Division of the Reich's property according to the Basic Law

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The division of the Reich's assets is regulated in Article 134 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (GG).

Creation of the imperial fortune

When the Basic Law came into force , a decision had to be taken on the assets of the German Empire, founded in 1871 . This initially had only limited powers within the executive branch ; Buildings had to be procured for the relevant administrative authorities and the military. The law on the legal relationships of objects intended for official use by a Reich administration (Reich Property Law) of 1873 stipulated in § 1 sentence 1:

"The property and the other real rights which the individual federal states have granted to the German Reich are entitled to all objects devoted to the official use of an administration to be maintained constitutionally from Reich funds."

In doing so, within the framework of its constitutional powers , the Reich basically acquired ownership of assets that had previously been used by the member states for official purposes. Further transfers of tasks (so-called realizations) took place during the Weimar Republic and the so-called Third Reich and led to corresponding increases in assets. In addition, the Reich acquired assets through expropriations , on a contractual basis and, to a lesser extent, through fiscal inheritance law .

Constitutional starting point

According to the prevailing opinion, the German Reich did not go under in connection with the end of the National Socialist dictatorship and the defeat in World War II . The Federal Republic of Germany was viewed as partially identical to the Reich . The Reich was only unable to act due to a lack of organs. Due to the division of Germany and the federal structure of the Federal Republic, however, it was necessary to make arrangements for the division of the Reich's assets. This happened through Article 134 of the Basic Law and later laws.

The territorial scope of application is limited to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The standard presupposes the establishment and existence of a federal asset management system.

The provisions of Art. 134 GG

Assets of the German Reich (examples):

Art. 134 is in the XI. Section of the Basic Law Transitional and Final Provisions . Special regulations compared to Art. 134 GG contain Art. 89 GG on former Reich waterways and Art. 90 GG on former Reichsautobahn and Reichsstraßen.

Paragraph 1:

"The assets of the empire are basically federal assets."

With this regulation, the Reich property becomes federal property by virtue of (basic) law . The previously held view that paragraph 1 contained a mere program sentence is outdated. The main area of ​​application is real estate, since a large part of the realm's other assets were destroyed by the war and the national bankruptcy or confiscated by the war opponents. But movable property, claims and other rights were also included. The industrial state holdings belonged to a large extent to the state of Prussia . The Reich assets are to be distinguished from the assets of the NSDAP and its organizations, whose legal fate was regulated by acts of the occupying powers and later German legislation. Whether Art. 134 GG also includes liabilities, ie the Reich's liabilities, in addition to assets, is controversial, but due to the regulation of Art. 135a (1) GG, it is not of practical importance. However, the assets can also have a negative economic value, e.g. B. former Wehrmacht ammunition, the clearance of which still costs the federal government considerable sums today.

Paragraph 2:

"To the extent that, according to its original purpose, it was primarily intended for administrative tasks which, according to this Basic Law, are not administrative tasks of the federal government, it is free of charge to the responsible authorities and, insofar as it is used for administrative tasks that are not only temporary according to this Basic Law now have to be fulfilled by the federal states, transferred to the federal states. The federal government can also transfer other assets to the states. "

This regulation is intended to provide the responsible bodies of administrative authorities with the necessary assets. With this provision, the Basic Law takes up the distinction that goes back to Paul Laband between state assets in administrative assets (sentence 1) and financial assets (referred to in sentence 2 as “other assets”).

Paragraph 3:

"Assets that have been made available to the Reich by the states and municipalities (community associations) free of charge become assets of the states and municipalities (municipal associations), unless the federal government needs them for its own administrative tasks."

With this regulation, the aforementioned "attainment" of assets is reversed. As an exception, the so far sentence regulates that the obligation to transfer to the federal states and municipalities does not apply if the federal government itself needs the asset for its own administrative task. In Section 5 of the Reich Property Law, this property is referred to as the fallback property . The term reversion assets was also used.

Paragraph 4:

"The details are regulated by a federal law that requires the approval of the Bundesrat."

Implementing laws are in particular the Reich Property Law and the General Law on Consequences of War .

