Upload
edgar-carpio-marcos
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
1/21
Articles
GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights
(ProcedureandOrganization)
ByErhardDenninger*
A.BasicRightsRealizationUndertheConditionsoftheDemocraticandSocialWelfare
State
I."FreedomfromtheState"and"FreedomthroughtheState"
For a brief period during the first half of the 1970s it appeared as though the
fundamental debate concerning the function of basic rights (to a certain extent an
individualoriented reprise of theRechtsstaatsocial state controversyof the 1950s and
1960s1 was coming down to the alternatives "Basic Rights: (only) Defensive Rights" or
"BasicRights:(also) Rightsto Participationand Claimsto Performance"2PeterHberles
demand (made atthe 1971 ConstitutionalLawTeachers'Conference)that thebaseline
substantivelegalstatusofbasicrightsbesupplementedbya"statusactivusprocessualis"
(inthesenseofa"governmentperformativedueprocess"),andtheFederalConstitutional
Court's (FCC's) first NumerusClausus decision (of 18 July 1972) and its Term Abortion
decision(of25February1975),withitsrecognitionofthestate's"comprehensive"dutyto
protect (and promote!)3 unborn life, all mark advancedpositionsin theory and judicial
*
born1932,Professor ofConstitutional andAdministrative Lawand ofLegal Philosophy;studiesin Tbingen,Lausanne(Switzerland)andMainz;ProfessorofLaw,Frankfurt,1967;RectoroftheUniversityofFrankfurt,197071,Deanof Law Faculty 197879; Visiting Professor, Chicago, 1983; Roma,1985. Principal research interests:
constitutionaltheory,fundamentalrights,policeandStatesecuritylaw,lawoftelecommunicationsandofdata
protection,technologicalsecuritylaw,lawofpharmaceutics.Publications:Staatsrecht,vol.I,1973,vol.II,1979;Polizeiund Strafprozeim demokratischen Rechtsstaat(withK. Lderssen),1978;ArzneimittelRichtlinien und
"Verschreibungsfhigkeit", 1981; Das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung und Innere Sicherheit,
Kritische Justiz 1985, 215; Verfassung und Gesetz, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift fr Gesetzgebung undRechtswissenschaft,1986,291;DerPrventionsStaat,KritischeJustiz1988,1;numerousarticlesonconstitutional
andadministrativelaw.
Post1989:VistingProfessoratChicagoandRome,1993/94FellowattheWissenschaftskollegzuBerlin,1995
2000JudgeattheConstitiontionalCourtofThringen.Booksandarticlesonlegalandconstitutionaltheory,the
ruleoflawanddemocraticlegislation,fundamentalrightsundertheBasicLaw,humanrightsinEurope.Professor
Emeritussince1999.Email:[email protected]
1
SeeERNSTFORSTHOFF,RECHTSSTAATLICHKEITUNDSOZIALSTAATLICHKEIT(1968).2OutlineofthedevelopmentofbasiclawfunctioninE RHARDDENNINGER,STAATSRECHT2(1979)136e,162;alsosee,
KOMMENTARZUMGRUNDGESETZ(REIHEALTERNATIVKOMMENTARE),BeforeArt.1GG,Rn.130.
3DecisionsoftheFederalConstitutionalCourt39BV ERFGE1(42).
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
2/21
2011] 431GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights decisionmaking.
4Atthesametime,newlifewasgiventothediscussionconcerning"basic
socialrights"(suchasthe"righttowork","toshelter","toeducation","tosocialsecurity",etc.), and new and expanded forms of social protection, in short: concerning the
concretizationof the social stateprinciple.5 Yet thewelfarestate, "socialliberal"reform
impulsesoonranupagainstpoliticaleconomiclimits:the"feasibilityproviso"allowedthemerely "ideal standard" character of subjective performance rights to become all too
quicklyapparent.6
Fromapoliticalstandpointlargelyafailure,thisreformdiscussionneverthelessshowedits
enduringvalueforbasicrightstheory(thankstoconstitutionaldecisionsconcernedwith
preservingrulecontinuity)duringthelate70'sandearly80'sintwomajorrespects:1)the
state'sobjectivelegalprotectiveobligationvisvisbasicrightsinterestsrestingonthe
obligationtoprotecthumandignity(Art.1,para.1,sentence2oftheBasicLaw(BL)and
thebindingofallgovernmentorganstotheBasicLaw(Art.1,para.3,BL)isextendedtoprocedural regulations of all kinds. Atthe sametime, the subjectivelegal statusof the
basic right holderin procedureswith thesecondor third governmental power (i.e.,the
executiveorthejudiciary)isexpanded.KonradHesse'srepresentativeandconcentrated
overviewoftheproblem(giveninthiscapacityasGermanStatereportertotheFourth
Conference of EuropeanConstitutional Courts in October 1978),7 the decisions on 7
AtomG(StatuteonNuclearEnergy)(Kalkar,Aug.8,1978)andoncompulsoryrealestate
auctions(27September1978)(particularlythedissentingopinionofJudgeBhmer),the
MhlheimKarlich decisionofDec.20,1979,the rightofasylumdecisionof 25February
1981,andtheeffectuationofthetenthbookonadministrativeprocedureoftheSocial
LawCodeof18August1980nowmarkthesalientpositionsoftheproblematicinlegal
theory,judicialdecisionmaking,andlegislation.8 Theairplanenoisedecisionofthe First
4 Peter Hberle, Grundrechte im Leistungsstaat, (30) VERFFENTLICHUNGEN DER VEREINIGUNG DER DEUTSCHENSTRAATSRECHTSLEHRER(VVDStRL)43(1972);33BVERFGE303and39BVERFGE1
5W.Schmidt, SozialeGrundrechteim Verfassungsrechtder BundesrepublikDeutschland(1981),9.;Berichtder
Sachverstndigenkommission,Staatszielbestimmungen/Gesetzgebungsauftrge, (1983), Rn. 75; D. Posser etR.
Wassermann(ed.),FreiheitindersozialenDemokratie,(1975)
633BVERFGE303(333);Hberle,supra,note4,110,138,thesis34,nowgenerallyaccepted.
7 KonradHesse,Bestand undBedeutungderGrundrechtein derBundesrepublikDeutschland,EuGRZ427, 343
(1978)
8 Sequentially: 49 BVERFGE, 220 (228); 53 BVERFGE 30 (69) (dissenting opinion); 56 BVERFGE 216. From the
literature, see especially:H. Bethge,Grundrechtsverwirklichung und Grundrechtssicherung durchOrganisation
undVerfahren ,NJW1(1982);W.BLMEL,GRUNDRECHTSSCHUTZDURCHVERFAHRENSGESTALTUNG,23(1982);H.GOERLICH,
GRUNDRECHTEALSVERFAHRENSGARANTIEN(1981);F.KOPP,VERFASSUNGSRECHTUNDVERWALTUNGSVERFAHRENSRECHT(1971);H.W. Laubinger, Grundrechtsschutz durch Gestaltung des Verwaltungsverfahrens, 73 VERWALTUNGSARCHIV 60
(1982); D. Lorenz,Grundrechteund Verfahrensordnungen,NJW865(1977);Der grundrechtlicheAnspruch auf
effektiven Rechtsschutz,AR 105 623 (1980);F. Ossenbhl,Kernenergieim Spiegel desVerfassungsrechts, DIEOFFENTLICHEVERWALTUNG(DV)1(1981);GrundrechtsschutzimunddurchVerfahrensrecht183,inFESTSCHRIFTFR
EICHENBERGER(1982);K.Redeker,GrundgesetzlicheRechteaufVerfahrensteilhabe ,NJW1593(1980);Ch.Starck,
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
3/21
[Vol.12No.01432 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l Senate(14July1981)
9alsobelongsherethematically,becauseofthepossibleadmissionof
aconstitutionalcomplaintagainstlegislativeomission(anddespitethedecision'slargelyhypotheticalspeculations).
