Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Equality of Legal Protection”: On the Constitutional Derivation of the Right to Legal Aid in Administrative Proceedings and Its Effects on Legal Persons

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2022

Part of the book series: YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions ((YSEC,volume 2022))

  • 132 Accesses

Abstract

This article addresses the question of where in German constitutional law the entitlement to legal aid is rooted and what effects this has on the entitlement to legal aid for legal persons. After a brief review of the rather inconsistent case law from the German Constitutional Court, the weaknesses of its approach are elaborated. This article then argues that, for administrative proceedings, the right to legal aid follows from the fundamental right which guarantees legal recourse (Article 19 [4] sentence 1 of German Basic Law [Grundgesetz or GG]). Legal aid is—in contrast to the prevailing view in German jurisprudence and scholarly literature—not anchored in the constitutional principles of social welfare, equality under the law, or the general principle of the rule of law.

This has a direct effect on legal persons’ right to legal aid; contrary to the general opinion, they may also have a right to legal aid on constitutional grounds. While statutory law grants legal persons a right to legal aid, it does so only if additional requirements are met. One significant restriction is the requirement that the legal action not be contrary to the “public interest”. It is precisely this additional requirement, which moreover dates back to a “law” passed in 1933 by the national socialist government, that makes individual legal protection for legal persons dependent on the interest of the public or third parties. This is an unnecessary burden and therefore unconstitutional.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 9, 124; 10, 264/270; 22, 83/86; 51, 295/302; 63, 380/394; 67, 245/248; 78, 104/117 et seq.; 81, 347/356 et seq.; 122, 39/49 et seq.; German Constitutional Court Chamber Decisions 9, 123/126; Ernst (2021), Article 19, marginal number 157; Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal number 464; Jarass (2022), Article 3, marginal number 85 et seq.; Peters and Altwicker (2022), chapter 21, marginal number 196.

  2. 2.

    Gottwald (2004), p. 308; Rosenberg et al. (2018), § 87, marginal number 1. Similarly, see Riese (2022), § 166, marginal number 5.

  3. 3.

    An earlier verdict: German Constitutional Court Decisions 9, 256/258; 35, 348/355.

  4. 4.

    German Federal Supreme Court, NJW 2009, 3658/3659. An earlier verdict is in the German Constitutional Court Decisions 78, 104/113.

  5. 5.

    See also Munich Administrative Court, decision of 27 July 2017—15 C 14.2047, BeckRS 2017, 121559, marginal number 11; Scholz (1995), p. 726.

  6. 6.

    See Sect. 4.2.2 below.

  7. 7.

    See Swiss Federal Supreme Court, BGE 88, II, 386/389 and Austrian Constitutional Court, reference VfGH, G26/10–11, order of 5 October 2011, paras. 45 et seq., https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_G_26-10_VH.pdf, 2.11.2022.

  8. 8.

    To facilitate the flow of reading, the following does not cite the provision referenced, § 166 (1) sentence 1 of the German Code of Administrative Court Proceedings (VwGO); rather, the ZPO is cited directly.

  9. 9.

    The term predates the Basic Law and was used in the German Empire, when there was no equivalent to Article 3 (1) GG or Article 19 (4) sentence 1 GG; see, for example, Hahn (1880), p. 206, which refers to the “necessity of equal legal protection for rich and poor”.

  10. 10.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 22, 83/87 et seq.

  11. 11.

    The explanatory memorandum to the original “Civilprozessordnung” speaks of “law for the poor” or “poor law” (“Armenrecht”, today’s legal aid) as the extension of Roman and canonical law and states that “law for the poor” is a traditional and generally applicable procedural law; see Hahn (1880), pp. 206 et seq. See also the essay by Linde (1833), pp. 51 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Legal aid for natural persons can be traced back to Roman and Canonical Law; see Sect. 4.2.3 below.

  13. 13.

    This is different in Switzerland; see Baldegger (2017), pp. 594–600; Tuchschmid (2006), p. 50.

  14. 14.

    The provision corresponded to the original version dated 1933 and read: “A domestic legal person may be granted assistance for the poor if the prerequisites specified in paragraph 1 are met, if the funds required to conduct the lawsuit can neither be raised by the legal person nor by the economic participants in the lawsuit, and the failure to pursue or defend the law would be contrary to the public interest”.

