PDS decision
The so-called PDS decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court were two decisions based on requests from the group of members of the party of democratic socialism to grant them the same rights in the German Bundestag as those of a parliamentary group .
First PDS decision
The first PDS decision of July 16, 1991 clarified the rights of the so-called group in the German Bundestag.
facts
The 1990 Bundestag election was the first Bundestag election in a united Germany. For this election, the five percent hurdle applied separately to West and East Germany , so that it was enough to reach this hurdle in one of the two parts of the country to enter the Bundestag. This requirement was enforced by the Federal Constitutional Court, which decided on September 29, 1990 at the request of the parties Die Grünen , Die Republikaner and Linke Liste / PDS as well as on the basis of constitutional complaints from two list applicants and voters that the application of the five percent hurdle to the entire Federal territory of the right to equality of opportunity and equality of choice of Art. 21 para. 1 and Art. 38 para. 1 GG contrary.
In this way the PDS was able to move into the German Bundestag, since it received 11.1% of the second vote in East Germany, and was then represented with 17 seats in the Bundestag. Alliance 90 was able to move into the Bundestag in the same way (6.2% of the second vote in East Germany) and received eight seats. According to the rules of procedure of the German Bundestag, both of these were not sufficient to form a parliamentary group, so that the respective MPs only formed a group.
While the MPs of the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen party, together with Gregor Gysi, applied to reduce the minimum size for a parliamentary group to seven MPs, the other MPs of the PDS applied to recognize themselves as a parliamentary group. Both motions were denied and the MPs only granted group status.
Thereupon the group of members of the PDS turned to the Federal Constitutional Court and applied for a declaration that the Bundestag had violated its constitutional rights by denying it the status of a parliamentary group and thereby depriving it of numerous parliamentary rights.
Reason
The Federal Constitutional Court largely rejected the application as unfounded and only granted it to a small extent.
The court initially stated that the German Bundestag has a wide range of options when it comes to regulating parliamentary rights. This room for maneuver was not violated by the fact that the members of parliament were denied parliamentary status, nor by the fact that the Bundestag refused to lower the limit for recognition as a parliamentary group.
Otherwise, no rights of the MPs were violated. The Federal Constitutional Court made it clear that a group in all specialist committees also has the right to propose, speak and vote. The group also has the right to submit bills, motions, large and small inquiries. The group also has the right that the Bundestag actually deals with its initiatives in the legislative process, i.e. deliberates and decides on them.
The group does not have a right to be taken into account when assigning the chairmanship of committees and their representation, because this is not a member of the parliament. Likewise, the group cannot claim the right to submit rules of procedure or to assert requests in accordance with the rules of procedure, because this is neither a parliamentary right nor a constitutional claim can otherwise be derived from the basic rights. The same applies to the holding of Current Hours without any time limit, the right to membership in a committee of inquiry, a commission of inquiry or a mediation committee as well as the right to be elected as a representative of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and to be sent to the North Atlantic Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Conference .
The Federal Constitutional Court denied entitlement to the full parliamentary group subsidy because it could not identify any violation of the sufficient financial resources available to the MPs. It was highly controversial, however, whether a violation of the law of representatives lies in the fact that a group is not entitled to be taken into account when determining the members of the joint committee . The vote on this led to a stalemate at the Federal Constitutional Court (four against four judges), which meant that the application had to be rejected on this point as well.
The Federal Constitutional Court only declared the request to be justified insofar as a group was denied the right to representation in the sub-committees and it was also not entitled to be considered as a parliamentary group in the committee. This violates the parliamentary law resulting from Article 38.1 of the Basic Law. Otherwise the application was rejected.
Second PDS decision
The second PDS decision of September 17, 1997 specified the parliamentary rights of the group in the Bundestag.
facts
In the 1994 Bundestag election , the PDS failed again because of the five percent hurdle, based on Germany as a whole. However, it was still able to move into the Bundestag via the basic mandate clause , as it obtained four direct mandates in Berlin (including from Stefan Heym and Gregor Gysi ). There she had 30 seats and thus again too few to form a parliamentary group, so that the MPs again only formed a group.
The group of deputies of the PDS turned to the Federal Constitutional Court and requested again to determine that the Bundestag had violated its constitutional rights by denying it the status of a parliamentary group and thereby depriving it of numerous parliamentary rights.
Reason
The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the application in full because it saw no reason to deviate from its legal opinion in the previous decision. The Federal Constitutional Court justified the decision by stating that a constitutionally viable reason for setting a minimum parliamentary group strength lay in the autonomy of the German Bundestag to ensure the functioning of parliament through its rules of procedure:
"The differentiation between parliamentary groups and other associations is justified because it counteracts the risk that parliamentary work is hindered by a large number of - ultimately hopeless - motions from small groups."
In addition to the previous decision, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that it does not constitute a violation of the law of representatives if the Bundestag uses an electoral process for the election of its standing committees that disadvantages the group in comparison with another electoral process. The court justified this with the fact that all electoral procedures have their advantages and disadvantages and none more than others complies with the principle of equal treatment. In any case, the Bundestag did not exceed its discretion in determining the electoral procedure.
Likewise, it does not constitute a violation of the right to speak that a member of a group, unlike a member of a parliamentary group, cannot be given a minimum speaking time. This unequal treatment is objectively justified given the smaller size of the group.
Individual evidence
- ↑ BVerfG, judgment of July 16, 1991, Az. 2 BvE 1/91, BVerfGE 84, 304 - PDS / Linke Liste.
- ↑ BVerfG, decision of September 17, 1997. Az. 2 BvE 4/95, BVerfGE 96, 264 - parliamentary group and group status .
- ↑ BVerfG, press release of November 13, 1997, No. 96/97 .