Ofcourse,thecentralideabehindthisprocedureorientedbasicrightsinterpretation(oralthough this is not the same thing this basic rightsoriented procedural rule
interpretation), that is, the "relevance of procedure to basic rights" (more exactly: the
notionthateffectivefulfillmentbelongstothe"essentialcomponents"ofabasicright)10is
a much older perception. It is therefore misleading to give the impression that the
procedural relevance of basic rights was the fruit of an only recently undertaken
broadening of the basic rights' meaning, or even a matter of their "functional
transformation".11Thisviewispartlycorrect,inasmuchastheFCC,whenconfrontedwith
thequestionofeffectivefulfillmentofthelaw,usually(butnotalwaysBVerfGE39,276
(295)
12
focuses on effective protection ofthe law by the judge. The beginnings of therelevantchainoftraditionwiththeHamburgdikeregulationlawdecision(18December
1968)13 "legalexpropriation" dueto reductionofpossibilities forlegal protectiononly
allowablein exceptionalcases illustrates this. The"new"element in judicial decisions
since the MhlheimKrlich decision (1979) is the strong emphasis on basic rights
relevancealsofor"prejudicial"administrativeprocedure.14
The possibility that a substantive basic right could be affected by different modes of
procedural structuring, and the resulting demand for procedural and organizational
regulationsconformingtothebasicrights,arethereforenotpeculiartothe(inthemodern
sense) "performing", "planning", and steering administration. It is equally valid for the
"classical"interveningandorderingadministration,andthusforthedefensivefunctionof
thebasicrightasanexpressionofthe statusnegativus.Aneffectiveprotectionofthebasic
right inthisstatusdemands, asprocedural complementsof thesubstantivelegalstatus,not only a "right to a fair procedure" or the "claim to fair procedural conduct", but
effective individualgrantingoflegalprotection asis todayderivedfromArt.19para.4,
BL.15 This however is not representedas amere omission (of an interventionintothe
STAATLICHEORGANISATIONUNDSTAATLICHEFINANZIERUNGALSHILFENZUGRUNDRECHTSVERWIRKLICHUNGEN?,480(1976).
956BVERFGE54
1039BVERFGE276(294),endorsingtheconsistentpracticeofthecourts.
11Forthis,however:D.Grimm,VerfahrensfehleralsGrundrechtsverste ,NVwZ865(1985).Ontheevolutionof
basicrights,seeH.H.Rupp,AR101(1976),161;P.SALADIN,GRUNDRECHTIMWANDEL(1982).
12Thelegislatormusteffectivelyregulateuniversityadmission.
1324BVERFGE267(401),quotedin53BVERFGE30,dissentingopinion69(73).
14Blmel,supra,note8,33.Seealsoalreadyin33BVERFGE303(341);41,251(265);52BVERFGE380(390)
15Forinstance,BVERFGE46,202(210);52,380(389).
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
4/21
2011] 433GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights protectedspaceofthebasicrightfreedom),butratherasapositive"performance"bythe
state. No one has more clearly formulated this than Georg Jellinek, as far back as1892/1905. The negative status (oriented toward fending off and abstaining from
disturbances) firstattains "itsjuristic status"when supplementedby thepositive status,
andthe "claims deriving from this upon thestate". "Themost significantclaimderivingfromthecenterofthispositivestatusistheclaimtoprotectionoflegalrights.Thisclaim
canbedirectlycharacterizedastheessentialcharacteristicofthepersonality".Thesource
ofthis(notprivatelegal,butpubliclegal)claimis"thepersonalityitself".16Wewillgetto
thequestion of thelegitimation,of the "source" of subjectivelegal procedural statuses
later; here we are first interested in the assertion that their concession is not only a
consequenceofthemodern,"redistributing"or"dispensing"performanceadministration,
nor of the association of theplanning and steering administrationwith legislative final
programsorindeterminatelegalconcepts.17Itisthecasethatthecomplexity,duration,
andeffectsoflargescaleplanningadministrationprocedures( e.g.,thoseinvolvedintheplanning, constructionand operationof nuclearpowerplants) andthe large number of
citizenspossiblyparticipatingoraffected,makeitnecessarythattherebelegalprotections
already preestablished in the administrative procedures themselves, if they are to be
effective at all. This makes clear that basic rights realization is proceduredependent
alreadyinthisphase.Andyet,longbeforetheMhlheimKrlichdecision,theimmediateinfluenceofthesubstantivebasicright(here:freedomofprofession,Art.12,para.1,BL)
uponanadministrative(examination)procedureinacompletely"traditional"procedureof
"administrative ordering" (namely, the first lawyers' state examination), was basically
foundtobe(andappliedas)the"bynowestablishedjudicialposition".18
II.ATypologyoftheFunctionsofProceduralandOrganizationalRegulationforBasicRights
Realization
1.FourTypesofFunctionalClassificationofBasicRightsandProceduralorOrganizational
Regulation
It would therefore be an impermissible simplification to describe the basic rights
developmentsimplyasatwophasesuccession,aphaseof"freedomfromthestate"being
replacedbyoneof"freedomthroughthestate",andtolinkthebasicrightsrelevanceof
proceduralregulationswiththegrantingofcorrespondingsubjectivelegalstatusestothe
16G.JELLINEK,SYSTEMDERSUBJEKTIVENFFENTLICHENRECHTE(1905),105,124,125.ForthesignificanceofJellinekinthis
connection:R.Breuer,GrundrechtealsAnspruchsnomen,(91)FESTGABEBUNDESVERWALTUNGSGERICHT(1978).
17Withadifferentemphasis:Grimm,supra,note11,865.
1852BVERFGE380(389);seealsosupra,note14.
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
5/21
[Vol.12No.01434 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l second phase. The Rechtsstaat has always acknowledged its "protective duty" (Georg
Jellinek)19visvisindividualsandtheirfreedombyissuingproceduralandorganizationalrules,notleastofallwithrespecttotheshapingoftheinstitutionsofprivatelaw.Evena
cursorylookinstructsusthatthelegalinterestsprotectedbysuch"classical"basicrightsas
freedomof property,marriage, rightsof association andunion, etc.were(and stillare)subjecttoamultitudeoforganizationalandproceduralregulations,intendedtoservein
parttheirownprotection,inparttheprotectionofimportantpublicinterests,andinpart
too the resolution of collisions between basic rights. As fundamentally important
procedural regulations one should here mention first of all the "proviso of law", the
principleof proportionalityofadministration(Art.20,para.3,BL)includingtheorderof
governmental authoritiesand theestablishment ofa freedomprotecting administrative
procedure.Thejudiciallegalprotectionprocess(Art.19,para.4,92,97,BL)isinlinewith
this.
Ifoneattemptstoclassifythemultiplicityoftypicalrelationshipsbetweenbasicrightsand
proceduralororganizationalprovisionsunderfunctionalviewpoints,itbecomesapparent
that, with few exceptions (see (a) and (d) below), the classifications cannot bemade
specificallywithrespecttothebasicrights .Thismeansthatoneandthesamebasicright
can,dependingonthemodeofitsexercise,besubjecttoproceduralregulationsfortotallydifferentpurposesandincompletelydifferentways,orforitspartcanhaveanimpacton
suchregulations.
Nevertheless, the relationship of the basic rights to procedural or organizational
regulationscantypicallybeorderedintofourgroups:
(a) A particular procedure or a particular procedural structure can itself become the
subjectofabasicrightsguarantee .Herethecharacterization"proceduralbasicright"isappropriate.Goodexamplesaretheguaranteesofrecoursetothecourts(Art.19,
para. 4 BL), and, although not standardized in the basic rights section, the "basic
judicialrights"ofArt.101,para.1BL(whichassuresthatjudgesbechosen forspecific
casesviaaneutral,legalprocedure)andArt.103,para.1BL(therighttobeheardin
alllegalproceedings).Theprinciplesregulatingtheelectoralprocess(Art.38,para.1
BL)alsobelonginthiscategory.