  15. 15.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/354 et seq. On the version at that time, see the account by Meents (1975), pp. 150–152.

  16. 16.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/357 et seq.

  17. 17.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/357. See also Baldegger (2017), pp. 573 et seq., 622, 655, who interprets the German Constitutional Court’s case law in such a way that the court categorically excludes a constitutional right to legal aid for legal persons.

  18. 18.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/355 et seq.

  19. 19.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 81, 347/356 et seq. However, this exchange was later relativised, cf. German Constitutional Court Decisions 122, 39/48–50; see Sect. 3.2 below.

  20. 20.

    See Bork (2016), before § 114, marginal numbers 8, 11, § 116, marginal number 24; Möbius (2014), pp. 218 et seq.; Neumann and Schaks (2018), § 166, marginal numbers 11 et seq.; Riese (2022), § 166, marginal number 5 and Sect. 3.2 below; Schweigler (2017), pp. 314 et seq. believes that it is worth a separate analysis to examine whether and which conclusions could be drawn from the German Constitutional Court’s divergent approaches to reasoning.

  21. 21.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 10, 264/268; 18, 302/303 et seq.; 78, 104/117; 80, 103/107 et seq.; 85, 337/346; 92, 122/124; 133, 1/28 et seq.; Scholz (1995), pp. 726 et seq.

  22. 22.

    This was already the case specifically regarding the law on the poor at the time, in the explanatory memorandum to the German Code of Civil Procedure of 1877, printed in Hahn (1880), p. 207.

  23. 23.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 50, 217/230 et seq.; Schenke (1999), p. 170.

  24. 24.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 9, 124/131 et seq.; 10, 264/268 et seq.; 78, 104/117 et seq.; 81, 347/356 et seq.; German Constitutional Court Chamber, NJW 1997, 2103/2104; German Constitutional Court Chamber, order dated 14 February 2017—reference 1 BvR 2507/16, paragraphs 12 et seq.

  25. 25.

    Regarding this, see Neumann and Schaks (2018), § 154, marginal numbers 20–42.

  26. 26.

    Constitutional according to the German Constitutional Court Decisions 7, 53/55 et seq.; 9, 256/257 et seq.; 10, 264/268 et seq.; 81, 347/357; 92, 122/124; 122, 39/49; German Constitutional Court Chamber Decisions, NJW 2010, 1657; NJW 2013, 1727/728; decision dated 14 February 2017—reference 1 BvR 2507/16, paragraphs 13 et seq., BeckRS 2017, 103367; Schenke (1999), pp. 170 et seq.

  27. 27.

    More stringent criteria for the prospects of success—for reasons of cost reduction—in part six, chapter I, § 11 of the third decree of the Reichspräsident to safeguard the economy and finances and to counteract political protests, dated 6 October 1931, RGBl. I, p. 563. Criticism in Meents (1975), pp. 63–77, 356–358.

  28. 28.

    Cf. Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal number 464.

  29. 29.

    See also Henke (2010), pp. 194 et seq.; Bergner and Pernice (2011), pp. 242–244; Schweigler (2017), pp. 314 et seq.

  30. 30.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 81, 347 et seq.

  31. 31.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 1, 109.

  32. 32.

    German Constitutional Court, decision of 6 March 1953—reference 1 BvR 392/51, reprinted in Meents (1975), pp. 383 et seq.

  33. 33.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 7, 53/56–58. Regarding this, see also German Constitutional Court Decisions 9, 254 et seq.

  34. 34.

    German Constitutional Court, decision of 6 March 1953—reference 1 BvR 392/51, reprinted in Meents (1975), pp. 383 et seq.; German Constitutional Court Decisions 2, 336/340 et seq.

  35. 35.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 9, 124/131; 22, 83/86; 35, 348 et seq.; 51, 295/302; 54, 251/273; 56, 139/143; 63, 380/394 et seq.; 78, 104/108–110.

  36. 36.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 81, 347/356.

  37. 37.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 122, 39/48 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Regarding this, see Bork’s concern (2016), before § 114, marginal number 8.

  39. 39.

    A fully developed administrative jurisdiction did not emerge in Germany until the Basic Law came into force.

  40. 40.

    See also Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal number 464; Nickel (2016), p. 1979.

  41. 41.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 138, 33/39 et seq.; Ernst (2021), Article 19, marginal number 144; Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal numbers 333, 354 with further references from the case law of the German Constitutional Court; Schmidt-Jortzig (1994), p. 2569.

