Abstract
Until the constitutional reform of 2006, there was no place in the legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany for so-called “dual powers.” The exclusive power of the Federation or of the Länder to legislate on a given matter, within the specified scope depending on the type of law, thus constituted one of the defining features of German federalism.
However, the 2006 reform of the Constitution that led, inter alia, to the elimination of framework laws (Rahmenvorschriften) and the introduction of the controversial divergent Land law (Abweichungsgesetzgebung der Länder), broke with this basic principle of German federalism. It is now possible for two different legislative bodies, Federal and Land to be competent to legislate on the same matter with exactly the same scope and at the same time. Any conflict in law arising out of this situation is resolved by application of the maxim lex posterior derogat lex priori.
This constitutional change has been strongly contested by a section of German legal theorists. It calls for a reflection on the meaning and scope of the principle of competence in the German federal system. By extension, we should also examine the issue in other territorially decentralised states, such as the Spanish autonomic state, where exclusive legislative power seemed to be well-established, albeit it has had its critics in this regard.
This paper forms part of the research project of the Ministry of Science and Innovation (DER2009-14235) on “Las reformas de los sistemas descentralizados [Reforms of decentralised systems]” (Principal researcher: Prof. Isabel M. Giménez Sánchez).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This view was practically uncontested in constitutional jurisprudence [BVerfGE 36, 193 (202 et seq.); 48, 367 (373); 61, 149 (204); 67, 299 (321); 68, 319 (328)] and is generally supported by legal theorists (Stern 1984, p. 676; Münch 2000, p. 215; Badura 1996, p. 298; Stein 1998, pp. 123 et seq.; Maunz 1986, pp. 7 et seq.; Gubelt 1995, p. 404; Dreier 1998, p. 631; Pieroth 1997, p. 556; Pernice 1998, p. 597; Stettner 1996, p. 1319; Erbguth 1999, p. 993; Ossenbühl 1989, pp. 42 et seq.).
- 2.
Bothe (1989), pp. 1667 et seq.
- 3.
There is an extensive bibliography in German on this issue where the following is a representative sample: März (1989); Böckenförde (1971), pp. 119–127; Gubelt (1995), p. 404; Dreier (1998), p. 631.
In Spanish, an argument against the practical effectiveness of the principle of prevalence in the German legal system can be found in Arroyo Gil: El federalismo alemán en la encrucijada. On the attempt to modernise the federal order in the Federal Republic of Germany, Medina Prologue by Guerrero (2006), pp. 106, 118 et seq. and 176; Arroyo Gil (2009), p. 205; Arroyo Gil (2007), p. 416. See also Gómez Orfanel and Arroyo Gil (2005) [published in February 2007], pp. 233 et seq.
In Spanish, an argument in favour of the peaceable coexistence in the same legal system of the principles of competence and hierarchy or prevalence in the resolution of legislative conflicts can be found in Quadra-Salcedo Janini, Tomás de la: Mercado nacional único y Constitución (Los artículos 149.1.1 y 139 de la Constitución), Prologue by Reyes (2008), pp. 164 et seq.
And in general, an exhaustive study of the idea of competence in different federal models (albeit at variance with the position maintained here) is contained in Biglino Campos (2007). See, finally, the critical commentary of this work by Arroyo Gil (2008), pp. 337 et seq., which stresses the insurmountable difficulties of accepting the coexistence of the aforementioned principles of prevalence and competence in the resolution of legislative conflicts.
- 4.
BVerfGE 61, 18 (20).
- 5.
- 6.
Pestalozza (1996), pp. 25 et seq.
- 7.
Pestalozza (1996), p. 162.
- 8.
The wording of these provisions prior to the 2006 reform was as follows:
-
Art. 72.3 GG: “A federal law may provide that federal legislation that is no longer necessary within the meaning of paragraph (2) of this Article may be superseded by Land law.” [This provision is retained in its entirety, although from the 2006 reform it has become Section 4 of Art. 72 GG].
