Party order procedure

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A party order procedure is an arbitration procedure in parties , in which party penalties up to and including exclusion from the party can be imposed.

Party regulation procedure in Germany

basis

The party order procedure is regulated in the statutes of the respective party. In most cases, parties also have rules of arbitration (mandatory in Germany) that regulate the details.

In Germany, the parties are obliged in accordance with Section 10 of the Political Parties Act in their articles of association

  • the permissible regulatory measures (party penalties)
  • the reasons for regulatory measures and
  • the competent bodies (party arbitration courts) for determining regulatory measures

to regulate.

Party penalties

The following are often provided as party penalties:

  • the issuing of a complaint,
  • the temporary withdrawal of the right to hold party offices and functions
  • the temporary suspension of membership rights
  • the expulsion from the party.

Reasons for regulatory measures

Reasons that entitle you to take regulatory measures can, for example, B. be

  • Violations of the statutes, financial regulations or other regulations of the party
  • Violations of the order of the party
  • Violation of the principles of the party

If the party punishment is expulsion from the party, stricter requirements are required, which are laid down in Section 10 (4) of the PartG. A member can be expelled from the party if he intentionally violates the statutes or seriously violates the principles of the order of the party and thus causes serious damage.

Party-damaging, for example, according to the statutes of the CDU , who

  • also belongs to another political party,
  • in meetings of political opponents, in whose radio or television broadcasts as well as in the press, takes a stand against the fundamental policy of the Union,
  • appears as a candidate against the Christian Democratic Union in the election of a representative body,
  • is elected to a representative body as a candidate of the Christian-Democratic Union and does not join or leave the Christian-Democratic parliamentary group,
  • publishes confidential party proceedings or passes them on to political opponents,
  • Misappropriating assets owned or available to the party.

Party arbitration tribunals

In Germany, according to Section 14 of the PartG, parties are obliged to set up party arbitration tribunals. The members may not be party board members (at the same level) at the same time and may be elected for a maximum of four years.

In urgent and serious cases that require immediate intervention, the articles of association can provide that the party executive as the first instance to impose party penalties.

Federal Arbitration Commission of the SPD

The Federal Arbitration Commission is the highest party arbitration court of the SPD. The members of the Federal Arbitration Commission are independent and not bound by instructions. It guarantees legal protection possibilities in particular for the benefit of party members and the boards of the branches. They serve to safeguard intra-party democracy, to guarantee the membership rights of party members and to ensure the order of the party.

Chair:

  • Thorsten Jobs

vice-chairman:

  • Heike Werner

Assessor:

  • Kristin Keßler
  • Gabriele Nieradzk
  • Thomas Notzke
  • Johannes Risse

Federal Arbitration Court BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN

The Federal Arbitration Court (BSchG) is the highest jurisdiction of BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN. The Federal Arbitration Court decides on:

  • Complaints against decisions of the regional arbitration courts
  • Disputes between the federal association and regional associations, between the federal association and associations, between regional associations, between regional associations that do not belong to the same regional association, as well as between bodies of the associations mentioned
  • Challenges to elections and decisions of the federal organs
  • the provisions of a regional arbitration tribunal in individual cases if the regional arbitration tribunal which is competent is not properly staffed

A specific decision by a federal body is therefore always a prerequisite for direct access. Otherwise, the responsible regional arbitration court must always be called upon first. The specific measure taken by the opponent must always harm the interests of the person concerned. The federal arbitration tribunal consists of a chairman, a deputy and two assessors, who are elected for two years by the federal delegates' assembly. The members may not be on a board of a party division or on the party council. There must also be no financial or professional dependency on the party. The members of the Federal Arbitration Court are currently:

  • Hartmut Geil (Chairman)
  • Anna von Notz (Deputy Chair)
  • Lars Kramm (assessor)
  • Paula Riester (Deputy Assessor)
  • Cyrus Zahedi (Deputy Assessor)

DIE LINKE Federal Arbitration Commission

According to the federal statutes, arbitration committees are to be formed to settle and resolve disputes in the party or a regional association with individual members and disputes about the interpretation and application of the federal statute and subordinate regulations and to decide on contesting elections by the party congress and by the party congresses of the state associations.
The currently incumbent Federal Arbitration Commission was elected at the 2nd session of the 6th Party Congress on February 22, 2019 in Bonn. You belong to:

  • Marion Baumann (Berlin)
  • Wolfgang Fieg (Saarland)
  • Niklas Gießler (Saxony)
  • Petra Hennig (Saarland)
  • Karsten Knobbe (Brandenburg) - Chairman
  • Barbara Laakmann (North Rhine-Westphalia)
  • Frank Nieswandt (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania)
  • Birgit Stenzel (Berlin) - deputy chairwoman
  • Tom Michael divorce (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania)
  • Eva Vogt (Baden-Wuerttemberg)

Legal process

In Germany, the party must ensure that there is a review body against the decision of the competent arbitral tribunal. This is typically done through the arbitration tribunal of the higher regional party organization.

Members have the option of bringing civil law action against decisions of the party arbitration tribunals ( Section 1059 ZPO ).

