Much Ado About Human Rights: The Federal Constitu-tional Court Confronts the European Court of Human Rights

German Law Journal

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 869-894

  Hartwig, Matthias ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749341094     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200014000     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
2. See, e.g., articles in the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG, October 23, 2004, at 1; SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, October 20, 2004, at 4; NEUE ZÜRICHER ZEITUNG, October 20, 2004, at 3; BERLINER ZEITUNG, October 20, 2004, at 2; DIE WELT, October 20, 2004, at 5.
3. See, e.g., Interview with President (ECtHR) Luzius Wildhaber, DER SPIEGEL (November 15, 2004), at 52 (President Wildhaber expressed concerns about the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, re-marking that it might set a bad example for other Member States). See also the comments of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, underlining the binding force of the decisions of the ECtHR, see press release of the Council of Europe of October 21, 2004 - http://press.coe.int/cp/2004/516a(2004).htm, where she is quoted: "As Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I wish unequivocally to reaffirm that this discussion in no way puts into question the binding nature of the European Human Rights Court's judgments under Article 46 of the Convention and the obligation of States Parties to abide by such judgments." See also SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, Octo-ber 23, 2004, at 4.
4. See Interview with President (BVerfG) Hans-Jürgen Papier, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG, December 9, 2004, at 5; Interview with Judge (ECtHR) Renate Jaeger, DIE TAGESZEITUNG (TAZ), October, 28, 2004, at 10 (defending the position of the Federal Constitutional Court in stating that the ECtHR shall be very prudent in intervening in matters not concerning the relationship between the State and an individual, but between individuals, as is the case in conflicts concerning the parental custody) (Judge Jaeger's comments were particularily delicate as she was, at that time, still a Justice at the Federal Constituional Court, but had been elected to the ECtHR).
5. See Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
6. Decision of Wittenberg Local Court, (March 9, 2001) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
7. Decision of Naumburg Higher Regional Court, (June 20, 2001) (cited in Decision of the Federal Consti-tutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
8. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 1174/01 of July 31, 2001 (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
9. Decision of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court, (September 30, 2003) (cited in Decision of the Fed-eral Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
10. Decision of the Wittenberg Local Cout, (December 28, 2001) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitu-tional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
11. Decision of the Dessau Regional Court, (October 30, 2002) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitu-tional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
12. Decision of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court, (July 24, 2003) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidun-gen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
13. Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/ view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.
14. Decision of the Wittenberg Local Court, (March 19, 2004) (cited in Decision of the Federal Constitu-tional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)). As for the possibility of initiating new proceedings concerning parental custody even after a final decisions, see below.
15. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin)).
16. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 31, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
17. Id. This reflects the undisputed qualification of the ECHR in internal law. See Hans-Joachim Cremer, Zur Bindungswirkung von EGMR-Urteilen /Anmerkung zum Görgülü-Beschluß des BVerfGE vom 14. 10. 2004, EUROPÄISCHE GRUNDRECHT ZEITSCHRIFT (EuGRZ) 686 (2004). See also Christian Walter, Die Euro-päische Menschenrechtskonvention als Konstitutionalisierungsprozeß, ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLANDISCHES ÖFFENTLICHES RECHT UND VOLKERRECHT (ZaöRV) (1999) (analyzing the possibilities for attaching a constitutional rank to the European Convention on Human Rights).
18. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 46, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
19. Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, EUROPÄISCHE GRUNDRECHTEZEITSCHRIFT, (June 30, 2004), p. 751.
20. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 31, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
21. Firm case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court. See BVerfGE 34, 384 (395); BVerfGE 41, 126 (141); BVerGE 64, 135 (157). There has been a long discussion regarding how the Federal Constitutional Court can enforce the respect of the ECHR. See F. Hoffmeister, Die Europäische Menschrechtskonvention als Grundrechtsverfassung und ihre Bedeutung für Deutschland, DER STAAT 365 (2001); J. Abr. Frowein, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, in 2 FESTSCHRIFT FÜR WOLFGANG ZEIDLER 1770 (W. Fürst et al. eds., 1987).
22. As for dualist and monist theories, see Karl Josef Partsch, International Law and Municipal Law, in II ENCYCLPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 1183, 1184 (R. Bernhardt ed. 1995).
23. As for sovereignty as an international law concept, see Helmut Steinberger, Sovereignty, in IV ENCYCLPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 500 (R. Bernhardt ed. 2000).
24. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, paragraph 35, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
25. See, e.g., BVerfGE 89, 1.
26. As it will be shown below, the question concerning the impact of the decisions of the ECtHR does not depend on the matter of the judgment, but on the procedural situation.
27. See, e.g., BVerfGE 93, 1 (22).
28. Odi èvre v. France, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 13, 2003), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/ view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Odi%E8vre%20%7C%20France&sessionid=2250292&skin=hudoc-en.