  42. 42.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 116, 69/88 with further references; 122, 39/49; Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal number 461.

  43. 43.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 11, 139/143; 54, 39/41.

  44. 44.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/355, 362.

  45. 45.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 15, 275/282; 103, 142/156; 129, 1/20; 149, 407/413.

  46. 46.

    German Federal Administrative Court Decisions 101, 73/82; German Federal Administrative Court, NVwZ 2012, 567/568; Ibler (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 108; Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal numbers 7 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 8.

  48. 48.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 8, 274/326; 30 (dissenting opinion Geller, von Schlabrendorff, Rupp), 1/41; 101, 106/122 et seq.; 103, 142/156; Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 11.

  49. 49.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 43a.

  50. 50.

    Thus, inter alia, German Constitutional Court Decisions 101, 106/123; Voßkuhle (1993), p. 314. Others cite Article 19 (4) sentence 1 GG as providing for a right to benefits, for example Ibler (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal numbers 43–46; Jarass (2022), Article 19, marginal number 37; Sobota (1997), p. 203.

  51. 51.

    See the references in footnotes 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well as the Hamburg Superior Administrative Court decision of 30 June 2021—6. See 19/21, BeckRS 2021, 18458, marginal number 7: “The granting of legal aid ultimately constitutes a granting of benefits […]”.

  52. 52.

    The precedent-setting decision in German Constitutional Court Decisions 33, 303/331 et seq.

  53. 53.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 101, 106/123; Ibler (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 43; Schenke (2020), Article 19 (4), marginal number 159; Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 7 (“status positivus”); Voßkuhle (1993), p. 314.

  54. 54.

    Gaier (2011), p. 385; Jarass (2022), Article 19, marginal number 37; Schenke (2009), § 78, marginal number 6; Schulze-Fielitz (2013), Article 19 (4), marginal number 84; Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal number 374, refers to a “right of participation vis-à-vis the state in the provision of judicial procedures for the enforcement of rights”.

  55. 55.

    Epping (2021), marginal number 916; Sachs (2021), Article 19, paragraph 12.

  56. 56.

    Constitutional Court Decisions 8, 274/326; 54, 39/40 et seq.; 101, 106/122 et seq.

  57. 57.

    This also applies to the ECHR, cf. Diggelmann and Altwicker (2012), p. 781.

  58. 58.

    However, see Möbius (2014), pp. 257, 290.

  59. 59.

    Huber (2021), § 6, marginal number 51; Ibler (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 360; Meents (1975), p. 351 with numerous references to earlier case law and literature in footnote 2; Voßkuhle (1993), pp. 5 et seq. For basic information on the monopoly on the use of force see Grimm (2006), pp. 18–38; Klein (2018), “Gewaltmonopol”; Klein (2010), pp. 635–656; Möllers (2006), pp. 804–807.

  60. 60.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 16 with further references. See also German Constitutional Court Decisions 122, 39/49; Baur (1954), pp. 396 et seq.; Möbius (2014), p. 219.

  61. 61.

    See also German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/354 et seq.

  62. 62.

    Larenz (1991), p. 320. See also Sodan (2010), p. 22.

  63. 63.

    Cf. German Constitutional Court Decisions 62, 1/45; 79, 127/143; Böckenförde (1974), p. 1529; Bryde (1982), pp. 89–93; Horn (2015), p. 11.

  64. 64.

    Cf. Puppe (2023), p. 129. Similarly, see Larenz (1991), pp. 320 et seq.; Zippelius (2012), p. 79.

  65. 65.

    Larenz (1991), pp. 320, 343; Rüthers et al. (2022), marginal number 731; Sodan and Ziekow (2020), § 2, marginal number 6.

  66. 66.

    Bleckmann (1997), § 39, marginal number 11. Similarly, see Möbius (2014), p. 219: “Access to the courts”.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Bleckmann (1997), § 39, marginal number 11; Schmidt-Jortzig (1994), p. 2569.

  68. 68.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 81, 347/357 et seq.; German Constitutional Court Chamber Decisions, FamRZ 2009, 1654; NJW 2013, 1727/1728.

  69. 69.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/355: “…are actually prevented from pursuing or defending their rights in court …” and “…could jeopardise the legal protection of the impecunious party in general …”; Schweigler (2017), p. 315.

