Home » Fields of Law (Page 2)

Category Archives: Fields of Law

© Gerhard Dannemann 2015

Road Traffic Regulations (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung, StVO) with Annexes

Long Title: Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung

In the version of 6 March 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 367 ff. Valid as from 1 April 2013) as last amended on 30 November 2016 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2848. Valid as from 14 December 2016).

BVerfGE 142, 123 – OMT-Programme of the ECB (EZB)

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:


BVerfGE 141, 82 – Professional Partnership of Lawyers with Physicians and Pharmacists

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.


BVerfGE 129, 124 – Greek Bailout (Griechenland-Rettungspaket)

BVerfGE 128, 326 – Preventive Detention (Sicherungsverwahrung)

– 2 BvR 2365/09 – – 2 BvR 740/10 – – 2 BvR 2333/08 – – 2 BvR 1152/10 – – 2 BvR 571/10 –


BVerfGE 125, 260 – Data Retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung)

– 1 BvR 256/08 – – 1 BvR 263/08 – – 1 BvR 586/08 –


BVerfGE 108, 282 – Headscarf Ban (Kopftuchurteil)

BVerfGE 88, 203 – Abortion (Schwangerschaftsabbruch II)

2 BvF 2/90 – 2 BvF 4/92 – 2 BvF 5/92