29. von Hannover v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (June 24, 2004), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/ view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=speech%20%7C%20privacy&sessionid=2250292&skin=hudoc-en.
30. Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), para. 45, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/ tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.
31. It is in this line that the Federal Constitutional Court recently issued a temporary injunction to stop an extradition proceeding based on a European arrest warrant that had been issued by Spain. The Court explained that a German organ must have the possibility to check if the request of extradition is justified. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2236/04 of November 24, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041124-2bvr223604.html.
32. See BVerfGE 37, 271; BVerfGE 73, 339; BVerfGE 88, 155.
33. This expression is borrowed from SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS (1993).
34. See Jutta Limbach, Die Kooperation der Gerichte in der zukünftigen europäischen Grundrechtsarchitektur, EUROPÄISCHE GRUNDRECHT ZEITSCHRIFT (EuGRZ) 417 (2000).
35. The individual constitutional complainant before the Federal Constitutional Court is qualified as a remedy in the sense of art. 35 ECHR. See §§ 90 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (BVerfGG - Federal Con-stitutional Court Act).
36. Through 2002, covering almost 50 years, there have been only 57 cases against Germany before the ECtHR. Germany was found to be in violation of the ECHR in 31 cases. See OLAF KIESCHKE, DIE PRAXIS DES EUROPÄISCHEN GERICHTSHOFS FÜR MENSCHENRECHTE UND IHRE AUSWIRKUNGEN AUF DAS DEUTSCHE STRAFVERFAHRENSRECHT 246 (2003).
37. The case concerned the obligation of the State to protect the privacy and freedom of information. See von Hannover v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (June 24, 2004), at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/ view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=speech%20%7C%20privacy&sessionid=2250292&skin=hudoc-en.
38. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, para. 38, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
39. Eckart Klein, Should the Binding Effect of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights be Extended, in PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS: THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE 706 (Paul Mahoney et al. 2000).
40. See Peter Gottwald, in ZIVILPROZESSRECHT 953 (Rosenberg/Schwab/Gottwald eds. 1993).
41. Decision of October 14, 2004 para. 40; JÖRG POLAKIEWICZ, DIE VERPFLICHTUNGEN DER STAATEN AUS DEN URTEILEN DES EUROPÄISCHEN GERICHTSHOFS FÜR MENSCHENRECHTE 217 (1993); Helmut Steinberger, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL 402, 407 (1985); Art. 53, EUROPÄISCHE MENSCHENRECHTSKONVENTION 725 (Frowein/Peukert, 2nd ed., 1985).
42. This has also been pointed out by the Federal Constitutional Court. See Decision of the Federal Consti-tutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, para. 51, at http://www.bverfg.de/ entscheidun-gen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
43. R. Herzog, Art. 20, in GRUNDGESETZKOMMENTAR (Maunz/Dürig eds.).
44. Art. 35 ECHR.
45. Decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court, Case Nr. 245/91, BOLETIN DE JURISPRUDENCIA CONSTITUCIONAL, (December 16, 1991), p. 86.
46. Decsions of the Conseil d'Etat, Case Nr. 257682, ACTUALITÉS JURIDIQUE DU DROIT ADMINISTRATIVE, (February 11, 2004), p. 439.
47. Court of Appeal, (September 19, 2000) (cited in Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R. (July 8, 2003), p. 4).
48. §§ 33 and 363 a Criminal Procedural Code of Austria; France, § 359 sec. 6 of the German Criminal Procedural Code, Art. 525 sec. 5 of the Greek criminal procedural code; Art. 413 sec. 4 No. 2 of the Rus-sian Criminal Precedural Code; art. 540 sec. 3 of the Polish Criminal Constitutional Code; art. 626-1 to 626-7 of the French Criminal Procedural Code; as for the application of the reopening procedure, Régis de Gouttes, La procedure de réexamen des decisions pénales après un arrêt de condamnation de la cour européenne des droits de l'homme, in: Libertés, justice, tolerance, Mélanges en homage au Doyen Gérard Cohen-Jonathan, p. 563 ss.; art. 443 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Luxemburg; Section 6 of the European Convention Act of August 19, 1987; § 391 No. 2 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Nor-way and § 407 para. 1 No. 7 of the Civil Procedural Code of Norway; § 406 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Hungary
49. § 407 para. 1 No. 7 of the Civil Procedural Code of Norway; Section 6 of the European Convention Act 1987 (Act. No. XIV) of Malta which refers to all cases in which a decision of the ECtHR declared that a national decision is violating the ECHR.
50. 1998 (BGBl. I S. 1802).
51. One may observe an interesting difference with the respective situation in constitutional law. See § 79 para. 1 BVerfGG (allowing the reopening of all criminal matters in which a person has been convicted on the basis of a law later declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court; thus, the possibil-ity of reopening one's case is not limited to the persons who lodged an individual constitutional com-plaint before the Federal Constitutional Court).
