Article 11 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 11 of the German Basic Law (GG) guarantees the fundamental right of freedom of movement . This protects the possibility of a change of place of residence and residence as well as entry into the federal territory with regard to German citizens.

Normalization

Article 11 of the Basic Law - a work by Dani Karavan on the glass panes on the Spree side at the Jakob-Kaiser-Haus of the Bundestag in Berlin

Art. 11 GG has read as follows since its last amendment on June 24, 1968:

(1) All Germans enjoy freedom of movement throughout Germany.

(2) This right may only be restricted by statute or on the basis of a statute and only for those cases in which there is no sufficient livelihood and special burdens for the general public or in which it is necessary to avert an impending danger to the existence or the free democratic basic order of the federal government or a state, to combat the risk of epidemics, natural disasters or particularly serious accidents, to protect young people from neglect or to prevent criminal acts.

The basic right of freedom of movement protects the citizen's right to unhindered freedom of movement within Germany from sovereign interference . Therefore, it represents a right to freedom . This represents a basis for personal and economic development. Art. 11 GG is therefore closely related to many other guarantees of fundamental rights, such as freedom of occupation ( Art. 12 GG) and freedom of property ( Art. 14 GG ).

Art. 11 GG binds the state powers executive , legislative and judiciary according to Art. 1 Paragraph 3 GG . It therefore has no direct effect in relationships between private individuals. Art. 11 GG, however, as constitutional law, has an impact on subordinate norms, such as civil law . Through this indirect third-party effect , the basic right also has an effect among private individuals. For example, it restricts the right to contractually dispose of freedom of movement.

Emergence

Freedom of movement in the Middle Ages and in modern times

The first constitutional document in the German-speaking countries, which included a guarantee of freedom of movement, the Tuebingen agreement is from 1514. After that allowed each Württemberg citizens from Württemberg emigrate. Similar guarantees were guaranteed by the Augsburg Imperial and Religious Peace of 1555 and the Osnabrück Peace Treaty of 1648. Despite these regulations, freedom of movement was subject to severe restrictions in legal practice. Countries that pursued a mercantilist economic policy and, for example, banned or taxed emigration, sought comprehensive regulation of immigration and emigration . The serfdom further curtailed the free pulling of the population significantly.

Strengthening of freedom of movement in the 19th century

In the 19th century the German states began to dismantle barriers to free migration. The French Revolution played a major role in this . In Prussia, for example, the right to freedom of movement was strengthened by the October Edict of 1807, which abolished serfdom and hereditary servitude . The Federal Act of the German Confederation of 1815 guaranteed the right of every German to move to another German state. The practice, however, depended on the conditions of the receiving state. Section 133 of the Paulskirche constitution of 1849 standardized the right for every German to take up residence and residence anywhere in the Reich. This right could be further elaborated by law. Due to the resistance of numerous German states, however, the Paulskirche constitution did not prevail, so that this guarantee had no legal effect. However, some states oriented themselves on the guarantees of the Paulskirche constitution and guaranteed freedom of movement in their constitutions. The Austrian constitution of 1849 , for example, contained such a guarantee .

Free movement in the German Empire

The constitution of the German Reich of 1871 renounced the standardization of basic rights, so that it did not expressly guarantee freedom of movement. Article 3, however, provided for a uniform indigenous community for all of Germany . According to this, nationals of a German federal state had the right to be treated like its nationals in any other federal state. Accordingly, every member of a German federal state had the right to take up residence in another federal state under the same conditions as applied to its nationals. In the case of the indigenous community, it was a matter of equal treatment , which among other things protected elements of freedom of movement. In addition, the freedom of movement was regulated by simple law through the law on freedom of movement. This guaranteed every citizen of the empire the right to reside or settle in any place in the country where he could secure his own apartment or accommodation.

Freedom of movement in the Weimar Constitution

Article 111 sentence 1 of the Weimar Constitution (WRV) of 1919 guaranteed freedom of movement for Germans as a fundamental right. This guarantee, like the corresponding guarantee in the Paulskirche constitution, secured the freedom to reside and settle at any location. According to Art. 111 Sentence 2 WRV, however, this freedom could be restricted for any constitutional purpose by Reich law.