  70. 70.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 78, 88/98 et seq.; 96, 27/39.

  71. 71.

    German Constitutional Court Chamber Decisions, NJW 2016, 44/45 with further references.

  72. 72.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 92, 122/124. Similarly, “making legal protection accessible”, Behn (1992), p. 1.

  73. 73.

    Larenz (1991), p. 324.

  74. 74.

    Puppe (2023), p. 141; Rüthers et al. (2022), marginal number 744.

  75. 75.

    Puppe (2023), pp. 141 et seq.

  76. 76.

    This is the general view; see German Constitutional Court Decisions 13, 153/161; 35, 382/401; 50, 1/3; 81, 347/356; Ernst (2021), Article 19, marginal number 157; Huber (2018), Article 19, marginal numbers 353–358, 462 et seq.; Ibler (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal numbers 235 et seq., 360, 362; Meents (1975), p. 362; Schenke (2020), Article 19 (4), marginal number 283; Schenke (2009), § 78, marginal number 1; Schmidt-Jortzig (1994), p. 2569; Sobota (1997), pp. 188 et seq., 202, et seq., 255, 257.

  77. 77.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 122, 39 et seq.; German Constitutional Court Chamber Decisions, NVwZ 2005, 323; NJW 2018, 449/450.

  78. 78.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 94, 241/263; 97, 169/185; 110, 412/445.

  79. 79.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 26, 16/37; 35, 202/236; 45, 376/387 et seq.; 89, 214/232; 100, 271/284; 103, 197/221.

  80. 80.

    Swiss Federal Supreme Court, BGE 88, II, 386/389.

  81. 81.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 35.

  82. 82.

    Willenbruch (1977), p. 33. See also Eichenhofer (2021), marginal number 3.

  83. 83.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2022), Article 19 (4), marginal number 3 with reference to German Constitutional Court Decisions 110, 412/445 and Grzeszick (2022), Article 20 VIII, marginal number 19.

  84. 84.

    Cf. Puppe (2023), pp. 141 et seq.

  85. 85.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 50, 217/230 et seq.

  86. 86.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 50, 217/231.

  87. 87.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 78, 88/99 et seq.

  88. 88.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 78, 104/121 et seq.; Willenbruch (1977), pp. 33–35.

  89. 89.

    Bork (2016), § 116, marginal number 24.

  90. 90.

    Superior Administrative Court of Saxony, NVwZ-RR 2016, 120.

  91. 91.

    This is very clear, although with regard to civil proceedings and Article 6 ECHR; see Diggelmann and Altwicker (2012), p. 784.

  92. 92.

    CJEU, Case C-279/09, 22 December 2010, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH/Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, paras. 59–62 et seq.

  93. 93.

    CJEU, Case C-279/09, 22 December 2010, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH/Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, paras. 39 et seq., 52, 59.

  94. 94.

    CJEU, Case C-279/09, 22 December 2010, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH/Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, paras. 40 et seq.

  95. 95.

    CJEU, Case C-279/09, 22 December 2010, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH/Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, para. 41.

  96. 96.

    See ECtHR: Dietrich Eckart v. Germany, no. 23947/03, § 1, 10 April 2007. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-80354); ECtHR: Claus und Heike Herma v. Germany, no. 54193/07, 8 December 2009. (See https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-96483).

  97. 97.

    ECtHR: Granos Organicos Nacionales S.A. v. Germany, no. 19508/07, 22 March 2012. (See https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-109807).

  98. 98.

    ECtHR: Golder v. The United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, paras. 33–36, 21 February 1975. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57496); ECtHR: Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, para. 50, 12 July 2007. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81606); ECtHR: Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, para. 68, 26 July 2011. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105820).

  99. 99.

    Diggelmann and Altwicker (2012), pp. 782 et seq.

  100. 100.

    ECtHR: Kübler v. Germany, no. 37215/06, 13 January 2011, para. 44 with further references. (See https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-102811).

  101. 101.

    ECtHR: Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, para. 74, 26 July 2011. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105820).

  102. 102.

    ECtHR: Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, paras. 51 et seq., 10 January 2006. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71946); Diggelmann and Altwicker (2012), p. 784.

  103. 103.

    Diggelmann and Altwicker (2012), p. 783.

  104. 104.

    ECtHR: Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, para. 55 with further references, 12 July 2007. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81606).

  105. 105.