Allied regulations

With the Military Government Act No. 52, in force since July 14, 1945, the Reich's assets were confiscated in the three western occupation zones and in Berlin (West). In the American zone - before the constitution came into force - Act No. 19 came into force on April 20, 1949. It transferred the imperial property to the territorial states, partly as full ownership, partly in trust for the future German state. The federal government was granted the right to reverse the transfer of ownership to the states. A similar regulation was made after the Basic Law came into force in the French occupation zone through Ordinance No. 217 (in force since June 3, 1949). In Ordinance No. 202, issued on September 6, 1949, the British military government only made provisions for the administration of the Reich's assets and left the ownership structure unaffected. Similar regulations applied to Berlin (West).

These provisions were largely repealed by the law of the Allied High Commission No. A 16 of May 4, 1951.

Executive laws

Preliminary law

The law on the provisional regulation of the legal relationships of the Reich assets and the Prussian holdings (so-called preliminary law ) created provisional regulations, because one could not wait for the entry into force of the final legal regulation, which only took place in 1961 and then had to be implemented administratively. It canceled transfers of imperial assets that the occupying powers had directly decreed in a statutory provision. The legality based on individual acts of the military governments had to be judged according to general legal principles. Orders by which one of the federal states has transferred assets to itself, to another regional authority , public-law institution of this state or a legal person under private law, will be declared pendingly ineffective until a decision by the Federal Minister of Finance . The management of the assets falling under the provisions of Section 1 (1 ) was transferred to the regional finance directorates (federal property and construction departments) . Insofar as these assets were to be transferred to new authorities (in particular the federal states) in accordance with Article 134 (2) of the Basic Law, the administration could be transferred to the federal states or municipalities by means of an ordinance requiring approval (Section 6 (2)).

Ordinance of July 26, 1951

The ordinance for the implementation of Section 6 of the Act on the Provisional Regulation of the Legal Relationships of Reich Assets and Prussian Shareholdings (in force since August 1, 1951) transferred the administration of imperial assets to the federal states, insofar as the assets came into force on May 24, 1949 (Basic Law entered into force) were dedicated to sovereign tasks which, according to the Basic Law, were wholly or predominantly the responsibility of the federal states. The transfer of the administrative responsibility for reversed assets to a state or a municipality presupposed that the assets belong to the reversed assets in a special procedure (Section 11 of the Ordinance).

Reich property law

Basic data
Title: Law regulating the legal relationships of the Reich
assets and Prussian holdings
Short title: Reich property law
Abbreviation: RVermG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Public law
References : 640-1
Issued on: May 16, 1961 ( BGBl. I p. 597 )
Entry into force on: August 1, 1961
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

It was only around twelve years after the Basic Law came into force and ten years after the preliminary law came into force that the implementing law for Articles 134 and 135 of the Basic Law - subject to approval - could be passed. During this time the federal and state governments fiercely fought over the division of the remaining imperial assets.

Regulations in the Unification Treaty

According to the legal opinion of the GDR, the German Reich as a legal subject had perished. His assets, like the assets of other public owners and expropriated private assets, became “ public property .” The Unification Treaty (EV) had to regulate how the assets of the GDR were to be divided between the federal government, states, municipalities, the trust company and other public legal entities. The transfer of imperial property into state property of the GDR was accepted as effective by the Federal Republic of Germany in the negotiations on the Unification Treaty. Therefore, the state assets were not according to Art. 134 et seq. GG, but divided according to other criteria.

In Article 21 EV, the administrative assets were allocated according to the functional principle to the level for whose tasks they were used according to the competencies of the Basic Law. However, if these assets were the property of a public corporation (e.g. federal states and municipalities) before they were publicly owned, they were in accordance with Art. 21 para. 3 EV to transfer this back; accordingly, former imperial property became federal property.