The guarantee of freedom of movement was supplemented by Art. 112 WRV, which granted every German the right to emigrate from Germany. This freedom was subject to considerable restrictions in the late phase of the Weimar Republic through regulations that put financial burdens on leaving Germany, such as the Reich flight tax .

During the National Socialist era , the guarantees of the Weimar Imperial Constitution continued to apply formally, but were largely undermined by numerous measures.

Free movement in the Basic Law

After the end of the Second World War, the guarantee of freedom of movement in Art. 111 WRV was initially subject to severe restrictions by the occupying powers.

In the course of the development of the Basic Law, the Parliamentary Council created a basic right of freedom of movement, which it standardized in Article 11 of the Basic Law. Disputes within the council were its relationship to freedom of occupation and the inclusion of the freedom to leave the country in its protection area. The first question was solved by the separate regulation of freedom of movement and freedom of occupation, the latter by excluding the freedom to leave the country from Article 11 of the Basic Law. After the Basic Law came into force, Art. 11 GG has so far been modified once. By law of June 24, 1968, the legislature created additional possibilities to restrict the basic right of free movement in the course of the introduction of the emergency constitution.

The constitution of the GDR from 1949 guaranteed in its article 10 paragraph 3 the right of every citizen to emigrate. This right could be restricted by law. It was removed from the constitution in 1968.

Protection area

Art. 11 GG protects the citizen against interference with his freedom of movement. To this end, the standard guarantees a sphere of freedom that sovereigns may only intervene under certain conditions. This sphere is called the protection area . If the sovereign intervenes in this and this is not constitutionally justified, he violates Article 11 of the Basic Law.

Jurisprudence differentiates between the personal and factual areas of protection. The personal protection area determines who is protected by the fundamental right. The objective area of ​​protection determines which freedoms are protected by the fundamental right.

Personally

Article 11 (1) of the Basic Law guarantees freedom of movement for Germans, which is why this fundamental right is a German right . All German citizens are deemed to be Germans in accordance with Article 116, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law . It is controversial in jurisprudence whether citizens from other member states of the European Union can invoke Article 11 (1) of the Basic Law. According to one opinion, the prohibition of discrimination in Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires that Union citizens are treated as Germans within the framework of German rights, so that they are protected by Article 11 (1) of the Basic Law. The opposite view assumes that this contradicts the unambiguous wording of the German law, so that EU foreigners are not protected by Art. 11 GG. The Federal Constitutional Court has not yet taken a clear position on this issue.

Domestic associations of persons , in particular legal persons under private law, can be carriers of freedom of movement in accordance with Art. 19 Paragraph 3 GG. A legal person is domestic if its actual center of action is in the territory of the Federal Republic. The free movement of foreign legal persons is therefore not protected by Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. Associations that are based in other EU countries also have a special position here: If they are active in Germany, they can, according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, like domestic associations, invoke German rights such as Article 11 (1) of the Basic Law, as otherwise they would not have any fundamental rights protection possessed what would be incompatible with Art. 18 TFEU.

Factual

The factual area of ​​protection of freedom of movement protects the right to freely reside and reside anywhere within Germany. The term `` taking up residence '' refers to the establishment of a permanent place of business based on Section 7 of the German Civil Code (BGB). In return, residence describes lingering in a certain place, provided this has a certain meaning for the holder of fundamental rights. How this meaning is determined is controversial in jurisprudence. In some cases, the focus is on temporal characteristics, so that short-term stays are not protected by Art. 11 GG. According to a counter-view, the area of ​​protection of Art. 11 GG is opened if the free movement to the respective place serves to establish a center of life.

In addition to the free movement of persons, the free movement of their assets is subject to the protection of freedom of movement. Entry into the federal territory is still protected. As a negative downside of freedom of movement, Art. 11 GG also protects the right not to take up a certain place of residence or not to go to a certain place.