(b) Theexerciseofthebasicrightina concretecasedependsonsuccessfullyfollowinga
procedure.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthebasicrightinotherobjectivesituationscould
notinfactalsobeexercisedwithoutsucha procedure.Yetthe legislatureincertain
cases(orperhapsalways)makestheallowableclaimtothebasicrightdependentona
proceduralcontrol(a"test")orotherproceduralconditions.
(c) AprocedureservesneithertherealizationofacertainbasicrightXnorthe controlof
its exercise, but rather other purposes, whether it be the legal and basic rights
19Jellinek,supra,note16,125
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
6/21
2011] 435GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights realizationofthirdparties,or alegally determinedpublicinterest.ThebasicrightX
whichisnegativelyaffectedtherebymustbeprotectedbyconcedingcorrespondingproceduralstatusestotheholderoftheright.
(c) A basic right can de facto be exercised only by making claim to particular
(governmental or nongovernmental, "social") performances or institutionalarrangements.Thecompetitionorcooperationsofseveralholdersofthesamebasic
rights demands distributive and opinionformation (Willensbildung) procedures or
otherorganizationalperformanceswhichmakepossibleabalancingofinterestsand
performancesandapartlycollective,partlyindividualbasicrightsrealizationforeach
oftherespectiveholdersofthebasicright.
2.IsaProcedural/OrganizationalStructureRequiredbytheBasicRights?Statementsfrom
ConstitutionalDecisions
"Substantive"protectionofbasicrightsandthestructuringofprocedureintheRechtsstaat
reciprocally condition one another.20 If it is acknowledged (alongwith the FCC)
21 that
"effectivelegalprotection"whateverthatmightbeis"anessentialelementofthebasic
rightitself",thenonecannotconceiveofthetherebyrequired(administrativeorjudicial)legalprotectionprocedures asregulationswhichsotospeakareaddedtothesubstantive
basicrightfromtheoutside,asregulationswhichare"neutralvisvisthebasicrights".On
thecontrary,the procedural ororganization structuringmust serve tofurtherthe basic
rights.Neithertheproceduralaspectnorthesubstantivelegalcontentcanunconditionally
predominateinthisreciprocalrelationship.Inthefirstcase,thebasicrightwouldcollapse
intoabundleofproceduralpositionswhichweretobetiedtogetherbythelegislature;the
newlawregardingrefusaltoperformmilitaryservice(passed28February1983)22offersan
example for this which hopefully will not be imitated. The second casewould in factultimatelyleadtoadissolutionofallgeneralstructuresofjudicialprocedureintoa"legal
actionsproceduralnet"andtoa"special,basicrightsspecificprocedurallaw"andthe
Second Senate of the FCC has correctlywarned us about the disadvantages of such a
development.23 The consequences of an imbalance in this reciprocity, of a disharmony
(withrespecttocontent)ofsubstantivelawandlegalprocedure,wereclearlyexpressedby
theFCC:"Shouldthelegalprocedureestablishedbythelegislaturefailtofulfillitsjob,or
shoulditimposesuchhighbarriersontheexerciseofa rightthatthedangerarisesofa
devaluation of the substantivelegal status,then it isirreconcilable with thebasic right
20Onthisalso,Lorenz,supra,note8,865,866,868.
2124BVERFGE367(401)
22BGBl.I,203;confirmingthis69BVERFGE1;seehoweverdissentingopinionsbyBckenfrdeandMahrenholz,
57;also,Mahrenholz,87.
2360BVERFGE253(297)
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
7/21
[Vol.12No.01436 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l whichitisintendedtoprotect".
24
However,itismuchmoredifficulttodotheoppositeandmakeapositivestatementabout
whattheprocedural rulesmustlooklike, soastoaffordthenecessarydegreeof"basic
rights protection via procedure". In other words: the difficulty consists in developingcriteria(whichwillalsobeapplicableinjudicialadministration)fordemarcatingthebasic
rightsprotectingproceduralandorganizationalrulesnotonlyallowedbutindeedrequired
by the Basic Law. For constitutional review of procedural regulations (above all in
procedures for constitutional complaints) such a demarcation within the totality of
(technicallyhighlydifferentiated)procedurallawsisofdecisiveimportance.Thefirstaid
which the FCC attempted to providewith its MhleimKarlich decision proved a shaky
support:Ifthecourttakesabasicrightviolation"intoconsideration"whenpresentedwith
aviolationofaproceduralregulation"whichthestatehasissuedinfulfillmentofitsduty
toprotect"thelegalinterestscoveredbythesubstantivebasicright,thenthisleadseithertothelimitlessnessofsubjectivehistoricalmotivationresearchoflegislativeintent,orback
to theunsolvedquestion aboutobjectifiable criteria.25Asecondindicationgivenbythe
Court,intherightofasylumdecisionof1981,26maybesomewhatricherin"content",yet
itremainstoogeneralandinneedofconcretization;moreover,thatdecisionprompteda
stormofcriticismfrombothconstitutionaltheoreticalandmethodologicalpointsofview.Accordingtothatdecision,violationsofproceduralregulationswouldbeof"constitutional
relevance" or, differently expressed: such regulations would be "constitutionally
required" if, "according to the legislature, those regulations were fundamental in
assuringthemaintenanceoftherightofasylum".
3.CritiqueandCounterCritique
Theprinciplecritiqueofthisconceptcanbereducedtotheformula:"Fromconformityof
procedurallawwiththebasicrights,toconformityofbasicrightswiththeprocedurallaw"
thusvarying Leisner'soldformula.27Whiletheproblemmaybeanoldone,itssolution
requiresnewandconcreteefforts.Canonereallysaythaton thebasic ofthose judicial
guidelines the basic rights protective area orients itself according to the will of the
legislature,thatitisnolongertheBasicLaw,butthelegislativeproposalsandprotocolsof
Parliamentwhichdeterminethescopeofbasicrightsprotection?28Doesthesignificanceof
2463BVERFGE131(143)
2553BVERFGE30(65)
26
56BVERFGE216(242)
27 W. LEISNER, VON DER VERFASSUNGSMIGKEIT DER GESETZE ZUR GESETZMIGKEIT DER VERFASSUNG (1964); ID., DIE
GESETZMIGKEITDERVERFASSUNG(1964),201
28ThusK.P.Dolde, Grundrechtsschutzdurch einfachesVerfahrensrecht?,NeueZeitschriftfur Verwaltungsrecht
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
8/21
2011] 437GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights thesubstantivebasicright(justlikeduringtheWeimarRepublic)sinktothelevelof"a
modifiedprincipleoflegalityofadministrationandjudicialdecisionmaking"?Ontheotherhand,isitreallycorrecttosaythatprocedurallaw"requiredbythebasicrights"iselevated
tothestatusofconstitutionallawandthat,afterconstitutionaldecisionshaveprovenitto
be a "substantive aspect of the Constitution",29 it thereby not only gives the FCC (in
comparisontothe"specialtycourts")anadditional(andperhapsdubious)powerofcontrol
(for nowof courseit isa matterofthe violationof"specificconstitutional rights"), but
aboveallblocksthedemocraticlegislature'sintentionsofchangingthelaw?
Itisinitiallyimportanttopointoutthestrange,Janusfacedqualityofthiscriticism:onthe
onehanditdisplaysconcernthatthesubstantivecontentofthebasicrightcouldalltoo
easilyfallsubjecttothearbitrarywillofthelegislature;butontheotherhanditseesthe
playingroomofthelegislatureendangeredbytheassertedelevationoftheprocedurallaw
required(oratleastsanctioned)bythebasicright,andtheconcomitantrestrictionsuponchange.30
Yetaproperunderstandingofthedecisionsonprocedurallaw,readinthetotalcontextof
basic rights decisions, reveals that the legislature is neither so powerful visvis basic
rightsnor,afterpassingthejudicialtestofconstitutionality,soimpotentasmanycriticsfear.
