Bonndorf comparison

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bonndorf settlement was a 1927 contract between representatives of the Catholic parish of Bonndorf and the Republic of Baden and ended a legal dispute between the two parties that began in 1919. He regulated the state funding of the needs of a parish whose parish church belonged to a monastery that was secularized by the state .

prehistory

The Bonndorf parish church of St. Peter and Paul was incorporated into the Pauline Monastery of Bonndorf in 1402 . Since then, according to the parish, the monastery had satisfied the needs of the church, including those that arose after the incorporation. The monastery had thus achieved the status of a church factory . With the dissolution of the monastery as a result of the secularization of 1807, the duty to meet all religious needs was transferred to the Grand Duchy of Baden . The Baden state has also met these needs since then, with disputes about the scope of the obligations arising in the period before 1919, as the state refused to cover the heating costs for the church and sacristy as well as the costs of church lighting.

process

Therefore, the parish church or Catholic parish filed a lawsuit against the Baden domain treasury in 1919 and was represented by the Catholic Board of Trustees Josef Schmitt in Karlsruhe. The aim was the "recognition of the legal obligation incumbent on the domain treasury to heat the sacristy ... and the unrestricted duty of the treasury to satisfy the local church needs ... in the manner and to the extent that they are incumbent on a parish church property (church factory, church fund), So not only to the extent that it existed during the secularization and has since expanded quantitatively, but also to the extent that individual needs of a qualitatively new kind have arisen or are arising after the secularization. "

The trial took place in the first instance before the Karlsruhe Regional Court , which dismissed the part of the lawsuit that concerned the satisfaction of the new church needs. In the appeal lodged with the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court , the First Civil Senate ruled on March 3, 1920 that “the defendant has the unlimited duty to continue to satisfy the local church needs of the Bonndorf parish church to the extent that the defendant had previously that satisfaction, including future quantitative expansions. ”Otherwise, the lawsuit was dismissed.

This was followed by an appeal at the Reichsgericht , whose IV Civil Senate largely overturned the judgment on November 22, 1920 and referred it back "to the Court of Appeal for another hearing and decision", namely to its III. Civil Senate. The Reichsgericht agreed with the appellate court that "as a result of the incorporation of the Bonndorf parish church into the monastery, the Pauline monastery in Bonndorf was obliged under private law to dispute all the religious needs of the parish church." Reichsgericht turned this point of view into a legal error. The obligations under private law arising from the incorporation of the monasteries were not extinguished by the secularization, but were transferred to the secularizing states with the monastery assets confiscated in accordance with §§ 35, 36 of the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss . According to § 63 RDH "the previous religious practice of every country should be protected against annulment and insult of any kind, in particular for every religion the possession and undisturbed enjoyment of its peculiar church property, including debt funds ... remain undisturbed." “The 'church property' also includes the legal claim of the parish against the monastery to meet all church needs "

The Reichsgericht supported this legal opinion through further laws, such as the Prussian cabinet order of September 25, 1834, the first Baden Constitutional Edict of May 14, 1807 and a decision of the Badischer Oberhofgericht of June 27, 1871. That the Prussian Minister of Spiritual Affairs in his memorandum regarding the origin, the legal character and the scope of the liabilities of the Hanover Monastery Fund together with the list of these liabilities of November 14, 1877 "as the origin of the liabilities in the overwhelming majority of the 486 cases 'universal succession' to the assets of an abolished monastery" another reason for the Reichsgericht to set aside the appeal judgment in cases "as far as it is recognized to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs".

comparison

While after this ruling of the Reichsgericht, item 1 of the higher regional court ruling of March 3, 1920 had become legally binding, items 2 to 4 were for a renewed hearing and decision to the III. Senate of the Higher Regional Court been referred back. In addition to new evidence, in-depth reports should be obtained from university professors. In the course of long negotiations, however, a settlement was reached that should complete the process. This settlement, which found its way into legal literature as the Bonndorf settlement , was signed by the contending parties on June 10 and June 12, 1927, and on July 12 by Josef Schmitt, who has since become Minister of Finance in Baden, and on July 22, 1927 approved by the Archbishop's Ordinariate .