According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, departure and emigration from Germany are not protected by Art. 11 GG , as the guarantee of freedom of movement only relates to the federal territory. A counter-view also assumes that leaving the federal territory is subject to the protection of Article 11 of the Basic Law, since freedom of movement generally protects the openness of the Federal Republic.

Art. 11 GG gives the citizen no right to keep a place as home. If a citizen is therefore deprived of real estate, for example, this does not fall within the scope of protection of freedom of movement, but that of the property guarantee ( Art. 14 GG).

Fundamental rights competitions

If the area of ​​protection of several fundamental rights is affected in one issue, these are in competition with one another.

Compared to the general freedom of action ( Art. 2 Paragraph 1 GG), the freedom of movement as a special right of freedom is more special . As far as the area of ​​protection of Art. 11 GG is opened, the general freedom of action is therefore suppressed as a subsidiary basic right. Article 2 paragraph 1 of the Basic Law applies to the free movement of foreigners , as these are not covered by the personal protection of Article 11 of the Basic Law. Likewise, only the general freedom of action is the predominant view of protecting the departure from the federal territory.

If the holder of the basic rights wishes to move freely for professional reasons, it is controversial in jurisprudence whether the freedom of movement stands independently alongside the basic right of freedom of occupation ( Art. 12 GG) or whether it takes a back seat to this guarantee.

To ensure physical freedom through Art. 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 GG, Art. 11 GG has an exclusivity relationship: While freedom of movement relates to the right to move to a certain place, physical freedom covers movement from a place.

Intervention

An encroachment occurs when the guarantee content of a basic right is shortened by sovereign action. Measures that make it difficult or impossible for the citizen to move freely, such as a residence ban, can be considered as interventions .

Whether in addition, as with other fundamental rights, behavior that indirectly affects freedom of movement can constitute an encroachment on fundamental rights is a matter of dispute. Opponents argue that Article 11 of the Basic Law only provides justification for direct interference, so that the basic right does not refer to indirect interference. For the basic inclusion of indirect restrictions on freedom of movement, it is stated that these can shorten the exercise of the freedom protected by fundamental rights as well as direct interventions.

Justification of an Intervention

If there is a sovereign interference in the freedom of movement, this is lawful if it is constitutionally justified. Article 11 (2) of the Basic Law permits the restriction of freedom of movement through or on the basis of a federal or state law. Such a restriction may only be made for the purposes listed in Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law. Art. 11, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law thus standardizes a qualified legal reservation . According to the prevailing view, the term law in the context of Art. 11 Paragraph 2 GG only means formal laws . This refers to laws created through a constitutional legislative process . Basis of an interference with the free movement is either the law itself or adopted on the basis of ordinance .

In order for a law to interfere with freedom of movement or to provide the basis for such interventions, it must be in conformity with the constitution in both formal and material terms.

The formal constitutionality of a law presupposes that it is based on a competence title and has been passed in a proper legislative process. The competence to regulate the freedom of movement lies exclusively with the federal government according to Article 73 paragraph 1 number 3 GG. The federal states are therefore not allowed to enact laws that are primarily intended to restrict freedom of movement. However, it is possible for them to enact laws which are primarily attributable to a national competence and which only incidentally reduce the freedom of movement. This applies, for example, to the general law to avert danger, which restricts freedom of movement with the provisions on the prohibition of residence .

Material constitutionality presupposes that the law is sufficiently determined by clearly showing the nature and extent of possible interventions. Furthermore, in accordance with the citation requirement contained in Art. 19, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 of the Basic Law, the intervening law must explicitly name Art. 11 of the Basic Law as a restricted fundamental right.

After all, the interference that the law exerts must respect the principle of proportionality . This constitutional principle, which applies to all fundamental rights, is intended to prevent fundamental rights from being impaired more than is necessary. According to the principle of proportionality, an encroachment on fundamental rights is only lawful if it pursues a legitimate purpose, is suitable for promoting it and is necessary and appropriate for this purpose.