(a)Theproblematic,asitshowsupintherelationshipbetweensubstantivebasiclawand
"structuring"or"ordering"organizational/proceduralregulations,isidenticaltothewayit
appears (for example) in the relationship between the constitutionallyguaranteed
institutionof"property"(Art.14,para.1,sentence1,BL)andthelawswhichdetermineits
content and limitations (Art. 14, para. 1, sentence 2). The FCC's statement31 that in
determiningthe constitutionallegalstatusof thepropertyowner,theCivil Lawand thepublic laws are to be taken equally into account, and that the concrete powers over
property at a given point in time could be discovered only after a "comprehensive
examination" of all valid legal regulations controlling the propertyowner's status,
provoked a wave of scholarly legal critique,32 the concerned tenor of which was
concentrated in the question: Was property to be protected only according to the
NVwZ65,69(1982);alsocriticalJ.Held,DerGrundrechtsbezugdesVerwaltungsverfahrens(1984),106,253.
29ThusOssenbhl,supra,note8,192;similarlyconcernedisGrimmsupra,note11,868.
30SeeOssenbhl,supra,note29;notthusconcernedDolde,supra,note28,69.
31
58BVERFGE300(336)
32 Goodoverview ofproblemin J.Ipsen,NuereEntwicklungender Eigentumsdogmatik, RechtundWirtschaft,
OsnabrckerRechtswissenschaftlicheAbhandlungenBand1,Cologne etal.129(1985).Ipsenlists27publications
adhocwithoutclaimingexhaustiveness,130.
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
9/21
[Vol.12No.01438 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l standardssetbylegislation"?
33Thepracticaleffectofthisdecisionisabovealla procedural
one:primarylegalprotectionagainstillegalorunconstitutionalseeminginterferenceswithpropertyistobesoughtfromtheadministrativecourts,nottheordinarycourts.Giventhe
still solid and consistent position of the FCCwith respect to a genuinely constitutional
conceptofproperty(whichischaracterizedbyanattributiontoaholderofrights,bythisholder's fundamental power of control, by private usefulness, but also by the socially
boundednatureofproperty)34andgiventoothecalmreactionoftheBundesgerichtshof's
compensationdecisions35tothe(afterallnotreallysonew)propertyandexpropriation
doctrinesofthe FCC, apocalyptic visionsofthe declineand fallof"bourgeois"property
seemmisplaced.
(b) Characteristically, the reaction in the scholarly journals to the accentuation of the
"constitutional relevance" of procedural law36 followed a somewhat different path.
Attemptsweremade to channel the feared legislative dynamic (which others howevergreetedwarmly of even encouraged)37 through a new table of categories of the basic
rights.Forexample,Ossenbhl38hasproposed,besidesthealreadymentionedcategoryof
"basicproceduralrights"which,remarkablyenough,hetakestoincludetheabolitionof
thedeathpenalty(Art.102BL),athreewaydivisionofthebasicrightsinto1.procedure
dependent,2.procedureaffectedand3.procedureimprintedrights.Itischaracteristicofthefirst groupofrightsthatthesubstantivebasicrightguaranteecannotbeeffectively
claimedand exercisedpossessionofthe basicright ina particularlyordered procedure.
The structuring of the procedure is "therefore so to speak a basic rightsexistential
question". One could distinguishbetween "essential"proceduredependent basic rights
(e.g.therightofasylum(Art.16,para.2, sentence2) andtherightto refusetoperform
militaryservice(Art.14,para.3)and"potentially"proceduredependentbasicrights,such
asthatoffreedomofprofessioninthedistributionofuniversitystudylocations(Art.12,
para. 1 BL). The common denominator for proceduredependency is the necessity ofgovernmental"distribution";inthecasesmentioned,itisamatterofbasic performance
rights,throughwhich"specialentitlements(exceptionalrights)aresoughtandgranted".
While this interpretiveschememaybe adequate asa description of the legal situation
confirmed by the FCC, it raises all the more doubts with respect to its basic rights
33 SeeH.J.Papier,Maunz/Drig, Kommentar zumGrundgesetz, Art.14, Rn.35. Onthis alsoE. Denninger,Die
ZweitanmelderproblematikimArzneimittelrecht,GRUR627,633(1984).
34See58BVERFGE300(335,338);50,290(339);52,1(29).
35BGHDVBl,391
3653BVERFGE30(71)(dissentingopinion)
37Inthissense,seeBlmel,supra,note8,78,83.
38Ossenbhl,supra,note8,1981,1982
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
10/21
2011] 439GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights theoreticalstartingpoint.Thesedoubtsarefirstofallaimedattheassumptionofthe"so
tospeak"basicrightsexistentialsignificanceofthe(recognitionordistribution)procedure.Theright,forexample,torefusetoperformwarserviceinvolvingtheuseofarmsisneither
a "basic performance right" withwhich the objector seeks an "exceptional right" or a
"specialentitlement",nordoesitcorrespondtoarequirement"inthenatureofthecase",that this right could only be effectively exercised on the basis of a governmental
recognitionprocedure.Foritisnotthecasethatthemilitaryserviceobjectorseeksasit
were"forthesakeofmercy"aparticulargovernmentalperformance("distribution"or
"granting"),butquitethereverse:thestateisdemandingaperformancefromhim,namely
militaryserviceinvolvinguseofarms.InthissensetherightfromArt.4,para.3BLismore
accuratelydescribedasaperformanceduty defensive basicright.Assuch,aclaimcould
effectivelybelaidtoitpurelydefacto,withoutanyproceduralintervention,ifthedraftee
simplyfailedtofollowhisinductionorders.Theprocedureofofficialrecognitiontowhich
theobjectorissubjectedisconsequentlynotrequiredbecausethebasicrightotherwisewould not exist or could not bemeaningfully exercised, but because the state wishes
successfully to achieve its "public interest" (here: the performanceofmilitary service),
whichhappenstoruncountertotherightoftheindividual,andthestatecanonlydothis
(giventheconstitutionaldecisionofArt.4,para.3BL)inalegalmanneragainstthewillof
theobjector if theobjector has "lost" in a fair procedure. Thedetailedanalysis of theproceduralstructuringin thenewwarservicerefusal lawalsoshows that theprocedure
was at least as much designed for the certain fulfillment of the "basic constitutional
decisioninfavorofmilitarydefenseofthenation"39asitwasfortherealizationofthe
individual'srighttorefuse.AstheCourthasconsistentlyrecognized,thisis"abasicright;it
isnotjustamatterof'principle'whichfirstneedsactualizationthroughthelegislature.The
Constitutiondirectlyguaranteesthecitizentheright,forreasonofconscience,torefuseto
renderwarserviceinvolvingarms".And"insofarastheobjectivescopeofabasicrightcan
be directly established through interpretation, there remains no room for constitutiveregulationbythelegislature".
40Thisisamatterofabasicrightforeverymanitwouldbe
validforwomenorresidentaliens,providedtheytoowerecalledupontoperformmilitary
serviceinvolvinguseofarms.Butthismeansthatitisnotamere"exceptionalright",but
ratheraccordingtotheConstitutiona"regularbasicright",justlikeeveryotherbasicright,
regardlessofwhetherthelegislatureproceededintheexpectationthatitsvalidexercise
would(statistically)remaintheexceptionratherthantherule.