    Diggelmann and Altwicker (2012), p. 784.

  106. 106.

    ECtHR: Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, paras. 54–59, 10 January 2006. (See http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71946).

  107. 107.

    Larenz (1991), p. 330.

  108. 108.

    Sodan and Ziekow (2020), § 2, marginal number 8.

  109. 109.

    Larenz (1991), p. 330.

  110. 110.

    Article 107 of the Weimar Constitution was formulated much more weakly; see Schenke (2020), Article 19 (4), marginal numbers 126–131, 134, 136.

  111. 111.

    On the history of legal aid, see, among others, Gogolin (2015), pp. 37–93; Humborg (2000); Linde (1833), pp. 51 et seq.; Meents (1975), pp. 31–78; Schott (1900), pp. 1–30; specifically with regard to legal persons, see Willenbruch (1977), pp. 16–20.

  112. 112.

    See also Möbius (2014), p. 234.

  113. 113.

    Code of Civil Procedure of 30 January 1877, RGBl. p. 83.

  114. 114.

    Hahn (1880), p. 113.

  115. 115.

    Hahn (1880), pp. 206 et seq.—emphasis added.

  116. 116.

    Hahn (1880), p. 207.

  117. 117.

    Hahn (1880), p. 206.

  118. 118.

    Baur (1972), p. 75. Agreement by Rehbinder (1976), p. 395.

  119. 119.

    Willenbruch (1977), pp. 28 et seq.

  120. 120.

    Hahn (1880), p. 113.

  121. 121.

    Schott (1900), p. V.

  122. 122.

    Breithaupt (1915).

  123. 123.

    Hahn (1880), pp. 206 et seq.

  124. 124.

    See Willenbruch (1977), p. 17.

  125. 125.

    See Willenbruch (1977), p. 17.

  126. 126.

    “The Code of Procedure does not determine to what extent legal persons’ right to exemption from fees is to be recognised”, Hahn (1880), p. 207.

  127. 127.

    RGZ 112, 107/108. See also German Constitutional Court Decisions 35, 348/353 and the references in Schott (1900), p. 52 with footnote 2, including evidence for the opposite position, and in Willenbruch (1977), p. 16 with footnote 16.

  128. 128.

    See § 117 ZPO in: “Entwurf einer Zivilprozeßordnung” (1931), published by the Reichsjustizministerium, pp. 29 et seq., 274, 296 et seq. and, regarding this, Willenbruch (1977), pp. 18–20.

  129. 129.

    RGBl. I, p. 780.

  130. 130.

    For details on the history of its development, see Willenbruch (1977), pp. 16–20.

  131. 131.

    RGBl. I, p. 141.

  132. 132.

    RAnz. 1933, No. 257, p. 2.

  133. 133.

    German Federal Supreme Court, ZInsO 2022, 143/144.

  134. 134.

    RGBl. I, p. 780.

  135. 135.

    Regarding this, see Kunig and Kotzur (2021), Article 1, marginal number 3.

  136. 136.

    For proofs thereof, see Schenke (1999), p. 153.

  137. 137.

    Matz (2010), p. 184.

  138. 138.

    Matz (2010), p. 185.

  139. 139.

    Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948–1949, files and records in 14 volumes, ed. by the German Bundestag and the Federal Archives.

  140. 140.

    A search of the PDF files of the volumes available electronically (except for volumes 5/II and 13/II) for the term “Armenrecht” (“poor law”, the term used for legal aid at the time) did not yield any hits. Nor do the keyword indexes of the volumes overall contain the main keyword “Armenrecht”.

  141. 141.

    Larenz (1991), p. 332.

  142. 142.

    Müller and Christensen (2013), marginal number 364. See also Hesse (1999), marginal number 68; Rüthers et al. (2022), marginal numbers 725–729; Sodan (1987), pp. 514 et seq.

  143. 143.

    Schenke (2009), § 78, marginal numbers 1 et seq. Referring solely to substantive fundamental rights, Dr Süsterhenn in the 32nd session of the Committee on Fundamental Questions of the Parliamentary Council on 11 January 1949, reprinted in: Pikart and Werner (1993), p. 927; Pestalozza (1999), pp. 140 et seq.

  144. 144.

    Schmidt-Jortzig (1994), p. 2571.

  145. 145.