Reservations of intervention of Art. 11 Paragraph 2 GG

Art. 11, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law finally lists the goals that can be considered legitimate purposes for restricting freedom of movement and which can thus constitute the basis for encroaching on freedom of movement.

Protection against epidemics and accidents is a legitimate goal . These are dangers to the general public that can hardly be controlled by humans. The Parliamentary Council saw plague and cholera as epidemics . The Infection Protection Act, for example, serves to combat them , which among other things allows the restriction of freedom of movement in order to contain the dangers of an epidemic. The reservation of intervention of the natural disaster also serves to ward off dangers for the general public. This was created in the course of the introduction of the emergency constitution. Its purpose is to give the legislature the opportunity to maintain public order in the event of a disaster and to ensure that the danger situation is dealt with in a coordinated manner.

Furthermore, Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law cites the protection of young people from neglect as a goal. In this context, young people are considered to be people who are not of legal age . There is a risk of neglect if the physical, emotional or mental well-being of a young person threatens to deteriorate permanently. This reservation is based on, for example, Section 10 (1) numbers 1 and 2 of the Youth Courts Act , which allow judges to issue instructions to young people regarding their whereabouts and accommodation.

In addition, freedom of movement may be restricted in order to prevent criminal acts. This objective relates to preventive security measures that serve to prevent criminal offenses that go beyond a minor offense in terms of their severity. This is the purpose of being evicted, evicted from housing and being banned from staying. Other examples are the order of the police supervision or preventive detention . Addressee of the free movement restriction only one may be the one for the risk responsibility is.

Restrictions on freedom of movement can also be used to ward off an internal emergency . This is an imminent danger to the existence of the federal government or a state or to the free and democratic basic order . This applies to a coup , for example .

Finally, freedom of movement may be restricted if the holder of fundamental rights does not have a sufficient livelihood. This is the case if it cannot be assumed that the holder of the fundamental right earns his or her own living. For example, the restrictions for people who are dependent on state benefits such as social assistance or unemployment benefit II , such as integration agreements, are based on this objective of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law . In order for the right to freedom of movement to be restricted, the lack of a livelihood for the holder of fundamental rights must cause particular burdens for the general public. For example, the Federal Social Court ruled that unemployment benefit II recipients are allowed to move, even if the living space in the new area is more expensive. Otherwise the principle of equality ( Art. 3 GG) and freedom of movement are violated. A restriction of the free choice of place of residence according to Art. 11 Paragraph 2 GG is therefore only possible within a municipality. However, the state is not obliged to financially enable the actual exercise of freedom of movement through additional payments, e.g. for moving costs . Regardless of this, those cases should be considered in which there are special reasons for moving, such as an apartment that is too small or an illness. In particular for citizens of other nationalities , there were restrictions on freedom of movement, especially in the post-war period, in order to promote financial burden sharing between the federal states. Recently there have been restrictions again for ethnic German repatriates from Eastern Europe (until December 31, 2009). These people lost their entitlement to social assistance when they left their assigned place of residence and moved. This was also done in view of the controversial practice of accommodating asylum seekers or repatriates in independent accommodations and in order to keep the financial burdens of severely affected communities within limits, although fear of a lack of state control and purposes of deterrence due to unfavorable living conditions can play a role. With regard to ethnic repatriates, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the restriction to be constitutional in a judgment of March 17, 2004.

Reservations to intervene in Art. 17a paragraph 2 GG

Another possibility of restricting freedom of movement arises from Article 17a paragraph 2 of the Basic Law. According to this, the freedom of movement of members of the armed forces and alternative service may be restricted, provided this serves the purpose of defense. In the context of Art. 17a GG, the concept of defense covers the case of defense and other areas of national defense. For example, Article 17a (2) of the Basic Law is based on Section 18 of the Soldiers Act , which obliges soldiers to live in shared accommodation in the event of a corresponding official order.

