Allotment garden I decision
The allotment garden I decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of June 12, 1979 ( reference: BVerfGE 52, 1 - allotment garden ) is an important decision in constitutional law, which specifies the property right anchored in Art. 14 GG .
facts
The legal regulations on allotment garden law , which largely originated from the time of the Second World War , declared lease agreements for allotment gardens to be non-terminable by the lessor and only permitted termination by the lessor in certain exceptional cases, which had to be approved by the authorities; Existing fixed-term lease contracts were unlimited.
One property owner stated that he would not extend the fixed-term allotment garden lease beyond the end of the fixed term, but the lessee refused, referring to the non-cancellability regulation. The owner failed in the first instance, in the appeal proceedings the Bavarian Administrative Court decided to submit the question to the Federal Constitutional Court as to whether the regulations of the allotment garden law are compatible with the constitutionally protected right to property.
Summary of the decision
The Federal Constitutional Court declared the non-cancellability regulations of the allotment garden law to be incompatible with the Basic Law. In contrast to the Bavarian Administrative Court, however, the court did not see any expropriation in the regulation contrary to the constitution, as the corresponding regulations were passed before the constitution came into force and were legal under the constitution at the time.
The property right enshrined in the Basic Law provides for the owner to have a basic right of disposal over his property. The Basic Law allows restrictions for the benefit of the general public, while the needs of both the owner and the general public must be considered and weighed against each other.
Neither is the case with the allotment garden regulations. The owner is inadmissibly restricted in his need for disposal because he is in fact unable to sell his property due to the non-cancellable lease agreement. The regulations on non-cancellability also place a one-sided burden on him without experiencing any advantages. The regulations may have been justifiable at the time, because due to the tense supply situation during the war, the allotment gardens were intended to supply the population with food, but such a basis for legitimation is no longer given today. In addition, allotment gardens hardly serve as a direct food supply, but are mostly used for leisure and recreation.
Likewise, the justification cannot be given that the allotment gardens must be preserved because there are not enough land for allotment gardens in the municipalities. Since the provision of allotment garden land is the responsibility of the municipalities, the property owners cannot be held responsible if the municipalities fail to meet this obligation.
Consequences of the judgment
Only a few years later, the allotment garden II decision followed , which deals with the consequences of a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The allotment garden I decision is a regular theme in law studies today.