Public property of the GDR, which does not directly serve specific administrative tasks, was transferred to the federal government in trust by Art. 22 Unification Treaty. Ultimately, the total asset value of the financial assets should be divided equally between the federal government and the new states by federal law. Art. 21 para. 3 EV applies accordingly to these assets. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Property Assignment Act (VZOG), if the requirements of Section 11 (1) VZOG are met, the acquisition of property by the federal government is deemed not to have taken place (in some cases parallel to the reasons for excluding restitution in Section 5 of the Property Act). The new Länder took the view that Article 21 (3) EV should be interpreted in the light of Article 134 of the Basic Law. The federal government denied this. Both the federal government and the federal states were able to base their positions on legal opinions from university professors. The federal states could not prevail before the courts. The Federal Administrative Court ruled on September 28, 1995 in a landmark judgment that rejected the state's appeal in a legal dispute between the Free State of Thuringia and the Federal Republic of Germany :

“The provisions of the Basic Law on the transfer of Reich property are not applicable to property left by the GDR. The regulation on the distribution of the former Reich assets is constitutional. "

“The legislature was constitutionally not obliged to distribute the former imperial property that had been converted into public property by the GDR, true to the pattern set out in Article 134 of the Basic Law. [...] The allocation of public assets does not serve to settle accounts with the past; it should create the basis for an orderly political, economic and social development for the future [...]. The settlement of the national bankruptcy must therefore start from the given specific situation and allocate the public assets left behind in a way that enables them to fulfill their tasks. "

"The plaintiff sees a violation in the fact that the new federal states, in contrast to the old federal states, are deprived of their formerly" attained "assets for no objective reason. It therefore presupposes that such property, regardless of the fact that in 1990, as public property of the GDR, it was no longer Reich property, should be regarded as essentially the same as the Reich property allocated in 1949. Even this assumption is wrong, since it does not take into account the initial situation that is decisive for a task-oriented distribution of public property, ignores the legal development of the former Reich property in the four decades of the existence of the GDR and wrongly assumes that the property allocation serves to restore the property before the May 8, 1945. "

Ultimately, the federal government largely accepted the demands of the federal states - while maintaining its legal position

  • by the aforementioned regulation of § 16 VZOG,
  • by letting the federal states, due to budgetary regulations, any real estate to be sold for the establishment of an administration or for other public purposes at a price of 20% of the market value or even free of charge.

Special regulations for Berlin

Legal position since 1949

When applying federal law in Berlin (West), the Allied right of reservation had to be observed. In the letter of approval of May 12, 1949 for the Basic Law, the (Western) military governors demanded that Berlin “will not be governed by the federal government”. As a result, federal laws in Berlin (West) only became effective when they were adopted by the Berlin House of Representatives . In No. VII of the "Declaration of the Allied Commanderships over Berlin" of May 5, 1955 it says:

“The Berlin legislation comes into force in accordance with the provisions of the Berlin Constitution. In the event of non-compliance with Allied legislation, or with other measures of the Allied authorities, or with the rights of the Allied authorities on the basis of this declaration, the Berlin legislation can be repealed or declared null and void by the Allied Command. "

Due to this reservation, the Allied Commandant forbade the adoption of the Reich Property Law.

The Basic Law, and thus also its Article 134 and the preliminary law, came into force in Berlin. In Section 19 of the Reich Property Law, u. a. In order to dispel reservations by the Allies, exceptions were provided for certain issues for Berlin: The provision on relapse property did not apply because the federal government's need for administrative assets could only be finally clarified after reunification. Another exception was the compensation for damage caused by the stationing of objects that had to be transferred to Berlin under the RVermG. Incidentally, Section 21 contained the usual Berlin clause : Applicability in accordance with the Third Transitional Act also in the State of Berlin. Due to the above-mentioned reservation, the Allied Kommandantura forbade the adoption of the Reich Property Law.

The power of disposal over land in Berlin (West) had to be de facto regulated by mutual agreement between the federal government and the Berlin Senate . In principle, the land registers in which the German Reich was entered as the owner or holder of other rights were not rewritten until reunification.