Reservations to intervene due to conflicting constitutional law

Finally, freedom of movement can be restricted by conflicting constitutional law. This possibility is not written down in the basic law, but it arises from the fact that constitutional norms do not displace one another in the event of a conflict, but are brought into a relationship of practical concordance . For example, the freedom of movement of a child can be restricted by parental custody protected by Article 6, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law .

European references

A reference to the guarantee of freedom of movement in the Basic Law have by Art. 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ensured (TFEU) general freedom of movement and by Art. 45 guaranteed TFEU fundamental freedom of movement for workers on. Art. 21 (1) TFEU grants every Union citizen the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Art. 45 TFEU guarantees free access to employment within the Union. Closely related to the free movement of workers are the freedom of establishment ( Art. 49 TFEU) and the freedom to provide services ( Art. 56 TFEU). These apply to companies and self-employed entrepreneurs.

Art. 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights extends the right to free movement to the territory of the European Economic Area , ie the European Union as well as Iceland , Liechtenstein and Norway as well as Switzerland . Within this area, people can move and reside freely across borders without needing a visa .

However, the right of residence is not absolute. In order to be allowed to stay in another EU / EEA member state, the resident citizens must either be at work or looking for a job, study or otherwise have sufficient financial means and provide evidence of health insurance in order not to burden the social security systems of the host country become. The states may require citizens of other EU / EEA countries to report their stay to the registration authorities after a certain period of time. EU / EEA countries are allowed to repatriate citizens of other countries and to issue exclusion orders against them in public areas, public safety and health care. Union citizens who, for example, commit serious crimes or who come to the host country to become dependent on social security, may be returned. However, they must have the opportunity to appeal against the exclusion orders within a maximum of three years. Under no circumstances may an EU / EEA state exclude a citizen of another member state for life.

Every EU / EEA citizen who has completed a period of five years of uninterrupted residence has the right to permanent residence that is no longer conditional on their presence. They are thus also entitled to receive social security benefits. Permanent residence can only be canceled after a two-year absence.

In Austria , Art. 4 of the Basic Law guarantees the free movement of persons and property within the national territory. In Switzerland, free movement is a freedom in Article 24 of the Federal Constitution guarantees to all Swiss citizens as a fundamental right. This right protects residence at any location within Switzerland as well as free entry and exit from Switzerland. Since Switzerland is not a member of the EU , it is - unlike the surrounding countries, all of which with the exception of Liechtenstein are EU members - dependent on signing bilateral agreements on freedom of movement with other countries. This is used to control immigration to Switzerland .

literature

  • Manfred Baldus : Art. 11. In: Christian Volker Epping, Christian Hillgruber (Hrsg.): Beck'scher Online-Comment GG , 34th Edition 2017
  • Hermann-Josef Blanke : Art. 11 . In: Klaus Stern, Florian Becker (Ed.): Basic rights - Commentary The basic rights of the Basic Law with their European references . 2nd Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28265-1 .
  • Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 . In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  • Thomas Gnatzy: Art. 11 . In: Bruno Schmidt-Bleibtreu, Hans Hofmann, Hans-Günter Henneke (eds.): Commentary on the Basic Law: GG . 13th edition. Carl Heymanns, Cologne 2014, ISBN 978-3-452-28045-9 .
  • Christoph Gusy: Art. 11 . In: Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein, Christian Starck (eds.): Commentary on the Basic Law. 6th edition. tape 1 . Preamble, Articles 1 to 19. Vahlen, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-8006-3730-0 .
  • Hans Jarass: Art. 11 . In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Comment . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  • Martin Pagenkopf: Art. 11 . In: Michael Sachs (Ed.): Basic Law: Comment . 7th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66886-9 .
  • Christian von Coelln: Art. 11 . In: Christoph Gröpl, Kay Windthorst, Christian von Coelln (eds.): Basic Law: Study Commentary . 3. Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-64230-2 .