Inprinciple,thesamethingistrueforthebasicrightofpoliticalasylum.Justaswiththe
right torefusemilitaryservice,onemust takeintoaccountthe significanceofthe "pre
procedural", substantivelegal content of the basic right, a significance which is closely
connected to the inviolability of human dignity.41 Otherwise one runs the danger of
3948BVERFGE127(159);69,1(21)4012BVERFGE45(53)
41Thisisemphasizedin54BVERFGE341(357);56,216(235);R.Marx,EinemenschenrechtlicheBegrndungdes
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
11/21
[Vol.12No.01440 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l acknowledging the basic right only according to the standard of some procedural
regulationswhichservecompletelydifferentpublicinterestgoals.Theseregulationsareofcourse supposed to further the realization, not thehindrance, of the substantivebasic
right. TheFirst Senateof theFCCemphasizedthis,simultaneouslywith thelegislature's
broad freedom to structure the procedures, when the Court acknowledged thelegislature'spowertocreateanyregulation"whichrecognizesthemeaningoftherightof
asylumandmakespossibleadependableandjustexaminationofasylumpetitions".42On
thisbasisitisthenconstitutionallyunobjectionabletocharacterizetherightofasylumas
"placed under a procedural proviso",43 so long as one takes into account the rule
(developedfortheparallelcaseofArt.4,para.3BL),thatthelegislaturemay"notrestrict
this basicrightin itsobjectivecontent, butonlymakeclear thelimitswhichalreadyare
inherentintheconcepts"ofthebasicrightnormitself.44
Evenfromanormativetheoreticalpointofviewitisunjustifiedtoformaspecialcategoryof"procedure dependent"basic rightsandto verifyitwith thebasic rightsfromArt.4,
para. 3, Art. 165, para. 2, sentence 2 BL, as well as other basic rights in distribution
procedures(Art.12,para.1BL,studylocationdistributions).Togivemerelyafewsimple
counterexamples:therighttopracticeasalawyer(likewiseArt.12,para.1BL)isgranted
onlytothosewhohavesuccessfullypassedthetwostatelawyer'sexaminationsandgonethroughtheadmissionsprocedurespecifiedbythefederalattorneyscode,i.e.thosewho
have beenofficially "recognized" as "full jurists", 4,6 BRAO, 5 DRiG.Or:whoever
wishestousehispropertyinconstructingahouse,mustfirstsubmittotheconstruction
supervision procedure (e.g. 87 HessBauO with 29 BBauG); whoever wishes to
exercisehisbasicrighttofreedomofphysicalmovement(Art.2,para.2,sentence2BL)or
tofreedomoftravel(Art.11BL)withthehelpofamotorvehiclemaydothisonlyafter
passingtheprocedurescontrollingissuanceofdrivers'licensesandtheadmissionofmotor
vehicles,1,2,StVG,etc.Alloftheseandotherbasicrightscouldbelabeled"proceduredependentrights"justasreasonablyastheabovenamedrights(seeabove,sectionII.1.,
at(b));fundamentaldistinctionsbetweenthemwithrespecttoproceduredependencyare
notevident.45
Asylrechts, BadenBaden (1983). Against the assumption of constitutive effect of declaratory act, also F.
Rottmann,DasAsylrechtdesArt.16GGalsliberalrechtsstaatlichesAbwehrrecht,22DERSTAAT337,357(1984).
4256BVERFGE216(236);seealsodissentingopinionbyJudgeW.BhmerBV ERFGE49,220,228;243:"Procedural
lawservesnotonlytheaimofensuringorderlyproceedingsbutalsointhesphereofrelevantbasiclawisthemedium enabling the holder of basic rights to obtain his constitutional rights. Accordingly, where several
interpretationsofprocedurallawarepossible,thatoneshouldbechosenwhichempowersthecourttomake
basiclaweffective".
4360BVERFGE253(295)
4448BVERFGE127(163);69,1(23)
45Similarly,Held,supra,note28,255:"Thereisnobasiclawdependentperseonprocedure".
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
12/21
2011] 441GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights
"Procedureaffectedness"islikewisenotaspecifyingcharacteristicofcertainbasicrights.Every basic right (independentofwhether and towhatdegree it requiresgovernment
protection or prior government recognition for its exercise) can become a procedure
affectedrightifitisattackedbythesovereignorbyprivateparties.ThesameistrueforthecasesaboveinsectionII.1.,at(c)).
Finally,thedividinglinebetweenthesocalled"proceduredependent"(abovesectionII.
3.,at (b)) andthesocalled"procedureimprinted"basic rights(freedomofreportingby
means of broadcasts, Art. 5, para. 1, sentence 2 BL, and the freedom of scientific
endeavors,Art.5,para.3,BL,46arenamedasexamples)isatbestafluidonecertainlyit
cannotbecategorical.Thusitisnotclearwhythebasicrighttothefreechoiceofatraining
location(ina numerusclaususfieldof study)shouldbelongtothegroupof"procedure
dependent"rights,whilethebasicrighttofreedomofscientificendeavorbelongstothegroup of "procedureimpressed rights"; both share the quality that their exercise is
"necessarily tied inwith participation in governmentalperformances",47 both therefore
presupposeacertaindegreeoflegalorganization(oronerestingonalegalbasis)andan
apportioningordistributionprocedurewhichcorrespondstothepurpose.Botharecases
ofthetypementionedaboveinsectionII.1.,at(d)).
B.ConstitutionalStandardsforStructuringProceduralandOrganizationalRegulationsto
ProtectandPromotetheBasicRights
I.TypeandScopeoftheLegislature'sObligationofProtection
Thiscritiqueoftheattempttocreateaprocedurerelatedtableofcategoriesforthebasic
rightsisintendedtomakeclearthatonecanspeakonlyinaverylimitedsenseofabasic
rightsspecific proximity (or distance) to governmental procedural and organizational
regulations. Such analysis makes sense only for the "basic procedural rights" (above
sectionII.1.,group(a))and(toalesserdegree)forthe"procedureimpressed"basicrights
requiringapportioningordistribution(above,sectionII.1.group(d)).Fortherest,itisthe
respectivelegalsituation(themannerinwhichclaimislaidtothebasicright,itsencounter
with: (a) competing or cooperating exercises of similar basic rights, (b) exercises of
different constitutional or legal rights, (c) objectivelegally protected public interests)
whichdeterminesinwhatwayandtowhatdegreeaspecifictypeofrealizationofabasic
right should be either protected and promoted, or "channelized" (and perhaps even
"braked"),throughproceduralandorganizationalprovisions.46Ossenbhl,supra,note8,187
47ForArt.5Abs.3:35BVERFGE79(115);forArt.12Abs.1:33BVERFGE303(332).
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
13/21
[Vol.12No.01442 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l ThedraftofaConstitutionproposedin1977bytheSwissCommissionofExpertsforthe
preparationofatotalrevisionoftheSwissFederalConstitution,oneofthemostmatureproductsofthemodern,free,anddemocraticartofconstitutionmaking,specifiesinArt.
24: "Basic rights must be given effect in the whole of legislation, and particularly in
organizational and procedural provisions".48 This formulation neatly expresses the
reciprocitybetweenbasicrightsprotectionandsuchregulations(seeabove,sectionII.2.):
theorganizationalandproceduralprovisionsmustbe impressedbythebasicrights,sothat
fortheirownparttheycanbeusefulinfurthering thebasicrights.Yetthisdetermination
leavesopentheissueofhow"stringently"theconstitutionconfrontsthelegislature.And
thisquestionhasbynomeansbeenansweredforGermany'sBasicLaw,either.
In principle, there are three conceivable positions here: (a) One can derive from the
Constitution an organizationalprocedural basic rightsoptimization requirement.49 The
legislaturewouldaccordinglysatisfyitsobligationofprotectiononlywhenithadpassedand ordered application of procedural and organizational regulations for the optimal
protectionofbasicrightsinterests.(b)Onecaninitiallyconsiderthetasksofadministration
separatefromanybasicrightsrealization.Theadministrativeprocedurewouldthusbeper
se"basicrightsneutral".Atthosepointswhereindividualbasicrightsfreedomscouldbe
endangered,the structuringofproceduremust beachieved ina "basicrightsprotectivemanner".Accordingly,whatwouldbedemanded"forthesakeofthebasicrightwouldbe
(only)aminimalstandardoftheabsolutelynecessaryproceduralprotection".50(c)Finally,
renouncingallgeneralizingstatements,onecouldattempttodeterminecasebycasethe
weightoftherespectivebasicrightineachrespectiveprocedure.