    Willenbruch (1977), pp. 28 et seq. points out that neither substantive law nor civil procedure distinguishes between natural and legal persons in principle and that, with the exception of unique structures, they enjoy the same rights and the same legal protection.

  146. 146.

    German Constitutional Court Decisions 92, 122/124. Similarly, “making legal protection accessible”, Behn (1992), p. 1 (heading under a.).

  147. 147.

    For more details on this, see Meents (1975), pp. 365–367. Even more far-reaching, because in favour of completely equal treatment, are the arguments of Willenbruch (1977), p. 93.

  148. 148.

    German Federal Supreme Court, NJW 1954, 1933.

References

  • Baldegger M (2017) Menschenrechtsschutz für juristische Personen in Deutschland, der Schweiz und den Vereinigten Staaten. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur F (1954) Der Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör. AcP 153:393–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur F (1972) Armenrecht und Rechtsschutzversicherung. JZ 1972:75–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn M (1992) Die verfassungsrechtliche Rechtsschutzgleichheit - Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Beurteilung der “hinreichenden Aussicht auf Erfolg” iSd § 114 S. 1 ZPO - Teil II. SozVers 1992:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergner I, Pernice C (2011) Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Anspruch auf Rechtsschutz- und Rechtswahrnehmungsgleichheit. In: Emmenegger S, Wiedmann A (eds) Linien der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, vol II. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 241–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleckmann A (1997) Staatsrecht II - Die Grundrechte, 4th edn. Heymanns, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Böckenförde EW (1974) Grundrechtstheorie und Grundrechtsinterpretation. NJW 1974:1529–1538

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork R (2016) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) ZPO, vol II, 23rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Breithaupt GW (1915) Das öffentliche Armenrecht in Preußen und dem Reich. Laupp, Gomaringen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryde BO (1982) Verfassungsentwicklung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag, Bundesarchiv (eds) (1975–2009) Der Parlamentarische Rat 1848-1949, 14 volumes. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Diggelmann O, Altwicker T (2012) Finanzielle Gerichtszugangsschranken in Zivilprozessen im Licht von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 EMRK, DÖV, 781–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichenhofer E (2021) Sozialrecht, 12th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Epping V (2021) Grundrechte, 9th edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst C (2021) In: von Münch I, Kunig P (eds) GG, vol I, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaier R (2011) Verfassungsrechtliche Vorgaben für die Zulassung der Berufung im Verwaltungsstreitverfahren. NVwZ 2011:385–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogolin M (2015) Die deutsche Rechtskostenhilfe im Umbruch. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottwald P (2004) Von den Schwierigkeiten der Rechtsverfolgung einer “armen” Prozesspartei. In: Schilken E et al (eds) Festschrift für Walter Gerhardt zum 70. Geburtstag, pp 307–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (2006) Das staatliche Gewaltmonopol. In: Anders F, Gilcher-Holtey I (eds) Herausforderungen des staatlichen Gewaltmonopols: Recht und politisch motivierte Gewalt am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts, Campus, Frankfurt, pp 18–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzeszick B (2022) In: Dürig G, Herzog R, Scholz R (eds) Grundgesetz, 98th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn K (1880) Die gesammten Materialien zur Civilprozessordnung, vol I. Decker, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke A (2010) Verfassungsrechtliche Anforderungen an fachgerichtliche Prozesskostenhilfeentscheidungen. ZZP 123:193–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse K (1999) Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 20th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn D (2015) Vom Staat der Demokratie. Schöningh, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber PM (2018) In: von Mangoldt H et al (eds) GG, vol I, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber PM (2021) In: Herdegen M et al (eds) Handbuch des Verfassungsrechts. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Humborg M (2000) Das Armenrecht von der Zeit der Kammergerichtsordnungen bis heute. Dissertation, University of Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibler M (2022) In: Friauf W, Höfling KH (eds) Berliner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarass HD (2022) In: Jarass HD, Pieroth B (eds) Grundgesetz, 17th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein E (2010) Staatliches Gewaltmonopol. In: Depenheuer O, Grabenwarter C (eds) Verfassungstheorie. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein E (2018) In: Görres-Gesellschaft (ed) Staatslexikon, vol II, 8th edn. Herder, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunig P, Kotzur M (2021) In: von Münch I, Kunig P (eds) GG, vol I, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1991) Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 6th edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Linde (1833) Bemerkungen über die Zweckmäßigkeit der in Deutschland geltenden Grundsätze über das Armenrecht im Prozesse. AcP 16:51–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz W (2010) In: Häberle P (ed) Entstehungsgeschichte der Artikel des Grundgesetzes - Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, vol I, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Meents F (1975) Das Armenrecht im sozialen Rechtsstaat des Grundgesetzes. Dissertation, University of Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Möbius S (2014) Das Prinzip der Rechtsschutzgleichheit im Recht der Rechtskostenhilfe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers C (2006) Gewaltmonopol. In: Heun W (ed) Evangelisches Staatslexikon. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 804–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller F, Christensen R (2013) Juristische Methodik, vol I, 11th edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann W, Schaks N (2018) In: Sodan H, Ziekow J (eds) VwGO, 5th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel M (2016) Pkh-Antragsstellung - (k)ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln. NJW 2016:853–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestalozza C (1999) Artikel 19 IV GG - nur eine Garantie des Fachgerichtsweges gegen die Verletzung von Bundesgrundrechten i.S. der Art. 1-17 GG. NVwZ 1999:140–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A, Altwicker T (2022) In: Dörr O et al (eds) EMRK/GG Konkordanzkommentar, vol II, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Pikart E, Werner W (1993) Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948-1949, Akten und Protokolle, vol 5/I. Harald Boldt, Boppard am Rhein