Web links

Wikisource: Law on Free Movement of Persons. From November 1, 1867 (North German Confederation)  - Sources and full texts

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 14 In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  2. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 50. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  3. ↑ Manfred Baldus : Art. 11, Rn. 1 . In: Christian Volker Epping, Christian Hillgruber (Hrsg.): Beck'scher Online-Comment GG , 34th edition 2017
  4. ^ BGH, judgment of April 26, 1972, IV ZR 18/71 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1972, p. 1414.
  5. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 8-10. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  6. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 12-17. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  7. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 19-22. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  8. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 1. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  9. ↑ a b Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 23-24. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  10. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 25. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (Ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  11. ↑ a b Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 26. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (Ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  12. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 27-35. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  13. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 14 In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  14. ↑ Christian von Coelln: Art. 11 , Rn. 3. In: Christoph Gröpl, Kay Windthorst, Christian von Coelln (eds.): Basic Law: Study Commentary . 3. Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-64230-2 .
  15. ↑ Hans Jarass: Preparation before Art. 1 , marginal no. 19-23. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Comment . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  16. ^ Friedhelm Hufen: Staatsrecht II: Grundrechte . 5th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-69024-2 , § 6, Rn. 2.
  17. ↑ Hans Jarass: Preparation before Art. 1 , marginal no. 19-23. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Comment . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  18. ^ Friedhelm Hufen: Staatsrecht II: Grundrechte . 5th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-69024-2 , § 6, Rn. 2.
  19. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 12 , Rn. 12. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  20. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 12 , Rn. 12. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  21. ↑ Winfried Kluth: The basic right of freedom of occupation - Art 12 para 1 GG . In: Jura 2001, p. 371.
  22. ↑ Thomas Mann: Art. 12 , Rn. 34-35. In: Michael Sachs (Ed.): Basic Law: Comment . 7th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66886-9 .
  23. ↑ Gerrit Manssen: Art. 12 , Rn. 267. In: Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein, Christian Starck (eds.): Commentary on the Basic Law. 6th edition. tape 1 . Preamble, Articles 1 to 19. Vahlen, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-8006-3730-0 .
  24. ^ Thomas Mann, Esther-Maria Worthmann: Occupational freedom (Art. 12 GG) - structures and problem constellations . In: Juristische Schulung 2013, p. 385 (386).
  25. ↑ Martin Pagenkopf: Art. 11 , Rn. 13. In: Michael Sachs (Ed.): Basic Law: Comment . 7th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66886-9 .
  26. ↑ BVerfGE 129, 78 (94) : application extension.
  27. ↑ BVerfGE 2, 266 (273) : Emergency room.
  28. ↑ BVerfGE 80, 137 (150) : Riding in the forest.
  29. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 2. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  30. ↑ BVerwGE 3, 308 (312).
  31. ^ Lothar Michael, Martin Morlok: Grundrechte . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3871-7 , § 9, marginal no. 330
  32. ↑ Thorsten Kingreen, Ralf Poscher: Fundamental rights: Staatsrecht II . 32nd edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2016, ISBN 978-3-8114-4167-5 , Rn. 888
  33. ↑ Gerrit Manssen: Staatsrecht II: Grundrechte . 13th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68979-6 , Rn. 586.
  34. ↑ Martin Pagenkopf: Art. 11 , Rn. 14. In: Michael Sachs (Ed.): Basic Law: Comment . 7th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66886-9 .
  35. ↑ BVerfGE 6, 32 (35) : Elfes.
  36. ↑ BVerfGE 72, 200 (245) : Income tax law.
  37. ^ Lothar Michael, Martin Morlok: Grundrechte . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3871-7 , § 9, marginal no. 331.
  38. ↑ BVerfGE 134, 242 (327) : Garzweiler.