Overall,theFCC'sdecisionsinthismatteroffernoclearcutpicture.Inthedecisionsofthe
First Senate (particularly in the dissents of Judges Heuner and Simon) one finds
expression of a tendency towards measuring the constitutional demands upon thelegislaturebytheoptimizationofthebasicrightsprotection.Asearlyasthejudgmenton
Lower Saxony's university law (1973), one finds in the dissenting opinion of Rupp v.
Brunneck and Simon talk of the "most effective realization possible" of the values
embodiedinthe basicrightsasoneofthemosteminenttasksofthe legislature issuing
organizational norms; yet restraint is recommended when a court scrutinizes the
legislature'sdecisionsforconstitutionality.51Indiscussingtheimpactoftherightofasylum
(Art.16,para.2,sentence2BL)onextraditionprocedure,theentireFirstSenatein1979
48InthedraftforanewFederalconstitutionof16May1984,byA.KlzandJ.P.Mller, Mnsingen(1984).There
isnoequivalentrequirement.MllerhadbeenamemberoftheSwissexpertcommission.
49 See R. ALEXY, THEORIE DERGRUNDRECHTE (1985), 75.: Other than rules, principles are the requirements for
optimisation;122.Basiclawprovisionsoftenhaveadoublecharacter;theyarebothrulesandprinciples.
50Held,supra,note28,255;Breuer,supra,note16,89,94
51W.Ruppv.Brnneck&H.Simon,dissentingopinion,BVERFGE35,79,148(153)
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
14/21
2011] 443GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights emphasized "the constitutional duty which the specialty court had in structuring the
proceduretoaimforthebestpossibleprotectionofthecomplainant'sbasicright".52Thisformula of the best possible protection of a basic right through the structuring of
procedureandprocedurallawappearstwiceinthedissentingopiniontotheMhlheim
Krlichdecision.53In1983theSenatelaiddownthestandardof" effectiveprotectionofthe
basicright"throughprocedurallaw.54
The Second Senate stresses, above all in itsdecisions on asylumprocedure, thebroad
structuring freedom possessed by the legislature; its regulations must be "objective,
suitable, and reasonable. "Only" elementary procedural requirements that are
indispensabletotheRechtsstaatcanbederivedfromthesubstantivebasicrights".55Yetit
wouldbeprematuretoconcludefromthesestatementsthatthereisageneraltendency
towardsminimizingthebasicrightsprotectionthroughprocedureororganization.Itwas,
afterall,theSecondSenatewhichintheKalkardecision(1978)notonlydeveloped(whiledealingwithlegislativeprovisionsofthelawonatomicenergy)thenotionofdynamicbasic
rightsprotection,withthedutyofthelegislaturetoprovide"subsequentimprovements",
butalsoconstitutionallyactivatedtheprinciple(whichdominatestechnologicalsafetylaw)
of the "best possible defense against dangers andprevention of risks"as a protection
againstmere("notinconsiderable")endangeringsofbasicrights.Anexpressionofthisfactintherealmsofadministrativelaw(anexpressionwhichwithrespecttotheRechtsstaat
mustbeseenasanexception)istheconcessionofanadditional"refusaljudgment"tothe
atomicenergyapprovalauthority.56Thattheverygenerallyexpressedcriteriacouldleadto
remarkabledivergenceswithinoneandthe same Senateevenin thematterof"timely"
grantingofrightsprotection(inthesenseofArt.19,para.4 BL),isdemonstratedbythe
twopreliminaryexamination committeedecisionsof12May1980and1August1980.57
Bothdecisionsdealtwithagrantingofrightsprotectionatanearlystageintheairtraffic
law'sapprovalprocedure(accordingto6LuftVG)andnotmerelyinthesubsequentplanconfirmationprocedure(accordingto9,10LuftVG).Whereasone3personcommittee
couldseeintheplanningobligationeffectuatedbytheapprovalaccordingto6LuftVGno
legally relevant, butonlya de facto,burdenon communal planning, a burdenwhich as
such still gave no rise to legal recourse, a second 3personcommittee from the same
Senate spoke out a little later on behalf of also taking into account the "de facto
5252BVERFGE391(408)
5353BVERFGE30(70,75)
5463BVERFGE131(143)
55
60BVERFGE253(295);continuedforArt.4Abs.3GGin69BVERFGE1(50).5649BVERFGE89,inthesequenceofquotations:(137,130,139,146).
57BVERFGEof12.5.1980andof1.8.1980,bothinDVBl.1981,374;seealsoE.SchmidtAmann, Konzentrierter
oderphasenspezifischerRechtsschutz?,DEUTSCHESVERWALTUNGSBLATT334(1981);Blmel,supra,note8,82.
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
15/21
[Vol.12No.01444 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l compulsory (or highly likely) effects of a decision upon the citizen". Limitation of
contestabilitytotheconcludingplanconfirmationdecisionforreasonsofefficiencywouldmeananimpermissiblecontractionofrightsprotection.
On thebasic of similar considerations only early rights protection canbe effective BlmelandRedeker
58demandcitizenparticipationatanearlystageofstreetplanning( e.g.
during highway alignment determinations, according to 16 BFStrG) as a basic rights
requirement.Bycontrast,criticsoftheMhlheimKrlichlinesuchasDoldeorGoerlich59
warnofaconstitutionalovervaluationofthesimpleprocedurallaw,inpartoutofconcern
aboutapossiblerefashioningoftheproceduralguaranteesintoparticipationobligations,
tothedisadvantageofthecitizen.Infact,Redeker60hadalreadydrawntheconsequences
ofelevatedproceduralparticipationinthesenseofcorresponding"participationburdens"
ofthecitizenuptothepointofpreclusionandfrom"burden"("obligation")to"duty"is
onlyasmallstep.
"Optimization","minimization",limitationtothe"appropriate"ofthe"necessary"ofthe
"effective":such"standards"canonlydescriberoughtendencies;advocacyofoneorthe
otherseemstobemoreamatteroftastethanofstringentreasoning.Ifonewishesto
avoideitherfallingintoanunprincipledandaconceptualcasuistry(abovesectionBIat,c),or abstractly and generally calling upon "the alreadyestablished valuations, principles,
norms and fundamental decisions in the Constitution",61 if one wishes therefore to
attempt to bring thediscussiononto terrain theoretically suitable to basic rights, then
claritymustruleintworespects:inthelegitimation questionandinthefunctionquestion.
Thefirstfocusesontheunifiedbasisof justification,whichprovidesafundamentforthe
completelydifferentphenomenaofbasicrightsrelevanceofprocedureandorganization.
Concretely expressed: the type andextent of the legislative protectionobligationsvary
accordingtowhetheroneseesthemfoundedprimarilyintheprincipleofhumandignityand in the individual caserelated, concretizedRechtsstaat principle, or primarily in the
publicgoodanddemocracyprinciples(onthis,seebelowsectionII).Thesecondquestion
aimsatthe(ineachcaseareaspecific)teleologicalbasis,atthecausafinalisforaspecific
procedures or a specific organization and attempts from there to determine what is
"requiredby thebasicright",andwhatisnot.Organizationandprocedureareofcourse
not goals in themselves, rather they serve to further rational communication given a
specificobjectiveinview,whetheritbetheadvancementofthesciences,thesecuringof
freedevelopmentofpublicopinionviathemassmedia,protectionofconscience,national
defense,thecertaintyofthelaw,oranyotherpublic interest.Thusonlysuchstructures58Blmel,supra,note8;Redeker,supra,note8,1597
59Dolde,supra,note28,H.Goerlich,SchutzpflichtGrundrechteVerfahrensschutz,NJW2616(1981)
60S.Redeker,supra,note8,1597;onthisalsoGrlich,supra,note59
6162BVERFGE1(39)
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
16/21
2011] 445GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights could be "required by the basic rights" which are procedurally or organizationally
indispensablefortheproductionofthespecificcommunicationstructureswhoseabsencewouldleadtothecollapseofrationallyconductedcommunication.
