus Convention raises new questions about the future of the German "Schutznormtheorie" limiting access to justice before the administrative courts. The text and history of Article 9 (2) Aarhus Convention and of Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation seem to recognise this German concept. However, a closer examination of the objective of wide access to justice and of the case law of the European Court of Justice reveals a clear need for changes with regard to the application of this concept by the German courts. In this context, the interrelation of limited rights of action with the depth of judicial control has to be regarded, as well. New German legislation does not satisfy the need for a reform.
32
Pliakos, Asteris, and Georgios Anagnostaras. "Blind Date Between Familiar Strangers: The German Constitutional Court Goes Luxembourg!" German Law Journal 15, no. 2 (March 1, 2014): 369–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200002996.
Full textAbstract:
Preliminary references by national constitutional courts are not an everyday occurrence in Union law. No surprise, therefore, that they attract considerable publicity and give rise to a significant amount of academic comment. However, the recent preliminary request of the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) inGauweilerconstitutes undoubtedly the most important and historic preliminary reference made thus far by a constitutional court. This is not only because it is the very first preliminary request of this particular court, inaugurating potentially a whole new era in its institutional relationships with the Court of Justice and paving the way for other national constitutional courts to make more regular recourse to the preliminary reference procedure; but also because it relates to an issue of central importance for the process of European integration with far reaching economic and political repercussions.
33
Wekel, Sarah. "German Labour Courts Struggle with Trifles." European Labour Law Journal 1, no. 2 (June 2010): 280–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/201395251000100209.
Full text
34
Check, Erika. "Florida courts German life-sciences institute." Nature 449, no. 7160 (September 2007): 264–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/449264b.
Full text
35
Balaj, Luz, and Florent Muçaj. "The Extension of the Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court in Assessing the Constitutional Amendments – the Case of Slovakia and Kosovo." International and Comparative Law Review 20, no. 2 (December 1, 2020): 239–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2020-0027.
Full textAbstract:
Summary This paper examines the jurisprudence of the constitutional courts of Slovakia and Kosovo regarding their assessment of the constitutionality of constitutional amendments. The rationale for the selected countries stands behind the practices of their Constitutional Courts of, in terms of the jurisdiction expansion in assessing constitutional amendments. Considering the fact that these courts have been recently established, the Slovak Constitutional Court with the Constitution of 1992 and the Constitutional Court of Kosovo with the Constitution of 2008, it is the purpose of this paper to further analyze their initial work in assessing the constitutionality of constitutional amendments in the light of the impact of the German jurisprudence. Regardless the lack of experience in this regard, these courts have shown an interesting correlation between scientific doctrines and jurisprudences, which have served the judges to justify their decisions. In this direction, this paper frames its discussion in two key segments. Firstly, is the manner in which these courts have expanded their jurisdiction, an expansion that provided an assess to the constitutionality of constitutional amendments that goes beyond confronting the amendment with the explicit nature of the unamendability of the constitution. Secondly, on the impact of the German jurisprudence, especially in the case of the Slovak Constitutional court.
36
Polzer, Anna-Dorothea. "A Clock in Court: East German Export of Cultural Property Considered by West German Courts." International Journal of Cultural Property 2, no. 1 (January 1993): 111–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0940739193000116.
Full text
37
Gavrilenko, Alena Aleksandrovna. "The peculiarities of enforcement of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: experience of Germany relevant to Russia." Международное право и международные организации / International Law and International Organizations, no. 3 (March 2019): 24–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.7256/2454-0633.2019.3.30269.
Full textAbstract:
This article is dedicated to the problem of enforcement of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the Federal Republic of Germany. The author explores the experience of West Germany in settling the conflict between the national law and international treaty – the European Convention on Human Rights. Special attention is given to the analysis of positions of the Federal Republic of Germany related to the decisions of ECHR made in regard to other countries and constituting precedents in German courts, as well as mandatory for considering in the work of government bodies. The scientific novelty is defined by focusing on the previously uncovered by the Russian legal experts combination of relevant aspects of the enforcement of decisions by ECHR in Western Germany through the prism of the realities of Russian law. Being fluent in German language, the author used the original laws and regulations of the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as scientific literature in German language. The conclusion is made that by imparting the status of general law upon the European Convention on Human Rights, Germany still relies on priority of the norms of international law over the national legislation and compliance with the decisions of ECHR. The author recommends to incorporate the German practice, according to which for preventing the instances of violating Convention in the future, the government bodies of the Federal Republic of Germany must consider the directive of ECHR not only with regards to Germany, but also foreign countries, as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights accordant to the position of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany constituents has precedential value.