  39. ↑ BVerfGE 35, 382 (399) : expulsion from foreigners.
  40. ↑ Bodo Pieroth: The fundamental right of freedom of movement (Art 11 GG). In: Juristische Schulung 1985, p. 81 (82).
  41. ↑ BVerfGE 6, 32 (34) : Elfes.
  42. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 6. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  43. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 167. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (Ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  44. ↑ Bodo Pieroth: The fundamental right of freedom of movement (Art 11 GG). In: Juristische Schulung 1985, p. 81 (88).
  45. ^ Volker Epping: Basic rights . 8th edition. Springer, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-662-58888-8 , Rn. 758
  46. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 166. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  47. ^ Michael Sachs: Constitutional Law II - Basic Rights . 3. Edition. Springer, Berlin 2017, ISBN 978-3-662-50363-8 , Chapter 8, Rn. 1.
  48. ↑ Bodo Pieroth: The fundamental right of freedom of movement (Art 11 GG). In: Juristische Schulung 1985, p. 81 (85).
  49. ↑ BVerfGE 110, 177 (191) : Free movement of ethnic German repatriates.
  50. ^ Volker Epping: Basic rights . 8th edition. Springer, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-662-58888-8 , Rn. 747
  51. ^ Volker Epping: Basic rights . 8th edition. Springer, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-662-58888-8 , Rn. 748.
  52. ↑ Christoph Gusy: Art. 11 , Rn. 52. In: Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein, Christian Starck (eds.): Commentary on the Basic Law. 6th edition. tape 1 . Preamble, Articles 1 to 19. Vahlen, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-8006-3730-0 .
  53. ↑ Philip Kunig: The fundamental right to freedom of movement . In: Jura 1990, p. 306 (311).
  54. ↑ BVerfGE 106, 62 (104) : Altenpflegegesetz.
  55. ^ Friedrich Schoch: The fundamental right of freedom of movement (Art. 11 GG). In: Jura 2005, p. 34 (37-38).
  56. ↑ BVerfGE 86, 28 (40) : Appointment of experts.
  57. ↑ Gerrit Manssen: Staatsrecht II: Grundrechte . 13th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68979-6 , Rn. 595.
  58. ↑ Matthias Klatt, Moritz Meister: The principle of proportionality . In: Legal Training 2014, p. 193.
  59. ^ Volker Epping: Basic rights . 8th edition. Springer, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-662-58888-8 , Rn. 751
  60. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 145-147. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  61. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 148. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  62. ↑ BVerfGE 60, 79 (91) .
  63. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 149. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (Ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  64. ↑ Christoph Gusy: Art. 11 , Rn. 62. In: Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein, Christian Starck (eds.): Commentary on the Basic Law. 6th edition. tape 1 . Preamble, Articles 1 to 19. Vahlen, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-8006-3730-0 .
  65. ↑ Frederik Rachor: Chapter E , Rn. 459. In: Erhard Denninger, Frederik Rachor (ed.): Handbuch des Polizeirechts: Danger defense - criminal prosecution - legal protection . 5th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-63247-1 .
  66. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 152. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  67. ↑ Christian von Coelln: Art. 11 , Rn. 21. In: Christoph Gröpl, Kay Windthorst, Christian von Coelln (eds.): Basic Law: Study Commentary . 3. Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-64230-2 .
  68. ↑ BVerwGE 3, 135 (140).
  69. ↑ BSGE 106, 147 .
  70. ↑ BVerfGE 110, 177 : Free movement of ethnic German repatriates.
  71. ↑ Wolfgang Durner: Art. 11 , Rn. 158. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (Ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
  72. ↑ Manfred Baldus: Art. 11 , Rn. 27-27.1 . In: Christian Volker Epping, Christian Hillgruber (Hrsg.): Beck'scher Online-Comment GG , 34th edition 2017
  73. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 19. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  74. ↑ Hans Jarass: Art. 11 , Rn. 19. In: Hans Jarass, Bodo Pieroth: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: Commentary . 28th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66119-8 .
  75. ↑ Hermann-Josef Blanke: Art. 11 , Rn. 63. In: Klaus Stern, Florian Becker (Hrsg.): Basic rights - commentary The basic rights of the Basic Law with their European references . 2nd Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28265-1 .
  76. ↑ Unrestricted immigration has given Switzerland a huge redistribution in favor of entrepreneurs and at the expense of the Swiss “Büezer”. In: weltwoche.ch 46/2009 (editorial).