II. LegitimationofBasicRightsProtectionviaProcedureandOrganization
"Attheheartoftheconstitutionalorderstandthevalueandthedignityoftheperson,who
in free selfdetermination acts as a member of a free society".62 Independence, self
responsibility, and freedomof decision of the person63 form not only the basis of the
institutionsofsubstantivelaw,theyalsorequiretheconsistentrealizationofthecitizen's
"subjectstatus"inprocedurallaw.Theyestablishthe"necessityofconversationbetween
administrationandcitizen",64theyprohibitallowingthehumanbeingtobemadeintoa
"mereobjectofgovernmentaction",forbidthegovernmenttowieldcontroloverhimasthough over an object, whether with "good" or "bad" intent.65 True, the individual is
"subject"toallvalidlawsandowesobediencetothem,yettheselawsfindtheirownlimits
inthebasicrightsofthecitizen(Art.1,para.3,BL).Toestablishinagivencaseprecisely
where this limit lies, a particular (discovery)procedure or even a process of opinion
formationwithinanorganizationmaybenecessary:Itisatthispointthatthefundamentalsubjectstatus of the person demands that each individual in this procedure or in this
organizationbeabletoplayhisownpartintheopinionformationprocess.Theresultmay
completely or partially fall against him, but he must have had a fair chance to have
influencedit.
Situationally concrete procedural or organizational participation may have a direct
protectiveorpromotiveeffectonbasicrights.Inmanyareastoday,individualbasicrights
freedomcanonlybemeaningfullyrealizedin cooperationwithotherbasicrightsholders,infactsometimesonlyviacomplementaryactivityofboththesovereignrightholderand
basic rights holder.66 Such a cooperative exercise of basic rights presupposes that the
individual is tied into complicateddecision processes and transindividualorganizational
forms.Examplesoftencitedarethefreedomtobroadcastandthefreedomofscience(as
organizedinpubliclyfundedinstitutions);yetthesameistrueinthewholly"profane"area
of the corporatelaw bound, e.g. stock property. In such organizational structures,
62BVERFGE65,1(40)
63OnthisE.DENNINGER,RECHTSPERSONUNDSOLIDARITT(1967),80,229
6445BVERFGE297(335)
6530BVERFGE1(33,40)
66P. SALADIN,VERANTWORTUNGALSSTAATSPRINZIP(1984),161;seealsoP.HBERLE,DIEWESENSGEHALTGARANTIEDESART.
19ABS.2GRUNDGESETZ(1983),376;D.Suhr,FreiheitdurchGeselligkeit,EuGRZ529(1984).
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
17/21
[Vol.12No.01446 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l individual selfdetermination and thus basic rights freedom realizes itself as co
determination.Sentencessuchas"Asmuchfreedomaspossible,aslittleorganizationandproceduresasnecessary"andthelike,becauseoftheirabstractness,failtobeadequateto
reality,whichcannotbecapturedintheabstractoppositionofselfandcodetermination.
Theonesidedandexclusiveattributionof selfdeterminationtothebasicrights/freedomprinciple of theRechtsstaat, and the attributionof codetermination tothe democratic
majority principle is a harmful abstraction, far from the realityof basic rights.67 In the
conceptualunderstandingdevelopedhere,proceduralandorganizationalparticipationare
requiredandlegitimatedbybasicrightsandthereforearetobeunderstoodprimarilyas
theappropriatecontemporaryexpressionoftheRechtsstaatprinciple.That,beyondthis,
theexerciseofbasicrightsis"anelementaryfunctionalconditionofafreeanddemocratic
communitybasedon theactingandcodetermining capabilitiesof its citizens",and that
consequently a fundamental connection exists between the substantive Rechtsstaat
principleandthedemocracyprinciple,arepointswhichtheFCChasrecentlyemphasized,usingtheexampleoftherighttoinformationalselfdetermination.68
C.Conclusions
I.ProceduralandOrganizationalStructuresRequiredbytheBasicRightstoGuarantee
PurposiveRationalCommunication
TheanswertothelegitimationquestionsectionBIIstillgivesnoinformationaboutthe
problematicthathasherebeenlabeledthe functionquestion:Howmustaprocedureoran
organization be (minimally) constituted, so that its purpose rational communicative
decisionmakingcanbeattainedwhilefullyguaranteeingthesubjectstatusofthebasic
rights holder? An exhausting, methodically tested answer could only be reached bycomprehensivelydrawinguponthelatestresultsofcommunicationstheoryresearch.This
cannot be done here. Yet as a first approximation, I will attempt to describe four
indispensable factorsforpurposiverationallyconductedcommunication,asthebasisfor
corresponding(proceduralandorganizational)legalstructures.
67However,inthisdirection:J.Isensee GrundrechteundDemokratie ,DerStaat20(1981),161;Rupp, supra,note
11,180,187.IncontrastseeRupp,186:"Theconstitutionalstatusprocessualiscanthereforebeconceivedonlyas
thepersonalresponsibilityunderaconstitutionalstateturnedroundintotheproceduralaspect,nothoweveras
anelementofdemocraticparticipationinrulingcontrol".SeealsoE.Denninger,in:K OMMENTARZUMGRUNDGESETZ
(REIHEALTERNATIVKOMMENTARE), BeforeArt.1, annotation 29; ForArt.14 GG(property):70 BVERFGE191 (209)wherethetransformationoffishingrightsintocodeterminationaboutthefishingresourcesisheldconsistent
withtheconstitutionalprotectionofprivateproperty.
6865BVERFGE1(43)
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
18/21
2011] 447GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights 1.TheSubjectStatusoftheProcedureParticipant
Theprotectionof the subjectstatus presupposes that theprocedureparticipating basic
rights holder is physically and intellectually in a position to look after his rights and
interestsin theprocedure,evenif this takesplacethrougha representative.Thiswouldforbid procedures against "someone incapable of negotiating"
69 or someone absent
withoutfault,oraparticipantlackingcommandofthenegotiatinglanguage,insofarasan
interpreterisnotcalledupon.
2.ReciprocalInformationFlow
Rationallyconductedcommunicationpresupposesa reciprocalinformationflowwhichisas
complete and open as possible, and which extends to bringing facts, values, andmanifestationsofthewillintothedecisionprocess.Whatisimportantisthereciprocityof
informationonlythisassures"equalityofweapons".Theaffectedcitizenmustbeableto
presenthisinformation,buthemustbeabletoreceiveallthenecessaryinformationfrom
thegovernment'sside.Fromthisresultthefollowingproceduralpositions:
(a)therighttoahearing(a"legalhearing",butnotonlyinthecourtroom,seeArt.103,
para.1,BL);
(b) the right to information and to inspection of files, 25, 29 VwVfG (Statute of
administrativeprocedure);
(c)rightstosufficientinstructionandnecessaryadvice70;
(d)therighttoacompetentrepresentativeoranassistant;
(e) the right to adequate reasons for a decision, so that the party affected can make
meaningfulluseoftheavailablelegalexpedients. 71
Correspondingto theserightsaredutiesoftheauthorities.Violationoftheseduties are
alsoviolationsofthebasicrights.
3.TheTimeFactor
Thetimefactoralsohasrelevancevisvisthebasicrights.Itplaysanimportantroleinthe
structuringofvariouscases.Thustheadministrativeproceduremustprovideforsuitable
69 Withreferencetocriminalproceedings,see51BVERFGE324,further42BVERFGE64(76),dissentingopinion
85.
70 52BVERFGE380;onthenecessityofcooperation(ref.Art.8GG),see69BVERFGE315(355).