38
Grakhotskiy, A. P. ""Amnesty through the Back Door" for Nazi Criminal Otto Bradfsch." Lex Russica, no. 5 (May 20, 2020): 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.162.5.083-096.
Full textAbstract:
In the 1960s, the process of criminal prosecution of Nazi criminals became more active in Germany. Former members of the einsatzkommand, SS members, SD, and police services who took part in the mass extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe were brought to justice. However, these trials resulted in unreasonably lenient sentences to Nazi criminals handed down by the courts. Often, the convicts managed to avoid imprisonment altogether.By the example of two trials against the commander of the einsatzkommando 8, Lodz Otto Bradfisch the head of the Gestapo Department and the chief burgomaster the paper aims to show what legal assessment the crimes of the Holocaust in Eastern Europe the German justice of the 1960s received and how the Nazi criminals managed to evade serving their sentences.The Munich and Hanover jury found the convinced nazi O. Bradfish, who was guilty of killing 37 thousand Jews (according to the most minimal calculations), to be only an "accomplice", "blindly implementing the criminal will of the Fuhrer". Such court decisions fully fit into the general conceptual approach of West German justice to assessing the crimes of the Holocaust. This approach made it possible to remove responsibility for the genocide of Jews not only from the Nazi criminals who appeared before the courts in the 1960s, but also from the entire German society. Placing full responsibility on Hitler and his inner circle, the German society refused to take seriously even the smallest penalties that the so-called "accomplices"received. Bradfish was sentenced to 13 years in prison. However, under the pretext of "poor health", without declaring an amnesty, on the basis of questionable medical reports and decisions of local justice bodies, the convicted person was released early. The narrative of O. Bradfisch showed that the sentences of the West German courts turned into a mockery of the memory of millions of victims of Nazi crimes.
39
Petersen, Niels. "Karlsruhe’s Lochner Moment? A Rational Choice Perspective on the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Relationship to the CJEU After the PSPP Decision." German Law Journal 21, no. 5 (July 2020): 995–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.54.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractOn May 5, 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued the PSPP decision, sending shock waves through the European Union. This contribution analyzes the consequences of the PSPP decision for the future relationship between the German FCC and the CJEU and for European integration as a whole. The article consists of four parts. First, I will provide some context and model the interaction between domestic and international courts from a rational choice perspective. Second, I will recapitulate some core aspects of the relationship between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU in particular. I argue that the relationship between both courts had evolved into a strategic equilibrium in which it was costly not to respect the decision of the other party. The third section then looks for reasons why Karlsruhe nevertheless deviated from this equilibrium despite the significant costs involved. The fourth section, finally, considers the way ahead and analyzes what possible consequences for the future relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU.
40
Gur-Arye, Miriam, and Thomas Weigend. "Constitutional Review of Criminal Prohibitions Affecting Human Dignity and Liberty: German and Israeli Perspectives." Israel Law Review 44, no. 1-2 (2011): 63–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700000960.
Full textAbstract:
Criminal laws must conform to each state's constitutional law. In both Israel and Germany, the highest courts have ruled on the compatibility of criminal prohibitions with constitutionally protected rights. One recurrent issue is the relationship between criminal prohibitions and the right to liberty, which is constitutionally guaranteed in both countries. The authors show that there are clear parallels in the case law of Israeli and German courts with regard to liberty. Human dignity is likewise protected in both legal systems, although it plays a different role in each. Under article 1(1) of the German Basic Law, human dignity enjoys “absolute” protection, which leads to problems in defining human dignity and accommodating countervailing interests in individual cases. In Israel, by contrast, human dignity is placed on the same level as liberty in the constitutional hierarchy of rights and is not afforded any “special treatment” by the Supreme Court. The authors suggest an intermediate solution: human dignity should not be granted “absolute” protection but should be treated with the greatest respect when criminal laws are reviewed for their constitutionality.
41
Oxman, Bernard H., and Bardo Fassbender. "Confiscation of property in Czechoslovakia in 1945—exclusion of German jurisdiction—Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation—nationality in international law—neutrality of Liechtenstein in World War II." American Journal of International Law 93, no. 1 (January 1999): 215–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2997965.
Full textAbstract:
Prince of Liechtenstein v. Federal Supreme Court. Case 2 BvR 1981/97. 36 Archiv des Volkerrechts 198 (1998).German Federal Constitutional Court (3d Chamber, 2d Senate), January 28, 1998.On January 28, 1998, a chamber of the German Constitutional Court decided that the Court would not deal with a constitutional complaint brought before it by Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, Head of State of die Principality of Liechtenstein. In effect, the chamber thus upheld the decisions made by the civil courts rejecting the Prince's attempt to recover a family painting confiscated by Czechoslovakia and currently on loan to a German museum.
42
Mourey, Marie-Thérèse. "Der Körper als Medium höfischer Kommunikation am Beispiel des Hofballets." Daphnis 42, no. 2 (2013): 491–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18796583-04202008.
Full textAbstract:
Among the highly varied vehicles of communication in early modern German an European courts, the human body was both a crucial medium and symbolic form. The body of the prince was strategically used and glorified as a site of political representation, espexially in central German courts. This paper explores the performative functions of the ballets de cour as aestheticized, ritual expressions of power as well as the self-fashioning of the participating princes. Taking the representation of the prince in a ballet from 1687 as a case study, it focuses on the distinctive situation in the Court of Saxony-Gotha.
43
Ott, Walter. "Did East German Border Guards Along the Berlin Wall Act Illegally?" Israel Law Review 34, no. 3 (2000): 352–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700012012.
Full textAbstract:
The German Democratic Republic's practice of firing upon istowncitizens is well-known. The question arises whether acts which were exempt from punishment in theGDRcan be punished today inreunifiedGermany? The West German Constitution expresses the notion that retroactive effect of penal laws is prohibited. However, the German Courts, above the Federal Constitutional Court (decision of 24/10/1996) have affirmed the criminal liability of East German border guards based on G. Radbruch's “natural law doctrine.”As a conclusion, it becomes clear that the illegality of acts of Berlin Wall guards can only be derived by following either the Federal Constitutional Court's natural law strategy or the strategy of a strict Statutory Positivism (Gesetzespositivismus); since it can be shown that official instructions and orders to shoot were not permissiblebeneaththe level of constitutional provisions, normal statutes or regulations justifiy restrictions on the human dignity and integrity (in particular the right to life and liberty) of GDR citizens.
44
Braun, Kerstin. "The Right to Assisted Dying: Constitutional Jurisprudence and Its Impact in Canada, Germany and Austria." ICL Journal 15, no. 3 (July 27, 2021): 291–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/icl-2021-0008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Many states are grappling with the regulation of assistance in suicide and ending the life of another upon their request. Initially punishable in most countries, a growing number of jurisdictions have now introduced permissive frameworks decriminalising, to varying degrees, rendering assistance in dying. Other countries, however, have proceeded with the criminal prohibition and several courts have upheld the lawfulness of the respective criminal laws during human rights and constitutional challenges. Yet, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015, the German Federal Constitutional Court in February 2020 and the Austrian Constitutional Court in December 2020 have respectively declared unconstitutional and void national criminal laws prohibiting rendering assistance in dying. This article first outlines the criminal law framework relating to assisted dying in Canada, Germany and Austria. It subsequently analyses the judgments before pondering their impact on the legal landscape in the three countries. The article concludes that while the Canadian Supreme Court decision appears to have had a significant impact on the introduction of subsequent legislation in Canada, the effects of the Constitutional Courts’ judgments seem much more subdued in Germany and are yet to unfold in Austria.
45
Mostert, Hanri. "Lost Information and Competing Interests in Restoring Germany's Dispossessed Property – The Recent Decision of the German Federal Administrative Court." German Law Journal 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200012219.
Full textAbstract:
With the progressive “accession” of the German Democratic Republic to the Federal German Republic after the reunification in 1990, Germany had to deal with a number of impediments emanating from the attempt to reconcile different political, social and legal models that developed during the forty years of separation between East and West Germany. Among these was the issue of how the property order in Germany would be influenced by seeking to integrate two such different socio-political and legal systems. As the discussion below indicates, the demands placed by this issue on the courts, legislature and administration of the newly reunified Federal German Republic still cause repercussions.
46
DAVIES, BILL. "Pushing Back: What Happens When Member States Resist the European Court of Justice? A Multi-Modal Approach to the History of European Law." Contemporary European History 21, no. 3 (June 13, 2012): 417–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0960777312000276.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractEstablished explanations of the development of the European legal system focus on the decisive power of the Court of Justice in determining the system's practice and parameters. Even accounts highlighting the various interlocutors involved with the Court are ultimately drawn to Luxembourg as the fulcrum of decision. However, these approaches neglect the equally constitutive role played by national courts, particularly when resisting the European Court of Justice (ECJ). By analysing the important consequences of the German Constitutional Court's Solange decision of 1974, this paper argues that we must complicate our retelling of the European Union's (EU) legal history by rethinking the importance of national-level agency.
47
Bothe, Michael. "THE DECISION OF THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT CONCERNING THE JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF GERMANY." Italian Yearbook of International Law Online 24, no. 1 (October 22, 2015): 25–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22116133-90000071a.
