Abstract
In a number of rulings, the German Federal Constitutional Court has called on the legislature to show consistency, and has declared null and void statutes which it considered to be inconsistent. This “principle of consistency” helps to strengthen the rationality of the law, at least as a reflex, but also to fortify the position of the Federal Constitutional Court within the structure of the constitutional bodies. It focuses on the self-obligation of the legislature: It is to be tied to a selected regulatory concept to such a degree that any deviation is to be classified as contradictory, and hence at the same time as unconstitutional. The paper portrays the development of the constitutional court case-law on the “principle of consistency”, and then goes on to criticise it vehemently: Firstly, a “principle of consistency” confuses the relative standard of equality rights with the absolute standard of freedom rights. Secondly, it causes the law to transform from an object into a yardstick for constitutional review, thereby turning it into a standard reviewing itself. Thirdly, the “principle of consistency” helps to radicalise the legal system because political consistency is now required where practical concordance was previously called for. However inconsistent proportionate legislation may at times be, consistent legislation tends to be disproportionate. Fourthly, it remains unclear how the regulatory or protective concept of a statute can be determined which is to serve as a standard for the law as a whole. Fifthly, and finally, the separation of powers between the legislature and the Federal Constitutional Court stands opposed to the idea of a principle of consistency. Democratic legislation is always also inconsistent legislation. A principle of consistency may therefore only be understood as an item on the political and legislative wishlist, but not as a principle underlying the rule of law.
Translation of “Inkonsequente Gesetzgebung”, in Kodifikation in Europa, ed. Arnd Koch and Matthias Rossi, 149–168. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
BVerfGE 115, 276 (headnotes & 310).
- 2.
BVerfG NJW 2008, 2409 (2415).
- 3.
Cf. on the following Müller (2006: 175).
- 4.
Cf. the summary in Vranes (2005: 393).
- 5.
Taken up once more, but found not to be decisive to the dispute, is the principle of freedom from contradictions in the legal system in BVerfGE 116, 164 (186).
- 6.
BVerfGE 1, 15 (45).
- 7.
BVerfGE 1, 208 (246).
- 8.
Cf. on this Meßerschmidt (2000: 30).
- 9.
Cf. the assessment of Battis (1977: 15).
- 10.
Canaris (1969: 128).
- 11.
Accurately Battis (1977: 18).
- 12.
Cf. for instance Tipke (2008: 9 ff.).
- 13.
Tipke (2008: 23).
- 14.
BVerfGE 122, 210 (230).
- 15.
Positioning himself as a sceptic, Lerche (1961: 273) regards the small number of possible (extreme) cases as being adequately covered by the principle of predictability .
- 16.
Lerche (1961: 272).
- 17.
BVerfGE 9, 73 (81).
- 18.
BVerfGE 9, 338 (353).
- 19.
BVerfGE 55, 72 (88): “Accordingly, this fundamental right [Art. 3 para. 1 of the Basic Law] is violated above all if a group of addressees of the provision is treated differently from other addressees of the provision although no differences of such a nature and weight exist between the two groups such that they could justify the unequal treatment (cf. BVerfGE 22, 387 [415]; 52, 277 [280]). The Federal Constitutional Court in fact emphasised the regulatory content of Art. 3 para. 1 of the Basic Law in connection with attempts to derive from the legislature inherent rules made by the law itself that is binding on the legislature and to complain about the fact of being incompatible with the system as a violation of the principle of equality (BVerfGE 34, 103 [105]).“(author’s emphasis). cf. also BVerfGE 46, 97 (107 ff.). Further Stern (1988: 1830): “All in all, the principle of equality is intended to ensure objectiveness, expedience, system constancy and consistency of legislative action with regard to fundamental matters.”
- 20.
Lindner (2007: 195).
- 21.
- 22.
Schulze-Fielitz (1988: 515).
- 23.
- 24.
Burghart (1996: passim).
- 25.
Related to the determination of the starting point of consistency in fiscal law cf. Tipke (2008: 10).
- 26.
Masing (2008: 2421).
- 27.
Lindner (2007: 194).
- 28.
The precise opposite, however, Bulla (2009: 321; and 2008: 590): As the principle of proportionality in the shape of the new formula is said to impact the dogma of equality rights , conversely, the principle of consistency is said to impact the dogma of the principle of proportionality, and hence the freedom rights . To put it another way, as disproportionate unequal treatment triggers a violation of equality rights, a violation of the principle of consistency is said to lead to a disproportionate encroachment and hence to a violation of freedom rights based on fundamental rights.
- 29.
By the time of going to press a large numbers of articles have been published which take a closer look at this aspect, cf. Bumke (2010: 77 ff.), Dann (2010: 631 ff.); Payandeh (2011: 578 ff.), as well as the reports by Lienbacher and Grzeszick at the 71st Annual Conference of the Association of German Constitutional Law Teachers 2011 in Münster.