    Google Scholar 

  • Puppe I (2023) Kleine Schule des juristischen Denkens, 5th edn. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehbinder M (1976) Die Kosten der Rechtsverfolgung als Zugangsbarriere der Rechtspflege. In: Rehbinder M (ed) Zur Soziologie des Gerichtsverfahrens - Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, vol IV. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 395–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Riese K (2022) In: Schoch F, Schneider JP (eds) VwGO, 42nd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg L et al (2018) Zivilprozessrecht, 18th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüthers B et al (2022) Rechtstheorie, 12th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs M (2021) In: Sachs M (ed) Grundgesetz, 9th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenke WR (1999) Die Rechtsschutzgarantie des Artikel 19 IV GG im Spiegel der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. In: Wolter F et al (eds) Einwirkungen der Grundrechte auf das Zivilrecht, Öffentliche Recht und Strafrecht. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 153–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenke WR (2009) In: Merten D, Papier JP (eds) Handbuch der Grundrechte, vol III. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenke WR (2020) In: Kahl W et al (eds) Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 207th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (2022) In: Dürig G, Herzog R, Scholz R (eds) Grundgesetz, 98th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Jortzig E (1994) Effektiver Rechtsschutz als Kernstück des Rechtsstaatsprinzips nach dem Grundgesetz. NJW 1994:2569–2573

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz R (1995) Justizgewährleistung und wirtschaftliche Leistungsfähigkeit. In: Gedächtnisschrift für Eberhard Grabitz. C.H. Beck, München, pp 725–745

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott R (1900) Das Armenrecht der deutschen Civilprozeßordnung. Fischer, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze-Fielitz H (2013) In: Dreier (ed) GG, vol I, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweigler D (2017) Materiell-rechtliche Implikationen der Rechtsschutzgleichheit und des effektiven sozialen Rechtsschutzes. SGb 2017:314–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobota K (1997) Das Prinzip Rechtsstaat. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sodan H (1987) Kollegiale Funktionsträger als Verfassungsproblem. Hermann Luchterhand, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Sodan H (2010) Das Verbot kollektiven Verzichts auf die vertragsärztliche Zulassung als Verfassungsproblem. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sodan H, Ziekow J (2020) Grundkurs Öffentliches Recht, 9th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuchschmid M (2006) Unentgeltliche Rechtspflege für juristische Personen? SJZ 2006:49 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voßkuhle A (1993) Rechtsschutz gegen den Richter. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Willenbruch K (1977) Das Armenrecht der juristischen Personen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Zippelius R (2012) Das Wesen des Rechts, 6th edn. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Nils Schaks

Authors
  1. Nils Schaks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nils Schaks .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Eva Storskrubb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schaks, N. (2023). “Equality of Legal Protection”: On the Constitutional Derivation of the Right to Legal Aid in Administrative Proceedings and Its Effects on Legal Persons. In: Storskrubb, E. (eds) YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2022. YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions, vol 2022. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2023_45

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2023_45

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38509-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38510-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation