Object formula

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The object formula denotes an attempt to determine the content of the human dignity protected by Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in more detail.

content

The object of protection under Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law is human dignity. The human being is understood as an end in itself. Due to the protection direction of the standard, the Basic Law statuiert human dignity as a defensive right against state violence while positive duty to protect the state. Within these requirements of the Basic Law, the human being must not be degraded to a mere object or means, which has an impact on the prerequisites for interference (what is meant is the vulnerable claim to respect as a legal claim with a creative mandate to the state authority) in the basic right. This determines the object formula used by the Federal Constitutional Court .

The object formula “fills the concept of human dignity with content from the point of violation.” This is violated “when the concrete person is degraded to an object, to a mere means, to an acceptable size.” In other words, Article 1, Paragraph 1, Basic Law protects the people before “that they are treated by the state or by their fellow citizens as a mere object that is at the complete disposal of another person, as a number of a collective, as a cog in the gears and that with it every own spiritual-moral or even physical existence is taken. "Evidence for acts of injury are situations that express themselves in the fact that" one cannot defend oneself or withdraw "," feel humiliated or completely superfluous ".

history

The object formula can be traced back to Josef Wintrich and was “made famous and important” by Günter Dürig . It ties in with Immanuel Kant's prohibition of instrumentalization .

The Federal Constitutional Court has resorted to the object formula in various decisions.

criticism

In recent discussions, the object formula has been criticized on various occasions: It is suitable “for identifying obvious conventional violations of human dignity, but otherwise has weaknesses in identification” and turns out to be a “passepartout for subjective evaluations of all kinds.” Its “ tautological element” is also problematic. Correspondingly, the Federal Constitutional Court also pointed out in the so-called interception ruling that “general formulas such as that human beings should not be degraded to the mere object of state authority [...] can only indicate the direction in which cases of violation of human dignity can be found can."

Since a more precise description of the content of human dignity is still lacking, the possibility of which is moreover doubted, in practice the "relevance of the object formula."

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d Matthias Herdegen , in: Theodor Maunz / Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law , 53rd Edition 2009, Art. 1 Para. 1 Rn. 33
  2. ↑ Günter Dürig, in Theodor Maunz / Ders .: Basic Law , 1958, Art. 1 Para. 1 Rn. 28, 34.
  3. ^ Christian Starck , in: Hermann von Mangoldt / Friedrich Klein / Ders. (Ed.): The Bonn Basic Law , 4th edition 1999, Art. 1 Para. 1 Rn. 16.
  4. ↑ Josef Wintrich, in: Festschrift for Privy Councilor Professor Dr. Wilhelm Laforet on the occasion of his 75th birthday , 1952, 227 (235 f.): “Since the community is built up from free, independent persons who, through their cooperation, realize the common good, the human being must also always“ purpose ”in the community and its legal system to himself "( Immanuel Kant ), he must never be degraded to the mere means of a collective, a mere tool or the object of a procedure without rights."
  5. ↑ a b Horst Dreier , in: Ders. (Ed.): Basic Law - Commentary , 2nd edition 2004, Art. 1 I Rn. 53.
  6. ↑ Immanuel Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals. Second part: Metaphysical foundations of the doctrine of virtue , 1797, § 38: “Humanity itself is a dignity; for man cannot be used by any man [...] merely as a means, but must at all times at the same time be used as an end and that is his dignity.
  7. ↑ Wolfram Höfling , in: Michael Sachs , Basic Law - Commentary , 5th edition 2009, Art. 1 Rn. 15th
  8. ↑ Examples are: BVerfGE 27, 1 , 6 - Microcensus; BVerfGE 28, 386 , 301 - sentencing; BVerfGE 45, 187 , 228 - Life imprisonment.
  9. ↑ BVerfGE 30, 1 - interception judgment.
  10. ↑ BVerfGE 30, 1 , 25 - interception judgment.
  11. ↑ a b cf. Volker Epping : Grundrechte , 3rd edition 2007, Rn. 582.