Full textAbstract:
In judgment No. 238/2014 the Italian Constitutional Court held that the Italian Constitution required Italian courts to disregard the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) upholding Germany’s jurisdictional immunity and to continue proceedings against Germany concerning actions for damages arising out of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Germany during the Second World War. The Court balanced the constitutional value of respect for international law, demanding respect for the binding force of the ICJ judgment, against the value of enforcing fundamental rights, and gave precedence to the latter. This type of balancing has also been employed by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the German Constitutional Court. Where the highest national courts prefer constitutional values over States’ international obligations, they cause a dilemma for other State organs as from the international perspective no State may rely on its internal law to justify non-performance of international norms. Yet the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court has attempted to close a “justice gap” in the regulation of the treatment of victims of international crimes committed during the Second World War. It is therefore hoped that the two governments follow the admonition of the ICJ to reopen negotiations.
48
Heger, Martin. "BgHSt 20, 22 und die Neubürger-Klausel des deutschen Strafanwendungsrechts – ein deutsch-polnischer Fall schreibt Rechtsgeschichte bis heute." Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica 19, no. 2 (2020): 141–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.15290/mhi.2020.19.02.08.
Full textAbstract:
In its judgment of the 4th September 1964 the German Federal Court of Justice had to deal with a German-Polish case of murder. The accused persons were members of the German minority in Poland and lived in the Western part of Poland, when German troops occupied that territory in the autumn of 1939. Short after the invasion they killed the members of a Jewish family living in the same territory. Both, the perpetrators as well as the victims were Polish nationals, when the crime was committed. The perpetrators have got the German nationality in the following. It is not clear, whether they have been naturalized by German authorities during WW II, but if not, they were seen as German nationals with the Getting-into-Force of the German Basic Law (Constitution), because they were refugees from Poland to Germany. Therefore, Article 116 § 1 Basic Law naturalized them as German nationals. For the criminal case it was crucial whether the later naturalization can give the German Justice system jurisdiction over a case which happened before the perpetrator has reached the German nationality, as it was (and still is) stated in section 4 (resp. today section 7) of the German Criminal Code. The paper should deal with the implications of this so-called "New Citizenship Clause" and with the circumstances of the case and the following cases at Western German Courts against German people for committing murder in the occupied Polish territories during WWII. Shortly after the named case, the Auschwitz trial started in Frankfurt. On that background, the paper reflects on the situation between West and East Germany as well.
49
Wesson, Murray. "The Reception of Structured Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law." Federal Law Review 49, no. 3 (June 4, 2021): 352–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0067205x211016581.
Full textAbstract:
A majority of the High Court has incorporated a test of structured proportionality into its implied freedom of political communication case law. Structured proportionality developed in the context of constitutional rights adjudication and requires courts to engage in substantive, values-based reasoning. The Australian Constitution does not contain a Bill of Rights and the High Court is known for its commitment to legalism and textualism. Against this background, one might think that the High Court would interpret the elements of structured proportionality so that they assume a highly distinctive form in Australian constitutional law. However, a close reading of recent implied freedom of political communication case law demonstrates that generally this is not the case. Admittedly, the High Court’s approach to the necessity and balancing stages departs from the case law of the Federal German Constitutional Court. However, once a broader comparative perspective is adopted, it becomes apparent that the High Court’s approach is not unusual, especially for courts that are new to applying structured proportionality. By adopting structured proportionality, the High Court may have aligned the implied freedom of political communication with a global model of constitutional rights enforcement. The Australian constitutional context may also be less distinctive than is sometimes supposed.
50
Wendel, Mattias. "Lisbon Before the Courts: Comparative Perspectives." European Constitutional Law Review 7, no. 1 (February 2011): 96–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1574019611100061.
Full textAbstract:
Lisbon decisions of the constitutional courts in Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia and Poland from a comparative perspective – Democracy, sovereignty and identity – Permeability of national and supranational law – Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and its constitutional foundations – Procedural background and legal outcome of the Lisbon decisions – Differences of institutional self-conception – Parliamentary responsibility for integration – Prior parliamentary assent to the future application of ‘dynamic treaty provisions’ – Different conceptions of national and multi-levelled democracy – Popular vote – Constitutional limits to European integration – Limits indicating the necessity of an amendment and limits protecting the inalienable substantial core of a constitutional order – German Bundesverfassungsgericht only court in Europe spelling out an eternity clause in a detailed, catalogue style manner – Judicial restraint – Ultra vires and identity review – Article 4.2 TEU as an integration clause of EU law and not a derogation clause – Comparative dialectics