Due Post-legislative Process? On the Lawmakers’ Constitutional Duties of Monitoring and Revision

  • A. Daniel Oliver-LalanaEmail author
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 3)


In a considerable series of rulings the German Federal Constitutional Court has construed the Bonn Basic Law as requiring lawmakers to monitor the impacts of statutes and to revise or adjust them in the light of evolving legislative facts, which mostly compensates for the Court’s deference to legislative prognoses under conditions of high epistemic uncertainty. The legisprudential tenets of retrospection and correction are thereby converted into legal-constitutional duties (supposedly) binding on legislatures. Drawing on German case law, this chapter discusses the rationale, scope and shortcomings of this strand of review, and underlines the difficult role of ex post evaluation in the judicial control of legislation. A twofold thesis is submitted. On the one hand, a post-legislative doctrine may be expected to provide a dynamic protection of fundamental rights by smoothing the way for the courts to second-guess the constitutionality of statutes in retrospect without intruding into lawmakers’ primary competences to deal with social complexities. But, on the other hand, the German experience illustrates that such a doctrine is not easy to apply and remains under-enforced for the most part, which casts doubts on whether it is an effective safeguard of fundamental rights over time or whether, instead, it has a merely rhetorical or dilatory function. Finally, I argue that approaches to the constitutionalization of ex post evaluation like that of the German Constitutional Court, while being positive on the whole, should not obscure the problems that arise from the ex ante perspective under which legislation is usually reviewed, and suggest making more space for evaluation and impact arguments in constitutional review.


Constitutional Review Rational Lawmaking Monitoring and Revision Duties Ex-post Evaluation of Legislation Process Review 


  1. Albers, Marion. 2006. Die Verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung der Evaluierung neuer Gesetze zum Schutz der Inneren Sicherheit. In Menschenrechte – Innere Sicherheit – Rechtsstaat, 21–36. Berlin: Dt. Institut für Menschenrechte.Google Scholar
  2. Alexy, Robert. 2014. Formal principles: Some replies to critics. International Journal of Constitutional Law 14: 511–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augsberg, Ino, and Steffen Augsberg. 2007. Prognostische Elemente in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Verwaltungsarchiv 98: 290–316.Google Scholar
  4. Bar‐Siman‐Tov, Ittai. 2012. Semi‐procedural judicial review. Legisprudence 6(3): 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickenbach, Christian. 2014. Die Einschätzungsprärogative des Gesetzgebers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  6. Böhret, Carl, and Götz Konzendorf. 2001. Handbuch Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  7. Bussmann, Werner. 2010. Evaluation of legislation: Skating on thin ice. Evaluation 16(3): 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, Yooncheol. 2002. Die Pflicht des Gesetzgebers zur Beseitigung von Gesetzesmängeln. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  9. Coenen, Dan T. 2001. A constitution of collaboration. William and Mary Law Review 42(5): 1575–1870.Google Scholar
  10. Flückiger, Alexander. 2007. L’obligation jurisprudentielle d’évaluation legislative: une application du principe de précaution aux droits fondamentaux. In Les droits de l’homme et la constitution, ed. A. Auer, A. Flückiger, and M. Hottelier, 155–170. Genève: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  11. Geiger, Willi. 1979. Gegenwartsprobleme der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit aus deutscher Sicht. In Neue Entwicklungen im öffentlichen Recht, ed. Th Berberich et al., 131–142. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  12. Gusy, Christoph, and Anika Kapitza. 2015. Evaluation von Sicherheitsgesetzen – Eine Bestandsaufnahme. In Evaluation von Sicherheitsgesetzen, ed. Ch Gusy, 9–36. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  13. Höfling, Wolfram, and Andreas Engels. 2014. Parlamentarische Eigenkontrolle als Ausdruck von Beobachtungs- und Nachbesserungspflichten. In Gesetzgebung, ed. W. Kluth and H. Krings, 851–870. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.Google Scholar
  14. Hillenkamp, Thomas. 2009. Zur Beobachtungs- und Nachbesserungspflicht des Gesetzgebers im Strafrecht. In Festschrift für Ulrich Eisenberg zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H.E. Müller et al., 301–320. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  15. Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh, and Anthony Perl. 2009. Studying public policy. Policy cycles & policy subsystems, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  16. Huster, Stefan. 2003. Die Beobachtungspflicht des Gesetzgebers. Ein neues Instrument zur verfassungsrechtlichen Bewältigung des sozialen Wandels? Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 24: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan, Andrew, and Timothy O’Riordan. 2004. The precautionary principle: A legal and policy history. In The precautionary principle: Protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children, ed. M. Martuzzi and J.A. Tickner, 31–48. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  18. Keyaerts, David. 2013. Courts as regulatory watchdogs? In The role of constitutional courts in a context of multilevel governance, ed. P. Popelier et al., 269–289. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  19. Kloepfer, Michael. 1982. Gesetzgebung im Rechtsstaat. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL) 40: 65–98. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Majone, Giandomenico. 2002. What price safety? The precautionary principe and its policy implications. Journal of Common Market Studies 40(1): 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, Christian. 1996. Die Nachbesserungspflicht des Gesetzgebers. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  22. Meßerschmidt, Klaus. 2000. Gesetzgebungsermessen. Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz/Nomos.Google Scholar
  23. Meßerschmidt, Klaus. 2012. The race to rationality review and the score of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Legisprudence 6(3): 347–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morand, Charles-Albert. 1994. L’evaluation législative ou l’irrésistible ascension d’un quatrième pouvoir. In Contrôle parlementaire et évaluation, ed. A. Delcamp et al., 133–151. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  25. Nagel, Peter. 2010. Problemaffinität und Problemvergessenheit. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 63: 268–275.Google Scholar
  26. Noll, Peter. 1973. Gesetzgebungslehre. Hamburg: Rohwolt.Google Scholar
  27. Pabst, Hans-Joachim. 2012. Selbst und fremd auferlegte Beobachtungspflichten des Gesetzgebers. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung (ZG) 27: 386–401.Google Scholar
  28. Popelier, Patricia. 2013. The court as regulatory watchdog. In The role of constitutional courts in a context of multilevel governance, ed. P. Popelier et al., 249–267. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  29. Rossi, Peter H., et al. 1999. Evaluation. A systematic approach, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Sachs, Noah M. 2011. Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. University of Illinois Law Review 4: 1285–1338.Google Scholar
  31. Schlaich, Klaus, and Stephan Korioth. 2012. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  32. Schwerdtfeger, Gunther. 1977. Optimale Methodik der Gesetzgebung als Verfassungspflicht. In Hamburg, Deutschland, Europa. Festschrift für Hans Peter Ipsen, ed. R. Stödter and W. Thieme, 173–188. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  33. Tekin, Eda. 2013. Die Beobachtungs- und Nachbesserungspflichten des Gesetzgebers im Strafrecht. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  34. van Aeken, Koen. 2005. Legal instrumentalism revisited. In The theory and practice of legislation, ed. L.J. Wintgens, 67–92. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  35. van Aeken, Koen. 2011. From vision to reality: Ex post evaluation of legislation. Legisprudence 5(1): 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vanberg, Georg. 2005. The politics of constitutional review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  37. Wintgens, Luc J. 2012. Legisprudence. Practical reason in legislation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de DerechoUniversidad de Zaragoza, Ciudad UniversitariaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations