BVerfGE 123, 267 – Lisbon Decision (Lissabon-Urteil)
Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon compatible with the Basic Law; accompanying law unconstitutional to the extent that legislative bodies have not been accorded sufficient rights of participation
Judgment of 30 June 2009
2 BvE 2/08
BVerfGE 140, 160 – Opation Pegasus, Libya 2001
Judgment of 23 September 2015
In a decision pronounced today, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court further specified the constitutional standards applying to the Bundestag’s right to participate in decision-making concerning deployments of armed German forces abroad. All deployments of armed military forces require parliamentary approval; there is no additional requirement that the deployment be of a certain military importance. In cases of imminent danger, the Federal Government may, by way of exception and for the time being, decide upon deployments alone. However, it is under the obligation to seek the Bundestag’s approval for continuing the deployment as soon as possible. Should the deployment in question already be over, the Federal Government must inform the Bundestag promptly and in a qualified manner of the reasons for its decision and the details of the deployment; yet, it is not obliged to seek retrospective approval by the Bundestag.
Therefore, the application for Organstreit (dispute between federal organs) proceedings lodged by the parliamentary group of ALLIANCE 90 / THE GREENS (BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN) is unsuccessful. The evacuation of German citizens from Libya on 26 February 2011 constituted a deployment of armed military forces, which required parliamentary approval but was over before Parliament could be called upon.
(more…)
NZG 2016, 471
Order of 03 November 2015
2 BvR 2019/09
(more…)
BVerfGE 141, 1 – Treaty Overrides
Order of 15 December 2015
2 BvL 1/12
(more…)
Federal Fees Act (Bundesgebührengesetz, BGebG)
Date of signature: 7 August 2013 Full citation:
“Act on Fees and Expenses for Federal Services of 7 August 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3154), amended by Article 3 of the Act of 8 June 2015 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 904)”
Version information: Amended by Art. 3, Act of 8 June 2015, I 904
(more…)
OLG Oldenburg VersR 1991, 306, (175) | OLG Oldenburg, Judgment of 20 May 1988 (6 U 28/88)
OLG Oldenburg VersR 1991, 306, (175)
OLG Oldenburg, Judgment of 20 May 1988 (6 U 28/88).
OLG Hamm FamRZ 1993, 704
This case is first published in the German Law Archive courtesy of: Translated German Cases and Materials Under the direction of Professors P. Schlechtriem, B. Markesinis and S. Lorenz
Translated by Mr Raymond Youngs, Southampton Institute (Submitted by Judge Müller, OLG Hamm)
Facts:
The plaintiff married couple and their adopted son, the former third plaintiff, sought compensation from the defendant town because of violation of official duty in connection with an adoption placement.
ZfJ 84 no. 11/97 p.433 | OLG Hamm Judgment of 20th November 1996 – 11 U 61/96
This case is first published in the German Law Archive courtesy of: Translated German Cases and Materials Under the direction of Professors P. Schlechtriem, B. Markesinis and S. Lorenz
Translated by Mr Raymond Youngs, Southampton Institute
Judgment of 28 October 1992
Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court), Tenth Senate, Judgment of 28 October 1992, case no. 10 AZR 129/92, Entscheidungssammlung zum Arbeitsrecht 247 sub § 112 BetrVG
Appeal against Landesarbeitsgericht (Regional Labour Court) Düsseldorf, Judgment of 13 February 1992, case no. 13 (14) Sa 1213/91
Note: This judgment was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Barry v Midland Bank [1998] 1 All E R 805, at 821h..
Translation by Gerhard Dannemann.