According to § 1 of the comparison, this extends not only to the parish church and the parish of Bonndorf, but also to the following parish churches and parishes:

According to § 3, the comparison refers to the satisfaction of those local church needs which directly or indirectly serve the practice of Roman Catholic worship (cult needs), i.e. do not belong to the building or beneficiary needs . The cult needs, in this sense, also include those needs, the satisfaction of which only indirectly promotes the holding of church services in the true sense, such as B. the sacristy heating.

According to § 4, the tax authorities are responsible for the satisfaction of the quantitative increase of the needs previously satisfied with regard to number 1 of the higher regional judicial ruling of March 3, 1920, which has become final.

According to § 5, however, this duty of the tax authorities also exists with regard to the needs previously satisfied by it, if they are to be satisfied by novel means or other forms.

According to § 6, however, the tax authorities' duty to satisfy the so-called new needs also extends, but here the tax authorities only have to bear 60%, while the parish church or parish has to provide the remaining 40%. The prerequisite for assuming the obligation of the Treasury to deal with the new needs to the specified extent is the recognition of the ordinariate that they are necessary and generally felt as a need in the Catholic churches of Baden and that they have been introduced everywhere where the circumstances require it.

According to these agreements, z. B. the replacement of a bellows treadmill for the organ by a motor power to the new means of previously satisfied needs. The need itself was not new, but the means to its satisfaction was. It was similar with the introduction of electric lighting in churches. In contrast, the introduction of a new church heating system, where it had not previously existed, was one of the new needs. However, where the state had previously paid for church heating , for example by means of stoves, the introduction of central or air heating was only a new means of a previously satisfied need.

aftermath

There had been disputes similar to those in Bonndorf in Constance as a result of the secularization of the Augustinian Hermitage and the obligation to build the Trinity Church . The legal successor of the monastery had been the municipal hospital foundation since 1802, some of which also refused to assume the costs. From 1951 the archbishop's board of trustees tried to reach an agreement with the city of Constance, in order to regulate the new church needs in particular. The agreement finally concluded on July 14, 1953 between the city of Konstanz and the Board of Trustees of the Trinity Parish explicitly mentions the Bonndorfer comparison and comes to the same result, whereby there is no explicit distinction between cult and building needs.

After the cult needs had been clarified in the Bonndorf settlement, but not the building requirements, the Archbishop's Board of Trustees and the Ministry of Finance of Baden-Württemberg concluded another agreement in January 1956, which also explicitly mentions the Bonndorfer settlement. It transfers its regulations analogously to the building needs, but at the same time maintains the distinction between the need for cult and the need for building. In August 1956, the corresponding agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Evangelical Upper Church Council followed.

The 60:40 regulation with regard to the satisfaction of new building needs can be found in the implementation regulations for the church building law of the Evangelical Higher Church Council in the amended version of 2008. The table of contents of the legal collection of the Archdiocese of Freiburg , the "all important church and constitutional regulations, which in the Archdiocese of Freiburg are to be applied ”, also still contains the Bonndorf settlement at the end of December 2015.

literature

  • Eugen Baumgartner : Parish church and parish of St. Urban in Freiburg-Herdern in: Freiburg Diocesan Archive , Volume 65, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1937, pp. 98-102, digitized
  • Anton Merkle: Hospital of the Holy Spirit and Trinity Church in Constance: Fundamentals and further development of old obligations in: Freiburg Diocesan Archive , Volume 107, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1987, pp. 199–211, digitized version (full print of the Bonndorfer comparison from p. 205)

Web links

  • Reichsgericht: Judgment file number: IV 264. Case: State as legal successor to the secularized monasteries. Opinionioiuris.de, November 22, 1920, accessed April 1, 2016 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Alexander Hollerbach : Catholicism and Jurisprudence: Contributions to Catholicism Research and the Modern History of Science , Ferdinand Schönigh, Paderborn / Munich / Vienna / Zurich 2004, p. 167, preview in the Google book search
  2. ↑ Merke, p. 199 ff.
  3. ↑ Merkle, p. 209 ff.
  4. ↑ Agreement on mandatory construction on church buildings. kirchenrecht-ekiba.de, August 15, 1956, accessed on May 4, 2016 .
  5. ↑ Implementing provisions for the Church Building Act. kirchenrecht-ekiba.de, August 12, 2008, accessed on May 4, 2016 .
  6. ^ Legal collection of the Archdiocese of Freiburg. Wingen Verlag, accessed on May 4, 2016 .