Constitutional Court Upholds Lifetime Partnership Act

German Law Journal

Volumn 3, Issue 8, 2002, Pages

  Miller, Russell ^a   Röben, Volker ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85179426323     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200015224     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, http://www.bverfg.de.
2. See, Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court to Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 12 (16 July 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=42; Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court Does Not Issue Temporary Injunction to Block the Entry Into Force of the Lifetime Partnership Law, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 13 (1 August 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=73.
3. See, e.g., Stephan Hütig, Homo-Ehe vor Gericht, FAZ.NET (visited 17 July 2002) ; Thomas Reinhold, Homo-Ehe: Das ist gut so, FAZ.NET (visited 17 July 2002) .
4. Most notably, the exclusion of the right to adopt. See, BverfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 11, http://www.bverfg.de; Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court to Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 12, 10 (16 July 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=42.
5. Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court to Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 12, 4 (16 July 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=42.
6. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 2 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
7. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 6 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
8. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 3 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
9. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 2 Nr. 12 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
10. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 1 § 10 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
11. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 3 §§ 52, 54 and 56 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
12. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 9-10, http://www.bverfg.de. See, Art. 3 § 11 (2001 BGBl. I, p. 265, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101009f.pdf).
13. The center-right parties brought their challenge to the formal and material constitutionality of the new law by way of a Normenkontrollanträge (Abstract Judicial Review), which permits Länder (Federal State) governments to engage the Court "in the event of disagreements or doubts respecting the formal or substantive compatibility of federal law or Land law with this Basic Law, . . ." Art. 93.1(2) GG. In this case the center-right parties acted through the state governments of Bavaria and Saxony, which they control.
14. BverfG, 1 BvQ 23/01 from 18 July 2001, . See, Andreas Maurer, Federal Constitutional Court Does Not Issue Temporary Injunction to Block the Entry Into Force of the Lifetime Partnership Law, 2 GERM. LAW JOURNAL 13 (1 August 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=73.
15. Jonnie Skye Clifford, High Court Okays Gay-Marriage Bill, F.A.Z. WEEKLY (visited 19 July 2002) .
16. The state governments argued that their right to "regulate the establishment of the authorities and their administrative procedure," where they are responsible for the execution of federal laws, had been violated (Art. 84.1 GG). The state governments also argued that a proposed version of the legislation, which had required the involvement of the Standesbeamten (Registration Offices) in the execution of the Lifetime Partnerships, had been unconstitutionally amended. The Registration Offices are administered by the state governments and this interest would have necessitated the Bundesrat's consent to the proposed legislation.
17. Germany's federal structure grants the Länder (Federal States) the authority to legislate all matters, except those areas explicitly conferred on the legislative power of the Bundes (Federal Authorities) by the Basic Law (Art. 70.1 GG). In another broad range of areas explicitly identified by the Basic Law, the Bundes and the Länder enjoy concurrent legislative authority. With respect to concurrent legislative authority, the Federal Government has legislative priority where "the establishment of equal living conditions throughout the federal territory or the maintenance of legal or economic unity renders federal regulation necessary in the national interest" (Art. 72.2 GG). German federalism has a final mechanism, along side this careful, "vertical" division of subject area au The Lifetime Partnership Act touches upon this scheme because the "registration of births, deaths, and marriages," belongs to the concurrent legislative authority of the Bundes and the Länder (Art. 74.2 GG). It was this final element of federalism, known as the Zustimmungsgesetzpflicht (Acts Requiring Consent) that was at stake in the Lifetime Partnership Act.
18. Jonnie Skye Clifford, High Court Okays Gay-Marriage Bill, F.A.Z. WEEKLY (visited 19 July 2002) .
19. See, 2001 BGBl. I, p. 3513, http://217.160.60.235/BGBL/bgbl1f/b101067f.pdf.
20. Art. 74.1 para. 2 GG.
21. Art. 84.2 GG.
22. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 66, http://www.bverfg.de (citing BVerfGE 34, 9 (p. 28); BVerfGE 37, 363 (p. 382)).
23. BverfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 67, http://www.bverfg.de ("Die Möglichkeit des Bundestages, mit der Aufteilung einer Gesezesmaterie auf zwei oder mehrere Gesetze das Zustimmungsrecht des Bundesrates auf einen Teil der beabsichtigten Regelung zu begrenzen, folgt aus seinem Recht zur Gesetzgebung.").
24. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 67-74, http://www.bverfg.de.
25. BVerfG, 1 BvF 1/01 from 17 July 2002, 73, http://www.bverfg.de ("Dies ermöglichte zwar einerseits dem Bundesrat, seinen Einfluss stärker auch auf das materielle Recht auszuüben, entzöge andererseits aber den Ländern schleichend Gesetzgebungskompetenz dort, wo für sie originäre Zuständigkeiten von Verfassungs wegen bestehen.").
26. See, also Hans-Jürgen Papier, Ehe und Familie in der neueren Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, in: 55 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 2129 (2002).