-
Art. 75.1 GG: “Subject to the conditions laid down in Article 72, the Federation shall have power to enact provisions on the following subjects as a framework for Land legislation: […]
-
Paragraph (3) of Article 72 shall apply mutatis mutandis.” [Art. 75 GG was removed in its entirety in the 2006 reform].
-
Art. 125a.2 GG: “Law that was enacted pursuant to paragraph (2) of Article 72 as it stood until November 15, 1994 shall remain in force as federal law. A federal law may provide that it may be superseded by Land law. [In essence, this provision, insofar as it is relevant to this discussion, was not amended in 2006].
-
- 9.
Sannwald (1999), p. 1010.
- 10.
See Gómez Orfanel and Arroyo Gil (2007), pp. 237 et seq.
- 11.
See Arroyo Gil: El federalismo alemán en la encrucijada…, pp. 160 et seq.; and La reforma constitucional del federalismo alemán: Estudio crítico de la 52.ª Ley de modificación de la Ley Fundamental de Bonn, de 28 de agosto de 2006, Prologue by Solozábal Echavarría (2009), p. 142.
- 12.
BVerfGE 12, 205 (228 et seq.); 15, 1 (17); 26, 281 (297 et seq.).
- 13.
Vogel (1996), p. 646.
- 14.
Maunz (1986), pp. 7 et seq.
- 15.
Art. 72.3 GG: If the Federation has made use of its power to legislate, the Länder may enact laws at variance with this legislation with respect to:
-
1.
Hunting (except for the law on hunting licenses);
-
2.
Protection of nature and landscape management (except for the general principles governing the protection of nature, the law on protection of plant and animal species or the law on protection of marine life);
-
3.
Land distribution;
-
4.
Regional planning;
-
5.
Management of water resources (except for regulations related to materials or facilities);
-
6.
Admission to institutions of higher education and requirements for graduation in such institutions.
Federal laws on these matters shall enter into force no earlier than six months following their promulgation unless otherwise provided with the consent of the Bundesrat. As for the relationship between federal law and law of the Länder, the latest law enacted shall take precedence with respect to matters within the scope of the first sentence.
For a general study of this new legislative type, see Grünewald (2010); Meyer (2008), pp. 164 et seq.; Stock (2006), pp. 226 et seq.; Scharpf (2006), pp. 6 et seq.; Münch (2008); Gerhards (2007).
-
1.
- 16.
The law is the only legislative form accepted in this terrain. See Uhle (2007), p. 145.
- 17.
The law, incidentally, comes from the derogated framework law of the former Art. 75 GG, although there is not always an exact correspondence between the two.
- 18.
- 19.
See Ipsen (2006), p. 2804; Degenhart, Christoph: “Die Neuordnung der Gesetzgebungskompetenzen…,” p. 1212.
References
ARROYO GIL, Antonio “Los principios de competencia y prevalencia en la resolución de los conflictos competenciales. Una relación imposible,” Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 80 (2007), p. 416
ARROYO GIL, Antonio: “El inacabado debate sobre la competencia,” REDC, 83, 2008
ARROYO GIL, Antonio: El federalismo alemán en la encrucijada. Sobre el intento de modernización del orden federativo en la República Federal de Alemania (prólogo de Manuel Medina Guerrero), CEPC, Fundación Manuel Giménez Abad de Estudios Parlamentarios y del Estado Autonómico, Madrid, 2006
ARROYO GIL, Antonio: La reforma constitucional del federalismo alemán: Estudio crítico de la 52a. Ley de Modificación de la Ley Fundamental de Bonn, de 28 de agosto de 2006, prólogo de Juan José Solozábal Echavarría, Colección Con(Textos)A, núm. 11, Institut d’Estudis Autonómics, Barcelona, 2009
ARROYO GIL, Antonio “Competencia versus Prevalencia en los Estados territorialmente descentralizados. Con especial referencia al Estado autonómico español,” RJUAM, 20, 2009, p. 205.