- 30.
In this regard, the application of the principle of consistency to amending statutes is said to contrast with further problems which once more, however, have resulted in the question of who determines the purpose of the statute which is to become a standard of itself, and when this takes place.
- 31.
Equally Bryde (2008: 2420).
- 32.
- 33.
Meßerschmidt (2000: 424).
- 34.
- 35.
Masing (2008: 2422).
- 36.
BVerfGE 1, 15 (46).
- 37.
Judge Bryde recognised this and indeed expressed it in his dissenting opinion: “I am unable to recognise that the Land legislatures had placed the goal of non-smoker protection into perspective, so that protection of life and limb could also be placed into perspective as a weighing up position vis-à-vis commercial interests.”
- 38.
For instance the finding on the application of the concept of systematic consistency, cf. Battis (1977: 14), with further references.
- 39.
For instance in relation to an obligation to enact a good or indeed perfect law Meßerschmidt (2000: 787).
References
Battis, Ulrich. 1977. Systemgerechtigkeit. In Hamburg, Deutschland, Europa, Festschrift für Hans Peter Ipsen, ed. R. Stödter and W. Thieme, 11–30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Bryde, Brun-Otto. 1982. Verfassungsentwicklung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Bryde, Brun-Otto. 2008. Abweichende Meinung, BVerfG, 1 BvR 3262/07, 1 BvR 402/08, 1 BvR 906/08: Nichtraucherschutz in Gaststätten und Diskotheken. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 33: 2409–2421.
Bulla, Simon. 2008. Das Verfassungsprinzip der Folgerichtigkeit und seine Auswirkungen auf die Grundrechtsdogmatik. Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium (ZJS) 6: 585–596.
Bulla, Simon. 2009. Freiheit der Berufswahl. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Bumke, Christian. 2010. Die Pflicht zur konsistenten Gesetzgebung. Der Staat 49: 77–105.
Burghart, Axel. 1996. Die Pflicht zum guten Gesetz. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm. 1969. Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Dann, Philipp. 2010. Verfassungsgerichtliche Kontrolle gesetzgeberischer Rationalität. Der Staat 49: 630–646.
Federal Ministry of the Interior (publisher). 2002. The Mandelkern Report – Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making. Berlin: BMI.
Frenzel, Eike Michael. 2004. Nachhaltigkeit als Prinzip der Rechtsentwicklung? Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Lerche, Peter. 1961. Übermaß und Verfassungsrecht. Zur Bindung des Gesetzgebers an die Grundsätze der Verhältnismäßigkeit und der Erforderlichkeit. Köln: Heymann.
Lindner, Josef Franz. 2007. Konsequente Zweckverfolgung als Verfassungspflicht des Gesetzgebers. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung (ZG) 22: 187–203.
Masing, Johannes. 2008. Abweichende Meinung, BVerfG, 1 BvR 3262/07, 1 BvR 402/08, 1 BvR 906/08: Nichtraucherschutz in Gaststätten und Diskotheken. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 33: 2409–2421.
Meßerschmidt, Klaus. 2000. Gesetzgebungsermessen. Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz/Nomos.
Müller, Georg. 2006. Elemente einer Rechtsetzungslehre, 2nd ed. Zürich: Schulthess.
Öhlinger, Theo. 1982. Planung der Gesetzgebung und Wissenschaft. In Methodik der Gesetzgebung, ed. Th Öhlinger, 1–14. Wien/New York: Springer.
Payandeh, Mehrdad. 2011. Das Gebot der Folgerichtigkeit: Rationalitätsgewinn oder Irrweg der Grundrechtsdogmatik. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 136: 578–615.
Schäffer, Heinz, and Otto Trifterer (eds.). 1984. Rationalisierung der Gesetzgebung. Baden-Baden and Wien: Nomos/Manz.
Schulze-Fielitz, Helmut. 1988. Theorie und Praxis parlamentarischer Gesetzgebung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2003. Gute Gesetzgebung: Bausteine einer kritischen Gesetzgebungslehre. Sonderheft der Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung, vol 18. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.
Stern, Klaus. 1988. Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vol. III/2. München: C. H. Beck.
Tipke, Klaus. 2008. Das Folgerichtigkeitsgebot im Verbrauch- und Verkehrssteuerrecht. In Festschrift für Wolfram Reiss zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Paul Kirchhof and Hans Nieskens, 9–24. Köln: Verlag Otto Schmidt.
Vranes, Erich. 2005. Lex Superior, Lex Specialis, Lex Posterior – Zur Rechtsnatur der „Konfliktlösungsregeln“. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV)/Heidelberg Journal of International Law (HJIL) 65: 391–405.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rossi, M. (2016). Inconsistent Legislation. In: Meßerschmidt , K., Oliver-Lalana, A. (eds) Rational Lawmaking under Review. Legisprudence Library, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33217-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33217-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33215-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33217-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)