Legal situation since 1990

In connection with the reunification, the two-plus-four treaty regulated u. a. the end of allied occupation rights for Berlin. It was therefore necessary to lift the previous restrictions on the application of federal law in West Berlin. Section 1 of the Act on the Transition of Federal Law to Berlin (West) (Sixth Transition Act) stipulated that federal law, which was not or not fully applicable in Berlin (West) due to allied reservation rights, would be unrestricted in Berlin from the entry into force of this law ( West) applies. This also included the Reich Property Law. The motivation of the legislature to abolish all special regulations for Berlin (West) due to division arises from the justification for the government draft. It says there to § 1 sentence 1:

“Because of the large number of laws and ordinances involved and the associated risk of creating a confusing and incomplete regulation, a concrete transition to each individual legislative act concerned must be dispensed with. Instead, all federal law that was previously not or only partially applicable due to allied reservation rights in Berlin (West) will be extended there by means of a general clause. It basically covers all federal legislative acts that do not contain any Berlin clauses, a negative Berlin clause or a positive Berlin clause but with a general reference to the Allied reservation rights (so-called split Berlin clause), as well as those legislative acts that Contain individual regulations that are provided with a regulation (exclusively) excluding Berlin (e.g. Section 59 (2), Section 60 (3) Federal Immission Control Act, Section 29a (3) Waste Act, Section 3 (1) sentence 3 Animal Disease Act ). As a result, all Berlin clauses and regulations become irrelevant. The articles, paragraphs, paragraphs or sentences previously occupied by these in the individual laws and ordinances can in future be assigned new regulations. "

The entry into force of the law was regulated in Section 5 as follows:

“(1) This law comes into force at the point in time at which the Allied rights of reservation with regard to Berlin cease to exist or are suspended. (2) The Federal Foreign Office announces the date of entry into force in the Federal Law Gazette. "

The Allied rights of reservation finally ceased to exist with effect from March 15, 1991 (the date on which the last instrument of ratification of the Two-Plus-Four Treaty was deposited ), but the Allied rights of reservation were suspended by the Convention on the Settlement of Certain Issues relating to Berlin . In this agreement of the three Western Allies, which the governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic took note of, their reservation rights were suspended “from the time of the unification of Germany”. This point in time was October 3, 1990, so that the Sixth Transitional Act and thus the Reich Property Act came into force in Berlin (West) at this point in time. The Berlin Senate (mis) understood the law to mean that although it basically came into force in Berlin (West), it was due to Section 19 (1) RVermG

"§ 5 does not apply in the state of Berlin. A special regulation is reserved in this respect. "

a special regulation is still required for the ability to fall back. For this reason, Berlin missed the one-year deadline in Section 5, which - as stated - began on October 3, 1990. Since the federal government refused to issue a special regulation , Berlin initiated, through the Bundesrat, a draft law to amend the Reich Property Law. According to this, the start of the period in Berlin (West) should not be October 3, 1990, but the day on which this amending law came into force. The Federal Government did not approve the draft law because it was based on false legal premises: The Sixth Transitional Act fulfills a double function: On the one hand, with effect from October 3, 1990, it brought into force federal law (including the ReichsVermG), which had been suspended by the Allies' reservation ; on the other hand, it represents the “special regulation for Berlin” demanded in § 19 as such. The deadline for asserting the ability to fall back in accordance with Section 5 (1) sentence 2 RVermG had expired within one year after the RVermG came into force. On June 16, 2005, the Bundestag rejected the bill.

As a result, Berlin initiated a judicial review procedure at the Federal Constitutional Court to the effect that Section 19 RVermG was incompatible with Article 134 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Basic Law and the federal ban on equal treatment. With this application, Berlin was defeated before the Federal Constitutional Court: The legislature had fulfilled its regulatory mandate under Article 134 Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Basic Law by introducing the fallback procedure regulated in § 5 RVermG on October 3, 1990 in the State of Berlin. There are no constitutional concerns about this regulation. Reasons that could have prevented the state of Berlin from asserting its recidivism claims in due time are not apparent. However, Berlin could have this question (rights preventing preclusion) clarified through administrative law.