52. But it is really remarkable that the Spanish parliament did not implement the decisions of the Spanish Constitutional Court by introducing a legally based procedure for the review of cases declared incom-patible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In Spain the possibility of review is exclu-sively based on the case-law of the Constitutional Court.
53. Domestic courts concluded from these circumstances, that no obligation to this end can be derived from the ECHR: "In any event, we doubt whether Article 46 requires the re-opening of convictions." Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 4.
54. Saidi v. France, 261-C Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) at para 46; ECtHR Lyons v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003); Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H. R., (September 20, 1994), para. 44. In the same sense, see the European Commission on Human Rights DR 83-A, 48 (55), (Kremzow case).
55. Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 10.
56. Recommendation No. R (2000) 2, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=334147&BackColorInternet= 9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75
57. The Committee of Ministers says that the reopening of the proceedings will be the only possibility to redress the effects of a violation only in exceptional circumstances. See Recommendation of January 19, 2000. This discounts the possibility that a violation of the ECHR by a domestic court decision is ongoing.
58. The argumentation can be found in the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in the Pakelli case, NJW 1986, 1425; see Christian Walter, Nationale Durchsetzung, in KONKORDANZKOMMENTAR para. 50 (Grote/Marauhn eds., forthcoming).
59. Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 11.
60. This has been again confirmed. See Lyons vs. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., (July 8, 2003), p. 10.
61. Régis de Gouttes, La procédure de réexamen des décisions pénales apr`s un arret de condamnation de la Cour européene des droits de l'homme, in I LIBERTES, JUSTICE, TOLERANCE, MELANGES EN HOMAGE AU DOYEN GERARD 568 (Cohen-Jonathan ed. 2004). Since 2001 when the criminal procedural code was amended, 20 requests for collateral proceedings were lodged and 11 were declared admissible. In no case was the result of the final decision more favourable than the decision declared incompatible with the ECHR by the ECtHR.
62. There is a certain discussion in the doctrine of civil procedural law concerned with whether decisions in this field can ever be final in a material sense, because, as will be shown later, they can be reversed at any time if the child's best interest so requires. See Uwe Diederichsen, § 1696 para. 1, in BÜRGERLICHES GESETZBUCH (Palandt ed.); Decision of the Federal Court of Justice, NEUE JURISTISCHES WOCHENSCHRIFT RECHTSPRECHUNG REPORT (NJW-RR), (1986), 1130. However, these decisions are final in a formal sense, i.e. they are not subject to an ordinary remedy.
63. Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), para. 46, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.
64. Görgülü v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (February 26, 2004), paras. 44 to 46, at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=2250242&skin=hudoc-en.
65. See, e.g., Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2790/04 of December 28, 2004, para. 33, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20041228-1bvr279004.html (the Court expressly pointed out that, if access to the child has been granted to the father by an ordinary court and the Federal Constitu-tional Count later comes to the conclusion that this decision violated the rights of the child at the time when the decision was taken, the ordinary court would not be bound by its previous decision if it has to decide again on whether a continuation of contact with the father is in the best interest of the child).
66. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 1481/04 of October 14, 2004, para. 66, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014-2bvr148104e.html (English translatioin).
67. In the actual interpretation, art. 46 ECHR attaches binding force to the decisions of the ECtHR only in general terms, without giving a solution to the problem of how final domestic decisions can be re-viewed.
68. One can compare this approach to a certain extent with the approach of the Spanish Constitutional Court. See Decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court, Case Nr. 245/91, BOLETIN DE JURISPRUDENCIA CONSTITUCIONAL, (December 16, 1991).
69. See Verfassungsnovelle Bundesgesetzblatt 1964/59. Pursuant to this act, the ECHR has the rank of constitutional law. See also Manfred Nowak, Allgemeine Bemerkungen zur Europäischen Menschenrechts-konvention aus völkerrechtlicher und innerstaatlicher Sicht, in DIE EUROPÄISCHE MENSCHENRECHTSKONVENTION IN DER RECHTSPRECHUNG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN HÖCHSTGERICHTE 49 (Ermacora/Nowak/Tretter eds., 1983); Jochen Frowein, Einleitung, in EUROPÄISCHE MENSCHENRECHTSKONVENTION 4 (Frowein/Peukert eds., 1985).
70. As explained above, Austria only provides a collateral procedure in criminal matters.
71. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, JULIUS CESAR, Act III Scene 2.
72. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2790/04 of December 28, 2004, at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rk20041228-1bvr279004.html.
73. Jörg, Berkemann, § 32 para. 173, in BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTSGESETZ (Umbach/Clemens eds.). See BVerfGE 6, 1 (4); BVerfGE 27, 179 (182); BVerfGE 80, 360 (364); BVerfGE 82, 54 (57).