Action junk room
A ruling by the First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 1968 is known under the name Aktion Rumpelkammer , also known as Lumpensammlerfall . The decision understands the personal and material scope of protection of religious freedom , Art. 4 GG, very broad and is therefore still trend-setting today.
| Action junk room | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
|
Decision announced October 16, 1968 |
||||
|
||||
| statement | ||||
| Freedom of religion is not only supported by the constituted churches, religious and ideological communities, but also associations that have made it their task not to all-round, but only to partial care of religious or ideological life (“religious associations”). The scope of protection of the fundamental right is to be interpreted broadly and also ensures, for example, that collections for church or religious purposes are organized. | ||||
| Judge | ||||
|
||||
| dissenting opinions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| Art. 4 Basic Law |
case
The Catholic rural youth movement in Germany , at that time an association with no legal capacity, organized the "Rumpelkammer" campaign throughout Germany, which gave the resolution its name. The association collected used clothing, rags and waste paper in order to support rural youth movements in poor countries with the proceeds from the resale - several million DM . The individual actions were not only made known through press releases, but were also promoted from the pulpit by Catholic clergymen during church services.
The operation of a commercial rag collector suffered considerably from the "Rumpelkammer" campaign. Not only did he not get any more rags, but he was also unable to sell the material he had collected “because the market was oversaturated”. Therefore, he took legal action against the rural youth. The Düsseldorf Regional Court thereupon condemned the rural youth movement “to refrain from preparing their collection of old material by advertising from the pulpit of the Catholic Church”. As a competitive act, this type of advertising is contrary to good morals , "because it has harnessed the Catholic Church and thus a non-competitive authority whose recommendations the people being sought usually listen to, for their advertising". She had "using the pastoral charisma of a pulpit proclamation gained an unjustified competitive advantage that her competitors are not offered". Both the rag collector and the rural youth movement lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.
decision
The court already considered the rag collector's constitutional complaint to be inadmissible. In response to the constitutional complaint by the rural youth movement, the Federal Constitutional Court overturned the judgment of the Düsseldorf Regional Court. Since the contested judgment only considers aspects of business dealings to be decisive for the prohibition of dismissal from the pulpit, it misunderstood the broadcasting effect of the fundamental rights for the interpretation of the general clause “ immorality ” ( indirect third-party effect ). The complainant's collection was namely part of the religious practice protected by Article 4 (2) of the Basic Law.
In addition, the court stated: The fundamental right under Article 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Basic Law is not only available to churches, religious and ideological communities, but also to associations that are not all-round but only partial care of their religious or ideological life Target members ("religious associations"). Consequently, the rural youth movement is suitable to be the bearer of the basic right.
The basic right to the undisturbed practice of religion, Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, is contained in the concept of freedom of belief and belief, Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The "practice of religion" must be interpreted broadly, since Art. 4 does not recognize any legal reservation , cannot be implemented under Art. 18 and is additionally protected in other parts of the constitution. It is true that ideological neutrality basically prohibits an ideologically bound interpretation of legal terms. Where in a pluralistic society the legal system presupposes a religious or ideological self-understanding, the state would, conversely, violate the granted independence if it did not take into account the self-understanding of itself when interpreting the religious practice resulting from a particular creed or ideology . According to the self-image of the rural youth movement, collecting the rags is a charitable activity because it was done for religious reasons. Accordingly, the area of protection of religious freedom is opened.
evaluation
The rag collectors case has significantly shaped the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court on religious freedom.
Personal protection area
First of all, the resolution deals with the important question of who is the holder of the fundamental right of religious freedom (“personal area of protection”). It was undisputed that everyone can invoke freedom of religion. It also seemed unproblematic that religious and ideological communities, regardless of their legal form, are bearers of the fundamental right. In the rural youth movement, however, that was unclear. It was harmless that it lacked “ corporate status ”. In contrast to, say, the Catholic Church itself, the rural youth movement did not cultivate the Catholic creed comprehensively, but only partially, namely with regard to work with young people. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to recognize such religious associations as carriers of religious freedom was trend-setting in view of their great importance (cf. Caritas , Diakonische Werke ). It has a parallel in the corresponding interpretation of the church's right to self-determination .
Material scope of protection
By seeing Article 4 (2) of the Basic Law as contained in paragraph 1, the court justified the understanding of Article 4 as a uniform fundamental right.
However, the principle recognition of the rural youth movement as the bearer of this basic right says nothing about whether collecting rags is actually protected as a religious practice. When the court answered this question in the affirmative, it acknowledged a very broad interpretation of religious freedom. This understanding dominates the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court on Article 4 of the Basic Law to this day. It is also important that the self-image of the holder of the fundamental rights should be decisive if it is to be clarified whether it is a question of religious practice. The case shows this very clearly: while the rag collectors pursues their trade, the rural youth movement, in the opinion of the court, makes use of its religious freedom with the same external activity. The focus on the respective self-image has therefore not remained undisputed. The court itself adhered to this in later decisions, but on the other hand again restricted the broad understanding by the fact that it had to be “actually a religion and religious community in terms of its spiritual content and external appearance”. In the event of a dispute, it is up to the state organs, ultimately the courts, to examine this and decide (see the Baha'i decision ).
Indirect third party effect
Finally, in the Lumpensammler case, the court transferred its case law on the indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights, which it had developed in the Lüth judgment for freedom of expression , to freedom of religion. It is true that basic rights do not have any direct third-party effect, which is why the rag-collector is not obliged to the rural youth movement by religious freedom. The general clause of immorality, which needs to be filled in, must be interpreted by the lower courts, in this case the regional court, with regard to the objective system of values of the Basic Law, because as part of the state they are in turn bound by fundamental rights.
Individual evidence
- ↑ wikt: Discontinuation in the Wiktionary , on the term "pulpit discontinuation "