71 ThefivepositionsarealsoquotedbyLaubinger,supra,note8,73,withoutclaimingexhaustiveness
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
19/21
[Vol.12No.01448 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l deadlines fortheallegationof facts,rights,andobjectionsofallkinds.Thesetimelimits
mustguaranteethatthepartyaffectedisnot"bowledover"bythedecision,thatheisnotpresentedwith"completedfacts"withoutbeingabletoseekredress.If thedeadlinefor
the statement of a legal claim is so short "that presentation of the claim is rendered
substantiallymoredifficultandnotmerelyexceptionalcasesarethreatenedwithfailurebecauseofit",thentherecanatthesametimeexistaviolationofthe"substantive"basic
right.72 Following the samebasic idea, it is constitutionally required that in principle a
procedureofpreliminaryrightsprotection(see80,123VwGO,32BVerfGG)beavailable
foruseinemergencycases.Itmustalsobeassuredthatthepossibilityofprovisionalrights
protection thereby opened up cannot be undercut except in compelling cases of
overwhelmingpublicinterestbyofficialmeasuresofimmediateexecution.Thishaslong
beenanacuteproblemforforeignersseekingprotectionoftheirrightsorpetitioningfor
asylum,since expulsionanddeportationthreaten themwithan irreparableloss ofbasic
rights.
73
4.TheTendencyTowardsObjectiveCorrectness(Sachrichtigkeit)
The communicative procedures as administrative or judicial decision processes, orproceduresofinternalorganizational(corporations,associations,etc.)opinionformation
are not exhausted in the production of formal, lawful decisions without further
consideration of their content. Procedural law conforming to basic rights serves much
moretofurthertheproductionof"justdecision".74Moreprecisely(andlesspretentiously)
one should speak in this connection of the requirement that procedures further the
achievementofobjectivelycorrectdecisions.Thesameistruefororganizationalstructures.
Out of this broad requirement for a tendency towards objectivity are derived specific
procedurallegal requirements. Amongthem is theobservance of the legallyestablishedjurisdictional order, when this is an expression of the attempt to guarantee objectively,
whetherthroughtheconcentrationofspecialexpertknowledge,orthroughtheguarantee
ofuniformadministrativepracticebyunificationunderasinglebureaucraticauthority,or
through the monopolization of specific decisions, on account of their great political
significance,byaconstitutionalorgan.Examplesforthesethreevariantsofthetendency
towardsobjectivecorrectnessarethefederalexaminationoffice(inaccordwiththelaw
againstthedisseminationofpublicationsdangeroustominors),75thefederalofficewhich
handlestherecognitionprocedure(inaccordwiththe asylumprocedurelaw),76andthe
7253BVERFGE131(144)
7335BVERFGE35,382(401);56,216(241)
7442BVERFGE42,64(73)
75See39BVERFGE39,197(204).
76See56BVERFGE56,216(238);appliessimilarlytocommitteesandcourtsaccordingtotherevisedconscientious
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
20/21
2011] 449GovernmentAssistanceintheExerciseofBasicRights FederalConstitutionalCourt,forproceduresaccordingtoArt.18andArt.21,para.2BL,
36,43BVerfGG.
The requirement of an orientation towards objective correctness acquires particular
significancefortheissuanceoforganizationalnorms,whentheorganizationistoservethefunctionalfulfillmentandtheprotectionofanareaoflifeparticularlyconnectedwithbasic
rights.Examplesareprovidedbythefreedomofscientificendeavorsasorganizedinthe
universities on the one hand, and the internally and externally pluralistic freedom of
broadcasting on the other (but also other forms of basic rights realization tied to the
collectivity).
Here, consideration for the basic rights exercise of every individual rights holder may
demandthattheareaofcompetencytowhichthecollectivedecisionproceduresapplybe
objectivelyrestricted:acoreareaofbasicrightsfreedomformsthe domainofthe"nondeterminable", form which all outside determination is excluded and in which the
concededcodeterminationisalsonottobeconceivedofasaformofselfdetermination
(see above section 22).77 To this degree, organizational provisions have the negatory
functionofdefensesagainstintervention.78 Yetontheotherhand,organizational norms
receive the positive task of allowing the multiplicity of possible involved basic rightscontents,andanypublicinterestgoalswhichshouldperhapsalsobetakenintoaccount,to
influencethedecisionprocess79.TheFCChasrepeatedlyspokenoutforapositivelawful
structuringofbroadcastingfreedom.80
Thus, considered from a purposiverational standpoint, the basic rights require
organizationalstructureswhich:
(a)promotepluralismthroughsecuringchancestoestablishcountervailingpowerandtopublishcontrastinginformation,
(b) protect minorities, insofar as this is not already sufficiently realized through the
guaranteeofadomainofthenondeterminable,
(c)secureneutrality,i.e.,insofarasthestateparticipatesinprocedure,itmaynotactina
partisan fashion nor exercise a dominating influence on the procedure; in certain
circumstances,asufficient"distancingofthestate"mustbeorganizationallyassured,objectionlaw.
7735BVERFGE79,(151)(dissentingopinion)
78EmphasizedbyB.Schlink, FreiheitdurchEingriffsabwehrRekonstruktionderklassischenGrundrechtsfunktion ,
EuGRZ457(1984).
79 J . Pietzcker, Das Verwaltungsverfahren zwischen Verwaltungseffizienz und Rechtsschutzauftrag, 41
VERFFENTLICHUNGENDERVEREINIGUNGDERDEUTSCHENSTRAATSRECHTSLEHRER(VVDStRL)193,209(1983)
8057BVERFGE295(320);60,53(64)
8/22/2019 Denninger, Asistencia Gubernamental en El Ejercicio de Los Derechos, Procedimientos y Organizacion, Dimension
21/21
[Vol.12No.01450 G e rman L aw J ou r n a l (d) guarantee the "openness" of the procedures in the sense of allowing for possible
innovations.
Theconstitutionitselfallowsnoexactstatements tobemadeabstractlyconcerningthe
methodandextentoftherealizationofthesestructuresintheconcreteorganizationofabasicrightsrelevantdecisionprocedure.Thelegislatureretainsconsiderableplayingroom
fororganizationalstructuring.Thus,italsocannotbedefinitivelysaidthattheabsenceof
one or the other of these structures whichin effect can partially substitute for one
another would in itself always give rise to a basic rights violation. To this degree,
normativetheoretically considered, the structures receive (only an axiomatic character.
Whena concrete organizationalform(as expressed forexample ina state universityor
broadcasting law) is constitutionally reviewed, the important thing is whether
comprehensiveconsiderationandevaluationofallthe individualprovisionsdemonstrates
thatthelegislaturehassufficientlytakenthediscussedprinciplesintoaccountornot.
II.TheRighttoInformationalSelfDeterminationasaSpecialCase
The right to informationalselfdetermination,conceivedasanexpressionofthegeneralright ofpersonality (Art. 2,para. 1 in connectionwith Art.1, para. 1,BL), represents a
specialcaseoforganizationallegalrelevancetobasicrights.Forthesecuringofthisbasic
right, the FCC demands "effective informational blackout regulations" between the
governmentagencieswhichhandlepersonaldataonlyforstatisticalpurposes,andthose
which actually execute administrative policies. The Court bases itself here upon the
"principleofseparationofstatisticsandexecutiveactivities".81Theparticularnatureofthe
basicrightleadstotheresultthat,even withintheadministrativeorganizationofthestate,
thebasicrightdirectlyandnormativelydemandsorganizationalconsequencespreciselybecausetherighttoinformationalselfdeterminationcanalreadybeinfringeduponwhen
dataarepassedaroundwithinthestateapparatusforpurposesotherthanthatforwhich
theywereoriginallygathered.
8165BVERFGE1(49,61);seealsoR.SCHOLZ&R.PITSCHAS, INFORMATIONSQUELLESELBSTBESTIMMUNGUND STAATLICHE
INFORMATIONSVERANTWORTUNG (1984); critical with regard to consequences forstate security E. DENNINGER, DAS
RECHTAUFINFORMATIONELLESELBSTBESTIMMUNGUNDINNERESICHERHEIT(1985),215.