After this decision, Berlin brought an action against the Federal Agency for Real Estate Tasks before the Berlin Administrative Court . The Berlin Senate claimed the surrender of land in the former western part of the city as well as the surrender of proceeds that the federal government had collected from the sale of such land that Berlin claimed as fallback assets. It was about land with an area of ​​approx. 6.8 million m² with a value of over € 200 million as well as sales proceeds of more than € 55 million. After a successful action in the first instance, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg dismissed the action with a judgment of December 8, 2011, but allowed the appeal. The Federal Administrative Court finally dismissed the action in a judgment of September 11, 2013, since the State of Berlin was solely responsible for the failure to meet the deadline. The court's press release stated:

“By refusing to meet Berlin’s claims to the ability to relapse, the defendant did not ultimately violate the general legal principle of good faith. There is neither a case of inadmissible exercise of the law nor a violation of the prohibition of contradicting behavior or the obligation to take advantage of an event that has been caused or prevented in breach of trust. The behavior of the federal government was not the reason why the state of Berlin missed the statutory deadline. "

literature

  • On the Basic Law and the legal situation in the old federal states as well as overarching presentations:
    • List of comments on the Basic Law
    • Karl Heinrich Friauf : State assets. In: Josef Isensee, Paul Kirchhof (ed.): Handbook of the constitutional law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Volume 5. 3rd edition. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg a. a. 2007, ISBN 978-3-8114-5522-1 .
    • Ernst Féaux de la Croix : Explanations of the law on the provisional regulation of the legal relationships of the Reich property and the Prussian holdings of July 21, 1951. The German Federal Law. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden (loose-leaf collection, 30th delivery).
    • Ders .: The legal reorganization of the Reich property. A contribution to the problem of Article 134, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. Public Law Archives No. 77 (1951/1952), pp. 35–46.
    • Peter Beyss: Explanations on the law regulating the legal relationships of the Reich property and the Prussian holdings (Reich property law) of May 16, 1961. The German Federal Law. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden (loose-leaf collection 171th delivery).
    • Richard Bartlsperger : The relapse of former imperial assets used under stationing law . For the execution and application of Art. 134 of the Basic Law (=  publications on public law. Volume 665). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1994, ISBN 3-428-08123-4 .
  • On the legal situation in Berlin (West) before October 3, 1990:
    • Hermann Siebenhaar: The current legal situation of the "Reich property" in Berlin. (A contribution to the question of identity between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Reich). In: Legal review. 1959, pp. 207-211.
    • Ernst R. Zivier: The legal status of the state of Berlin. An investigation according to the Four Power Agreement of September 3, 1971. 3rd edition. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 1977, ISBN 3-87061-173-1 .
    • Dieter Schröder : The status of Germany in Berlin. On the practice of the western powers. In: Gottfried Zieger (ed.): Law, economy, politics in divided Germany. Festschrift for Siegfried Mampel on his 70th birthday. Cologne 1983.
  • On the legal situation in Berlin after October 2, 1990:
    • Richard Bartlsperger: The relapse of former imperial assets used under stationing law . For the execution and application of Art. 134 of the Basic Law (=  publications on public law. Volume 665). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1994, ISBN 3-428-08123-4 , pp. 162-175.
  • On the legal situation in the acceding area
    • Uwe Berlit : Land assets in the federal state. The distribution of wealth between the Federation and the East German states as a federal problem. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 1994.
    • Manfred Lange: Who owns the former public property? - Basic questions of Art. 21 and 22 Unification Ordinance. In: German-German legal journal. (DtZ) 1991, pp. 329-336.
    • Hugo J. Hahn : Requirements and scope of the acquisition of rights according to Art. 21 III Unification Treaty and its relationship to Art. 134 and 135 GG. In: Series of publications by the Federal Ministry of Finance. Issue 50, Bonn 1993.
    • Lucia Eckert: Public Assets of the Former GDR and Unification Treaty. In: Series of publications by the Federal Ministry of Finance. Issue 53, Bonn 1994. (At the same time, Diss. Jur. University of Würzburg 1993/94.)
    • Lucia Eckert: The allocation of former imperial assets according to Art. 21 Unification Treaty. In: Journal of Property and Real Estate Law. (VIZ) 1995, pp. 78-84.

Oddities

In 1984 the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic agreed that they would waive sovereign rights in the Upper Mundat Forest and in return receive civil property. The federal government derived its power of disposal from the acquisition of rights under Article 134 of the Basic Law. A retired notary applied to the Landau District Court to appoint him as a curator to represent the interests of the German Reich against the Federal Republic of Germany. Since the area in question was already under French administration when the Basic Law came into force, in his opinion the Weimar Constitution was still in force there (and not the Basic Law). The district court's decision allowing it was overturned by the Landau Regional Court after a complaint from the Federal Government, as there was no doubt that the area in question was part of the Federal Republic of Germany and that the Basic Law, including Art. 134 GG, applied there.

