Sasbach decision
In the Sasbach decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 8, 1982 ( reference: BVerfGE 61, 82 - Sasbach ), the court specified the applicability of the fundamental rights to legal persons under public law.
facts
A nuclear power plant was to be built in the community of Wyhl am Kaiserstuhl . The neighboring community of Sasbach am Kaiserstuhl owned real estate near the planned nuclear power plant. This submitted an objection to the observance of the deadline within the one-month objection period and justified this a few days later, already outside the objection period, with feared impairment of the vineyards owned by the municipality. The responsible ministry rejected the objection as unfounded.
The community then moved to the Freiburg Administrative Court . This initially declared the action admissible in an interim judgment, as the objection was submitted on time, and the state's appeal was rejected by the Baden-Württemberg Administrative Court . The administrative court finally overturned the approval of the nuclear power plant in the final judgment. The appeal against this was successful and the Administrative Court overturned the judgment, as the objections were not submitted on time and legal recourse was therefore excluded. The revision of the municipality before the Federal Administrative Court was unsuccessful.
The municipality filed a constitutional complaint against this because it saw its right to property violated. According to the municipality, this is permissible because the property does not serve public tasks, but is managed purely by the private sector and is thus protected by fundamental rights.
Summary of the decision
The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint as obviously unfounded. Legal persons under public law cannot invoke fundamental rights, which has already been substantiated in the social security agency decision . Even if, as in this case, a legal person under public law leases real estate to persons, it cannot lodge a constitutional complaint on behalf of these persons in order to protect the basic rights of the tenants.
In contrast to the property of a private person, property of the public sector does not serve to be of use to the owner “as the basis of private initiative and in the self-responsible private interest”. The fundamental right to property does not protect the private property of a municipality, but the property of private individuals. This means that a constitutional complaint from legal persons under public law is inadmissible even when they own private property.
The fundamental right to effective legal protection is also not violated. It is true that the monthly period is actually quite short and it is hardly possible for a normal citizen to get expert advice within this short time in order to be able to lodge an objection. Nevertheless, the regulation is constitutional if the requirements for the content of an objection are not interpreted too high, so that even a citizen who is ignorant of the matter can submit a legally valid objection within the period.
Consequences of the judgment
The Sasbach decision is now considered an important decision in the area of constitutional law, which is also a topic in law studies.