BADURA, P.: Staatsrecht (Systematische Erläuterung des Grundgesetzes für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland), C. H. Beck, München, 2nd ed. revised, 1996, p. 298
BIGLINO CAMPOS, Paloma: Federalismo de integración y de devolución (El debate sobre la competencia), CEPC, Madrid, 2007
BÖCKENFÖRDE, Ernst-Wolfgang: “Kollisionsfälle und Geltungsprobleme im Verhältnis von Bundesrecht und Landesverfassung,” DÖV, 1971, pp. 119–127
BOTHE, M.: “Artikel 30 GG (Funktion der Länder),” in Wassermann, R., Kommentar zum Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reihe Alternativkommentare), Volume I, Luchterhand, Neuwied-Kriftel-Berlin, 2nd ed., 1989, pp. 1667 et seq
BOTHE, M.: “Artikel 70 GG (Gesetzgebung des Bundes und der Länder), in Wassermann, R., Kommentar zum Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reihe Alternativkommentare),” Volume II, Luchterhand, Neuwied-Kriftel-Berlin, 2nd ed., 1989, pp. 426 et seq
DREIER, H.: Artikel 31 GG (Vorrang des Bundesrecht), in DREIER, H. (Ed.): Grundgesetz Kommentar, Volume II (Artikel 20–82), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 1998, p. 631
ERBGUTH, W.: “Artikel 30 GG (Kompetenzverteilung zwischen Bund und Ländern),” in Sachs, Michael (Ed.), Grundgesetz Kommentar, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, München, 2nd ed., 1999, p. 993
GERHARDS, Wolfgang: “Abweichungsrechte (Art. 72 Abs. 3 -neu-) und Erforderlichkeitsklausel (Art. 72 Abs. 2 GG), in Holtschneider, Rainer/Schön, Walter (Ed.), Die Reform des Bundesstaates (Beiträge zur Arbeit der Kommission zur Modernisierung der bundesstaatlichen Ordnung 2003/2004 und bis zum Abschluss des Gesetzgebungsverfahrens 2006), Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, 2007.
GÓMEZ ORFANEL, G. / ARROYO GIL, A.: “El reparto territorial de facultades legislativas y el Bundesrat en el federalismo alemán (1871-2006),” Cuadernos de Derecho Público, 26 (2005) [published in February 2007], pp. 233 et seq
GRÜNEWALD, V.: Die Abweichungsgesetzgebung der Bundesländer - ein Fortschritt im föderalen Kompetenzgefüge des Grundgesetzes?, Logos Verlag, Berlin, 2010
GUBELT, M.: Artikel 31 GG (Vorrang des Bundesrechts), in MÜNCH, I. von / KUNIG, P. (Ed.): Grundgesetz Kommentar, Volume II (Art. 21 bis Art. 69), C. H. Beck, München, 3rd ed., 1995, p. 404
IPSEN, Jörn: “Die Kompetenzverteilung zwischen Bund und Ländern nach der Föderalismusnovelle,” NJW, 39, 2006, p. 2804
KLOEPFER, Michael: “Die neue Abweichungsgesetzgebung der Länder und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Umweltbereich,” in Pitschas, Rainer / Uhle, Arnd (Ed.), Wege gelebter Verfassung in Recht und Politik (Festschrift für Rupert Scholz zum 70. Geburtstag), Duncker&Humblot, Berlin, 2007, 659 et seq.
KUNIG, P.: “Artikel 70 GG (Gesetzgebung des Bundes und der Länder),” in Münch, I. von / Kunig, P. (Eds.), Grundgesetz Kommentar, Volume III (Art. 70 bis Art. 146), C. H. Beck, München, 3rd ed., 1996, p. 9.
MÄRZ, Wolfgang: Bundesrecht bricht Landesrecht. Eine staatsrechtliche Untersuchung zu Artikel 31 des Grundgesetzes, Tübingen Schriften zum Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht, Volume 1, Duncker-Humblot, Berlin, 1989
MAUNZ, T.: Artikel 75 GG (Rahmenvorschriften), in MAUNZ / DÜRIG / HERZOG / SCHOLZ: Grundgesetz Kommentar, Volume IV, C. H. Beck, Lfg. 25, 1986, pp. 7 et seq.