Web links

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Text of the Reich Property Law
  2. ↑ See on this Paul Laband Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches. Volume 4. (Reprint of the 5th edition Tübingen 1914.) Scientia Verlag, Aalen 1964, pp. 355-362.
  3. ↑ Cf. Rodenbach in: Schmidt-Bleibtreu / Franz Klein : Commentary on the Basic Law. 12th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2011. Art. 134 para. 4th
  4. ↑ Cf. Rodenbach in: Schmidt-Bleibtreu / Franz Klein : Commentary on the Basic Law. 12th edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2011. Art. 134 para. 2.
  5. ↑ BGHZ 3, 308; BGHZ 8, 169; BGH NJW 1958, 308; BVerwGE 25,299.
  6. ↑ General opinion, cf. Dietlein , in v. Mangoldt / Klein / Starck , GG III, Art. 134 para. 3.
  7. ↑ See Paul Laband: Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches. Volume II. 2nd edition. 1891.
  8. ↑ See info box.
  9. ↑ On the measures taken by the occupying powers, see the presentation in the government draft for the RVermG, Bundestag printed matter 3/2357, p. 8 f.
  10. ↑ (Official Journal AHK p. 881)
  11. ^ Of July 21, 1951 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 467 ).
  12. ↑ This law and the RVermG also concern the transfer of Prussian holdings to the federal government. They are therefore also implementing laws for Article 135 (6) of the Basic Law. This subject matter is not addressed in this article.
  13. ↑ From July 26, 1951 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 471 ).
  14. ↑ Often wrongly cited as Reich Property Law or Reich Property Law.
  15. ↑ See answer of the Parliamentary State Secretary Jürgen Echternach of April 5 to a question from MdB Eberhard Brecht , Bundestag printed matter 12/7202, page 8.
  16. ↑ Cf. the answer of the federal government of January 5, 1993 to the small inquiry from members of parliament and the PDS / Linke Liste group "Assignment of former Reich assets", Bundestag printed matter 12/4065.
  17. ↑ BVerwG, judgment v. September 28, 1995 - 7 C 57.94 - BVerwGE 99.283.
  18. ↑ Critically on this, Dietlein, in v. Mangoldt / Klein / Starck, GG III, Art. 134 para. 16.
  19. ↑ See Ernst R. Zivier: The legal status of the state of Berlin. An investigation according to the Four Power Agreement of September 3, 1971. 3rd edition. Berlin Verlag, Berlin 1977, ISBN 3-87061-173-1 , p. 90 ff.
  20. ↑ Printed in: Dietrich Rauschning (Ed.): Völkerrecht. Treaties and other acts on the legal status of Germany. Goldmann Verlag, Munich, ISBN 3-442-08044-4 .
  21. ^ Dieter Schröder : The status of Germany in Berlin. On the practice of the western powers. In: Gottfried Zieger (ed.): Law, economy, politics in divided Germany. Festschrift for Siegfried Mampel on his 70th birthday. Cologne, 1983, pp. 71-91 (85).
  22. ^ From September 25, 1990 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2106 ).
  23. ↑ Bundestag printed matter 11/7824.
  24. ^ Announcement on the entry into force of the contract on the final regulation with regard to Germany of March 15, 1991 ( Federal Law Gazette II p. 587 ).
  25. ^ From October 1, 1990 ( Federal Law Gazette II p. 1331 ).
  26. ^ Gunnar Schuster: International law practice of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990. In: Journal for foreign public law and international law . 1992 (vol. 52) p. 828 (1026 ff). Accessed April 17, 2013 (PDF; 15.3 MB)
  27. ↑ Bundesrat printed matter 642/03 of 9 September 2003.
  28. ↑ Bundestag printed matter 15/2135, p. 8.
  29. ↑ Bundestag website (PDF; 204 kB)
  30. ↑ Decision of January 15, 2008 - 2 BvF 4/05 - BVerfGE 119, 394.
  31. ↑ Press release No. 64/2013.