Social and Economic Rights in the German Basic Law? An Analysis with Respect to Jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court

Christoph Enders

Abstract


The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany did originally not provide for social or economic rights understood as claims to benefits. The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) did, indeed, recognise the states obligation to protect individuals against assault by others (right to security) and further ruled that everyone has the right to use facilities provided by the state under equal conditions (right to participation). These rights, however, aim to ensure that the state uses existing means as intended. In addition, the FCC by now has recognised a “right to the guarantee of a dignified minimum subsistence”. It is an original entitlement as the state is obliged to create and provide benefits for individuals in need. This new legal construction, however, misconceives the division of responsibilities between the FCC and the legislator and collides with the principle of the separation of powers

Keywords


Claim to Benefits; Dignified Minimum Subsistence; FCC; Human Dignity; Right to Participation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baldus, Manfred. Kämpfe um die Menschenwürde [Fights about Human Dignity]. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2016.

Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang. “Fundamental Rights: Theory and Interpretation [1974].” In Constitutional and Political Theory – Selected Writings, vol. 1, edited by Mirjam Künkler, Tine Stein, 266-289. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Borowski, Martin. “Absolute Rights and Proportionality.” German Yearbook of International Law 56, (2013), 385-423.

Bumke, Christian and Andreas Voßkuhle. German Constitutional Law. Introduction, Cases and Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Butt, Simon and Tim Lindsey. The Constitution of Indonesia. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2012.

Cianciardo, Juan. “The Principle of Proportionality: The Challenges of Human Rights.” Journal of Civil Law Studies 3 (2010), 177-186.

Cohen-Eliya, Moshe and Iddo Porat. “Proportionality and the Culture of Justification.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 59 (2011): 463-490.

Enders, Christoph. Die Menschenwürde in der Verfassungsordnung [Human Dignity in the constitutional order]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

Enders, Christoph. “Sozialstaatlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Eigenverantwortung und Fürsorge [The Social Welfare State between the poles of individual responsibility and care].” Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer VVDStRL 64, (2005), 7-52.

Enders, Christoph. “Freiheit und Gleichheit zwischen Recht und Politik – Die Grundrechte des Grundgesetzes der Bundesrepublik Deutschland/Kebebesan dan Kesamaan antara Hukum dan Politik – Hak Asasi di Grundgesetz Republik Federal Jerman [Freedom and Equality between Law and Politics – The Basic Rights of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany].” Arena Hukum 3, no. 5 (2010), 1-21.

Enders, Christoph. “Human Dignity in Germany.” In Handbook of Human Dignity in Europe, edited by Paolo Becchi, Klaus Mathis, 281-318. Cham: Springer, 2018.

Enders, Christoph. “Human Dignity, Happiness and Constitutional Rights.” Boletim da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de Coimbra XCIV, no. II, (2018), 1201-1211.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Decision of 19 December 1951 - 1 BvR 220/51 = BVerfGE 1, 97.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 20 July 1954 - 1 BvR 459, 484, 548, 555, 623, 651, 748, 783, 801/52, 5, 9/53, 96, 114/54 = BVerfGE 4, 7.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 17 August 1956 - 1 BvB 2/51 = BVerfGE 5, 85.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 15 January 1958 - 1 BvR 400/51 = BVerfGE 7, 198.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Decision of 10 June 1963 - 1 BvR 790/58 = BVerfGE 16, 194.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Decision of 29 July 1968 - 1 BvL 20/63, 31/66 and 5/67 = BVerfGE 24, 119.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 18 July 1972 - 1 BvL 32/70 and 25/71 = BVerfGE 33, 303.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 25 February 1975 - 1 BvF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/74 = BVerfGE 39, 1.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 28 May 1993 - 2 BvF 2/90 and 4, 5/92 = BVerfGE 88, 203.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Decision of 10 October 1995 - 1 BvR 1476, 1980/91 and 102, 221/92 = BVerfGE 93, 266.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 9 February 2010 - 1 BvL 1, 3, 4/09 = BVerfGE 125, 175.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 18 July 2012 - 1 BvL 10/10, 2/11 = BVerfGE 132, 134.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 17 June 2017 - 2 BvB 1/13 = BVerfGE 144, 20.

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Judgment of 05 November 2019 – 1 BvL 7/16.

Forst, Wolfgang. “Das grundlegende Recht auf Rechtfertigung [The basic right to justification].” In Recht auf Menschenrechte [Right to human rights], edited by Hauke Brunkhorst, Wolfgang R. Köhler, Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, 66- 105. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999.

Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia Decision of 02 July 2012 – 13 B 656/12.

Kirste, Stephan. “A Legal Concept of Dignity as a Foundation of Law.” In Human dignity as a foundation of law, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie – Beihefte, vol. 137, edited by Winfried Brugger, Stephan Kirste, 63-81. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2013.

Maritain, Jacques. The Rights of Man and Natural Law. London: Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, 1944.

Möllers, Christoph. “Democracy and Human Dignity: Limits of a Moralized Conception of Rights in German Constitutional Law.” Israel Law Review 42, no. 2 (2009), 416-439.

Robbers, Gerhard. An Introduction to German Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2012.

Schlink, Bernhard. “Proportionality in Constitutional Law: Why Everywhere but Here?” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 22, (2012), 291-302.

Schlink, Bernhard. “Proportionality (1).” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by Michel Rosenfeld, András Sajó, 718-737. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Strydom, Hennie. “The Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law.” Constitutional Review 5, no. 2 (December 2019), 222-247.

Taufik, Giri Ahmad. “Proportionality Test in the 1945 Constitution: Limiting Hizbut Tahrir Freedom of Assembly.” Constitutional Review 4, no. 1 (May 2018), 45-76.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev621

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 273 times
PDF view : 98 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Constitutional Review