Anti-discrimination as a Program of Private Law ?

German Law Journal

Volumn 4, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 771-784

  Picker, Eduard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957267727     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200016412     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. See Bundesministerium der Justiz, Diskussionsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verhinderung von Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, [Federal Ministry of Justice, Discussion Draft of a Law for the Prevention of Discrimination in Private Law],10 December 2001, p. 2ff.
2. See e.g. Adomeit NJW 2002, 1622 f.
3. Baer ZRP 2002, 290 ff.
4. Braun JuS 2002, 424 ff.
5. Fahr JuS 2002, 727
6. Globig ZRP 2002, 529 f.
7. Montag ZRP 2003, 18 ff.
8. Neuner JZ 2003, 57 ff.
9. Picker JZ 2002, 880 ff.
10. =Anwaltblatt 2003, 198 ff.
11. Rainer JuS 2002, 726 f.
12. Säcker ZRP 2002, 286 ff.
13. Stünker ZRP 2003, 17 f.
14. Urlesberger ZAS 2001, 72 ff.
15. Wiedemann/Thüsing DB 2002, 463 ff.
16. See, as pars pro toto, the preceding footnote.
17. Urlesberger ZAS 2001, 72 points correctly to this.
18. The first catch, which understandably is barely ever communicated in writing, appears not infrequently at the mentioned formal discussions. As evidence at least for the general direction of the latter position, one can point to the piece by Baer ZRP 2002, 290. There, not only is personal liberty in the original sense of freedom to “Will-Kür”- that is, to act arbitrarily or by will-almost never considered as its own value and object of legal protection (see on this point Globig ZRP 2002, 530). Also especially tangibly evident is the specifically persuasive association with the basic dilemma of every antidiscrimination, which by necessity always discriminates differently (the rather unlikely situation for German circumstances, described by Urlesberger ZAS 2001, 75, is clear). The certainty, free from gnawing doubt, is clear that the deciding party knows which part of the population to benefit and which to disadvantage (see e.g. Baer ZRP 2002, 293)
19. This concern is the consistent tone of the works named in Fn. 2 above, specifically those of Adomeit, Braun, Globig, Picker, Säcker and Urlesberger.
20. Cited according to the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG (FAZ) of 8 March 2003 [”Die Privatautonomie in weiten Bereichen aushebeln”], p. 12; also see Fn. 15 below.
21. Stünker ZRP 2003, 18.
22. Thus, the programmatic position statements of Stünker ZRP 2003, 18, and Montag ZRP 2003, 19, both members of the German Bundestag, know nothing of the curtailment of the original plans. And, at a conference of the Federal Bar Association (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer) on 20 March 2003 in Berlin, Member of Parliament Schewe-Gerigk announced for the Green Party a decided opposition to such intentions.
23. Fastricht, RdA 2000, 81, states aptly “obligations of equal treatment, as interventions in the market, have in common with other market interventions the problem that the desired effects often do not correspond to the intentions”. See also Globig ZRP 2002, 530.
24. Adomeit NJW 2002, 1623, says rightly that it is a “comfort” for the injustice of many individual decisions, that “on the average the hundreds of thousands of contracts made daily balance everything out”.
25. Also see on this point above all the works cited in Fn. 6 above. Baer ZRP 2002, 292, Fn. 23 identifies to this extent encouraging impartiality that the “fascist legal theory” rejected freedom of contract and instead decreed obligations.
26. Official Journal EC, Nr. L 180 of 19 July 2000, also printed as insert to NJW Vol. 37, 2001; to be implemented by 19 July 2003.
27. Because there was no agreement between the Member States, but also notably because it did not recognize any necessity, the Directive refrained from adopting the immediately approved material named in the text, which is also seen as being in need of regulation for labor law, see Schwarze/Holoubek, EUKommentar, 2000, Art. 13 Annotation 6.
28. Säcker ZRP 2002, 287, Fn. 11.
29. see in comparison the Discussion Draft by the Federal Ministry of Justice [BMJ] Bundesministerium der Justiz, Diskussionsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verhinderung von Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, [Federal Ministry of Justice, Discussion Draft of a Law for the Prevention of Discrimination in Private Law],10 December 2001, p. 22 ff.
30. See on this point the news reports e.g. in Der Spiegel, Nr. 12, 2002, p. 18.
31. Official Journal EG, Nr. L 303 of 2 December 2000, also printed in NJW Vol. 37, 2001, to be implemented by 2 December 2003.
32. See Discussion Draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice [BMJ] (Bundesministerium der Justiz, Diskussionsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verhinderung von Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, [Federal Ministry of Justice, Discussion Draft of a Law for the Prevention of Discrimination in Private Law],10 December 2001, p. 1 [”den Zugang und die Versorgung mit Gütern und Dienstleistungen, die der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung stehen, einschließlich von Wohnraum”].
33. See the Discussion Draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice [BMJ] (Bundesministerium der Justiz, Diskussionsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verhinderung von Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, [Federal Ministry of Justice, Discussion Draft of a Law for the Prevention of Discrimination in Private Law],10 December 2001, p. 12 f., 59 ff. The extension also to non-entrepreneurs was “considered” (p. 60). The limitation to “practices …, which should broadly and generally be suppressed”, should not change any of the concerns set out in the text.
34. See the Discussion Draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice [BMJ] Bundesministerium der Justiz, Diskussionsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verhinderung von Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, [Federal Ministry of Justice, Discussion Draft of a Law for the Prevention of Discrimination in Private Law],10 December 2001, p. 13, 59 f.
35. See the Discussion Draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice [BMJ] (Bundesministerium der Justiz, Diskussionsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Verhinderung von Diskriminierungen im Zivilrecht, [Federal Ministry of Justice, Discussion Draft of a Law for the Prevention of Discrimination in Private Law],10 December 2001, p. 13, 61 f.
36. Notable further examples in Neuner JZ 2003, 62 f.
37. Säcker ZRP 2002, 288 f.
38. Urlesberger ZAS 2001, 75
39. rather less voluntarily in Baer ZRP 2002, 293.
40. According to state secretary Hartenbach of the Federal Ministry of Justice at the conference referenced in Fn. 9 above.
41. Quoted from the FAZ, at footnote 7; the first quote is indirect and the second is directly reproduced.
42. See already Picker, JZ 2002, 880.
43. See hereto only Flume, Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, Vol. 2, Das Rechtsgeschäft, 4th Ed. 1992, p. 6
44. Picker, JZ 2002, 880
45. Säcker, ZRP 2002, 286 f.
46. This is correctly underlined by Säcker, ZRP 2002, 288.
47. In contrast hereto, Baer, ZRP 2002, 294, fails to see this point because she does not draw a distinction between political-state and personal-private (autonomous) action.
48. This example is taken from Neuner, JZ 2003, 65.
49. See recently, e.g., Neuner, Privatrecht und Sozialstaat, 1998
50. see also Neuner’s arguments in JZ 2003, 59 ff.
51. Busche, Privatautonomie und Kontrahierungszwang, 1999, each with comprehensive references.
52. See, e.g., Gitter, NJW 1982, 1568 ff.
53. Coester-Waltjen, ZRP 1982, 217.
54. See MOTIVE, Vol. I, 1896, 211f.
55. rd Ed. 1906, § 125 II, p. 421
56. th Ed. 1913, § 138 Annotation I 1 a, which only addresses the limitation to this definition.