Party penalties to discipline MPs

The violation of party principles is often a reason for party penalties. This can lead to a conflict with the principle of the free mandate of the MP if he has to fear that his voting behavior in parliament, which contradicts the resolutions of party committees, will be held accountable for party penalties. Defined as the Arbitration Rules of the SPD : "Against the principles of the SPD for violating particular, ... who is persistently decisions of the Congress or the party organization contrary." Public attention excited the party planning procedure against Carmen Everts , Silke Tesch and Jürgen Walter , who after State elections in Hesse in 2008 in accordance with the election promises of the SPD, but, contrary to the party congress resolutions after the election, refused to support the formation of a government with the support of the Die Linke party in parliament. In April 2010 the SPD announced to Silke Tesch that the Federal Arbitration Commission had given her a reprimand. Your appeal against an 18-month ban on functioning was thus successful. Tesch had argued that the freedom of conscience of members of parliament should not be restricted by party decisions. On March 27, 2009, the competent arbitration commission of the SPD sub-district Wetterau decided that Walter's membership rights in the party would be restricted for two years in such a way that he was only allowed to work for the local association; his appeal was denied in August 2009.

Party order procedures in (party) dictatorships

In party dictatorships , membership in the ruling party (s) is an instrument for participating in the power of that party. Membership in the party is associated with perks and career opportunities. In a party dictatorship, therefore, party penalties represent an essential instrument of power of the party. The party penalties pronounced by the Supreme Party Court of the NSDAP or the Central Party Control Commission of the SED could have correspondingly far-reaching consequences .

In the socialist states in particular , enforcing party discipline was a constitutive element of party dictatorship. According to the principle of “ democratic centralism ”, the specifications of the higher party instance were binding for the lower ones. For example B. for the SED:

“The organizational structure of the party is based on the principle of democratic centralism. This principle states: ... c) that all decisions of the higher party organs are binding for the subordinate organs, strict party discipline is to be exercised and the minority as well as the individual subordinate themselves to the decisions of the majority in a disciplined manner. "

- Paragraph 23 of the Statute of the SED 1976

Accordingly, a violation of the requirements presented above was a reason for party order proceedings.

"Anyone who violates the unity and purity of the party, does not fulfill its resolutions, has violated party and state discipline ... to be held accountable."

- Item 8 of the Statute of the SED

The party members were heavily dependent on the SED. Party penalties or even exclusion from the party resulted in the loss of function and job outside the party as well as the loss of privileges.

Party regulations in Switzerland

The Switzerland has no law on political parties . The parties are organized as associations. Party order procedures and party exclusions can therefore be regulated individually for each party. The legal basis are Articles 60 to 79 of the Civil Code . A further individualization results from the fact that most parties exist as associations at the cantonal level. In the national political parties, it is not the individual members but the cantonal parties that are members.

Party regulation procedure in Austria

The procedure is comparable to that in Germany. The individual parties have the following regulations:

  • The ÖVP has pursuant to §§ 65 and 66 of the Organization Statute on state and one federal party dish. The latter has five members. The procedure itself is regulated in the party court order.
  • The SPÖ has set up party arbitration tribunals in accordance with its arbitration rules. The party congresses elect arbitration committees made up of at least 10 members. From this list, each of the two conflicting parties chooses half of the members of the specific party arbitration tribunal. These can impose sanctions up to and including exclusion from the SPÖ.

literature

  • Block, Nils: The party jurisdiction of the NSDAP. European University Papers: Series 2, Law, Vol. 3377, Lang, 2002, ISBN 3-631-39097-1 .
  • Büdding, Meike: Party arbitration at federal and state party level with special consideration of the years 1990–2000. Dissertation Bocholt 2003.
  • Hasenritter, Karl-Heinrich: party order procedure. Heidelberg 1981. ISBN 3-76853781-1 .
  • Henke, Wilhelm: The right of political parties. Göttingen 1964/1972.
  • Kerssenbrock, Trutz Graf: The legal protection of the party member before party courts.
  • Kressel, Dietrich: Party jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. Berlin 1998.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Federal Arbitration Commission of the SPD: Main page. In: website. SPD party executive, accessed on December 29, 2020 .
  2. ^ Federal Arbitration Commission of the SPD: Members. In: website. Federal Arbitration Commission of the SPD, accessed on December 29, 2020 (German).
  3. ^ Federal Arbitration Commission of the SPD: Members. In: website. Federal Arbitration Commission of the SPD, accessed on December 29, 2020 .
  4. ↑ Archived copy ( Memento from January 22, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  5. ↑ http://www.gruene.de/partei/bundesschiedsgericht.html
  6. ↑ http://www.die-linke.de/partei/weiter_struktur/gewaehlte_gremien/schiedskommission/
  7. ↑ § 34 Organizational Statute of the SPD ( Memento from February 15, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
  8. ↑ Pitt von Bebenburg: Hessen-SPD: Deviants are allowed to stay. In: fr-online.de . April 19, 2010, accessed December 20, 2014 .
  9. ↑ sueddeutsche.de, March 27, 2009
  10. ↑ Item 23 of the statute of the SED, quoted from Klaus Marxen , Gerhard Werle, Toralf Rummler, Petra Schäfter: Strafjustiz und DDR-Inrecht. de Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2002, ISBN 389949007X , page 655
  11. ↑ Item 23 of the statute of the SED 1976, quoted from Klaus Marxen, Gerhard Werle, Toralf Rummler, Petra Schäfter: Strafjustiz und DDR-Inrecht. de Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2002, ISBN 389949007X , page 656
  12. ↑ Klaus Marxen, Gerhard Werle, Toralf Rummler, Petra Schäfter: Criminal justice and GDR injustice. de Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2002, ISBN 389949007X , pages 655-657
  13. ↑ Civil Code
  14. ↑ https://www.dieneuevolkspartei.at/Download/Organisationsstatut_2017.pdf
  15. ^ Arbitration rules of the SPÖ