Constitutional Complaints and Organstreit Proceedings Against the OMT Programme of the European Central Bank Unsuccessful
Judgment of 21 June 2016 – 2 BvR 2728/13, 2 BvR 2729/13, 2 BvR 2730/13, 2 BvR 2731/13, 2 BvE 13/13
If the conditions formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 16 June 2015 (C-62/14) and intended to limit the scope of the OMT programme are met, the complainants’ rights under Art. 38 sec. 1 sentence 1, Art. 20 secs. 1 and 2 in conjunction with Art. 79 sec. 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) are not violated by the fact that the Federal Government and the Bundestag have not taken suitable steps to revoke or limit the effect of the policy decision of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 concerning the OMT programme. Furthermore, if these conditions are met, the OMT programme does not currently impair the Bundestag’s overall budgetary responsibility. Such was the decision of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court in a judgment pronounced today. If interpreted in accordance with the Court of Justice’s judgment, the policy decision on the OMT programme does not “manifestly” exceed the competences attributed to the European Central Bank. Moreover, if interpreted in accordance with the Court of Justice’s judgment, the OMT programme does not present a constitutionally relevant threat to the German Bundestag’s right to decide on the budget.
Facts of the Case:
Reasoning of the denial of the motion for a temporary injunction moved by an electricity producer falling under the Renewable Energy Sources Act
On 18 February 2009, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court denied the motion, made in conjunction with a constitutional complaint challenging a legal provision, which had been moved by the operator of a bioenergy park and the project company that had been founded for the construction of the bioenergy park, to temporarily suspend § 19.1 of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare- Energien-Gesetz – EEG) 2009 by means of a temporary injunction. The complainants had argued that – contrary to situation in the period of validity of the EEG 2004 – the 40 technically independent plants of the bioenergy park were deemed as a single large-scale plant from the entry into force of the EEG 2009 on 1 January 2009 and that they therefore received a lower tariff per kilowatt hour of electricity fed into the public grid; they further argued that as a consequence of the considerable decrease in income resulting from this, the plant operator would have to file an insolvency petition very soon.
Prohibition of Professional Partnership of Lawyers with Physicians and Pharmacists is Unconstitutional [1 BvL 6/13]
Press Release No. 6/2016 of 02 February 2016
Order of 12 January 2016
1 BvL 6/13
59a sec. 1 sentence 1 of the Federal Lawyers’ Act (Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung) is unconstitutional and void to the extent that it prohibits lawyers to establish a professional partnership with physicians and pharmacists for the joint practicing of their professions. Such was the decision by the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court in an order published today in specific judicial review proceedings conducted upon referral by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). The prohibition to establish a partnership (Sozietätsverbot) disproportionately interferes with the freedom to practice an occupation (Art. 12 sec. 1 of the Basic Law, Grundgesetz – GG). The legislature permits the association of lawyers with other professional groups – in particular with patent attorneys, tax consultants and auditors – in a professional partnership. Compared to such partnerships, an inter-professional cooperation of lawyers with physicians and pharmacists does not hold such considerable additional risks regarding compliance with a lawyer’s professional duties as to justify a different treatment.
– 2 BvR 2365/09 – – 2 BvR 740/10 – – 2 BvR 2333/08 – – 2 BvR 1152/10 – – 2 BvR 571/10 –
Constitutional Complaints Against the Investigative Powers of the Federal Criminal Police Office for Fighting International Terrorism Partially Successful
Judgement of 20 April 2016 – 1 BvR 966/09, 1 BvR 1140/09