MEYER, Hans: Die Föderalismusreform 2006 (Konzeption, Kommentar, Kritik), Duncker&Humblot, Berlin, 2008, pp. 164 et seq.
MÜNCH, I. von: Staatsrecht I, (Einführung; Deutschland; Teilung und Vereinigung; Staatsform; Staatsorgane; Deutschland in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft), Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln, 6th ed., 2000, p. 215
MÜNCH, U.: “Materielles Abweichungsrecht der Länder und föderative Asymmetrien in der bundesdeutschen Bildungspolitik,” in Europäisches Zentrum für Föderalismus-Forschung (Ed.), Jahrbuch des Föderalismus 2008 (Föderalismus, Subsidiarität und Regionen in Europa), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 2008
OSSENBÜHL, F.: “Pluralismo territorial y sistema normative,” in AA.VV., Pluralismo territorial en la República Federal de Alemania (Spanish translation by Manuel Cancio Meliá), MAP/INAP, Madrid, 1989, pp. 42 et seq.).
PERNICE, I.: “Artikel 30 GG (Kompetenzverteilung zwischen Bund und Ländern),” in Dreier, Horst (Ed.), Grundgesetz Kommentar, Volume II (Artikel 20–82), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 1998, p. 597
PESTALOZZA, Ch. von: “Artikel 70 GG,” in Mangoldt, H. von / Klein, F. / Pestalozza, Ch. von, Das Bonner Grundgesetz, Kommentar, Volume VIII (Artikel 70 bis Artikel 75: Die Gesetzgebungskompetenzen), Verlag Franz Vahlen, München, 3rd ed. 1996, pp. 25 et seq.
PIEROTH, B.: “Artikel 30 GG (Kompetenzverteilung zwischen Bund und Ländern),” in JARASS, H. D. / PIEROTH, B.: Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Kommentar), C. H. Beck, München, 4th ed., 1997, p. 556
QUADRA-SALCEDO JANINI, T.: Mercado nacional único y Constitución (Los artículos 149.1.1 y 139 de la Constitución), (prólogo de Manuel Aragón Reyes), CEPC, Madrid, 2008
SANNWALD, R.: Artikel 70 GG (Abgrenzung der Zuständigkeit zwischen Bund und Ländern), in Schmidt-Bleibtreu, B. / Klein, F., Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Luchterhand, Neuwied-Kriftel-Berlin, 9th ed., 1999, p. 1010
SCHARPF, Fritz W.: “Föderalismusreform: Weshalb wurde so wenig erreicht?,” ApuZ 50/2006, pp. 6 et seq.
STEIN, E.: Staatsrecht, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 16th ed., 1998, pp. 123 et seq.
STERN, K.: Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Volume I (Grundbegriffe und Grundlagen des Staatsrechts, Strukturprinzipien der Verfassung), C. H. Beck, München, 2nd ed., 1984, p. 676
STETTNER, R.: “Artikel 70 GG (Gesetzgebung des Bundes und der Länder),” in DREIER, Horst (Ed.): Grundgesetz Kommentar, Volume II (Artikel 20–82), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 1996, p. 1319
STOCK, Martin: “Konkurrierende Gesetzgebung, postmodern: Aufweichung durch “Abweichung”?,” ZG, 3, 2006, pp. 226 et seq.
UHLE, Arndt: “Art. 72 GG [Konkurrierende Gesetzgebung],” in Kluth, Winfried [Ed.], Föderalismusreformgesetz. Einführung und Kommentierung, NomosKommentar, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2007, p. 145
VOGEL, J. J.: “El régimen federal de la Ley Fundamental” (Capítulo XII), in Benda / Maihofer / Vogel / Hesse / Heyde… (Eds.,), Manual de Derecho Constitucional (Edición, Prolegomena Spanish translation by A. López Pina), IVAP, Marcial Pons, Madrid, 1996., p. 646.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gil, A.A. (2013). Exclusive vs. Concurrent Legislative Power in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: López Basaguren, A., Escajedo San Epifanio, L. (eds) The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27720-7_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27720-7_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27719-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27720-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)