His jurisdiction included civil and criminal justice , which was exercised in the lower instances by the local , regional and higher regional courts. Furthermore, the Reichsgericht was responsible for related specialist areas of law, such as professional law in the administration of justice. The Reich Labor Court ( Third Civil Senate ) was connected to the Reichsgericht, and the Disciplinary Court, the Court of Honor for Lawyers, the Reich Arbitration Court , the State Court of Justice for the German Reich , the State Court for the Protection of the Republic , the Reichsbahngericht and the Reichstag election examination court were affiliated . In addition to the Reichsgericht, there was the Reichsfinanzhof , the Reichsversicherungsamt (with the Reichsversorgungsgericht ) and the Reichswirtschaftsgericht (dissolved in 1941 and integrated into the Reichsverwaltungsgericht ).
On October 1, 1879, by order of the Introductory Act to the Courts Constitution Act, the Reichsgericht began its work at the same time as the Reich Justice Acts came into force .
The seat of the Imperial Court was Leipzig. In view of the controversial location choice in the Federal Council, Berlin only fell through with 28 votes ( Leipzig 30 votes). Leipzig was already the seat of the Federal Higher Commercial Court of the North German Confederation , later the Reich Higher Commercial Court . It decided on disputes according to the General German Commercial Code (ADHGB) of 1861.
Until 1895 the court sat in the Georgenhalle , the former Leipziger Fleischhallen Brühl 80 / Goethestrasse 8, built in 1857. The building that also housed the Fürst Reichskanzler café was destroyed in 1943. After the completion of the historicist new building built by Ludwig Hoffmann and Peter Dybwad from 1888 to 1895 , the court moved into the new Imperial Court building in 1895. After the end of the Reich Court in 1945, the Reich Court building was converted into the Georgi Dimitroff Museum by the GDR in 1952 . This museum was closed after the fall of the Wall in 1991. The Federal Administrative Court has been located in the Reich Court Building since 2002 .
The Reichsgericht was staffed with a President and the required number of Senate Presidents and Councilors ( Reichsgerichträte ). Civil and criminal senates were formed at the Reichsgericht, the number of which was determined by the Reich Chancellor, and from 1924 by the Reich Minister of Justice. Originally there were five civil and three criminal senates. The civil senates were usually designated with Roman numerals, the criminal senates with Arabic numerals. In 1884 the 4th Criminal Senate was added, in 1886 the VI. Civil Senate . The VII Civil Senate existed from 1899 to 1923 and from 1927; the VIII Civil Senate from 1928 to 1933 and from 1939; the IX. Civil Senate from 1930 to 1932; the 5th Criminal Senate from 1906 to 1924, 1926 to 1928 and from 1933; the 6th Criminal Senate from 1921 to 1923 and (with interruptions) from 1933; the special criminal senate from 1939. The holiday senate existed from 1880 to 1934.
If a Senate wanted to deviate from the decision of another Senate on a legal issue, the Senate had to refer the hearing and decision to the United Civil or United Criminal Senates in order to preserve the uniformity of case law. The President, the Presidents of the Senate and the Reich Judges were appointed by the Kaiser on the proposal of the Federal Council. The prerequisite for this was the qualification for judicial office and the completion of the 35th year of life. There was a court clerk in the Reichsgericht. When the Supreme Court was Oberreich advocacy set up as a public prosecutor.
The Reichsgericht was an ordinary court . It was appointed to decide on criminal and civil matters (civil disputes, legal acts of the state as tax authorities, commercial matters, labor law). There was no separate labor jurisdiction until 1926. The Reichsgericht was also responsible for state liability law .
Territorial jurisdiction initially comprised 28, 1932 (minimum) 26 and 1942 (maximum) 35 higher regional court districts .
As a rule, the Reichsgericht had natural (i.e. compulsory by law) competences in the course of instances. Only in the case of an appeal against appeal judgments by the criminal chambers in criminal matters relating to taxes that flowed into the Reich treasury was his jurisdiction initially lost (i.e. only arose at the request of the public prosecutor).
A born powers the Supreme Court had in civil law decision on the revision from final judgments and complaints against decisions of the Courts of Appeal ( Court of Appeal ) to cut down ( § 135 GVG ). In addition, it was the appellate body against decisions of the patent office in patent revocation, patent revocation and compulsory licensing proceedings and in this area the second instance of fact ( § 33 PatG 1891 ). In 1900 there were additional complaints submitted by the higher regional court in matters of voluntary jurisdiction ( Section 28 FGG ).
As a born competence in criminal law , it was called upon to decide on the appeal of the appeal against the judgments of the criminal chambers of the first instance and the jury courts , if the competence of the higher regional courts (higher regional court) was not justified ( Section 136 (1) No. 2 GVG ). That was the case when only one norm from state law was violated. The Reichsgericht was therefore not responsible for revision proceedings for criminal offenses in which the local courts decided in the first instance. The method were due to slight offenses (z. B. transgressions , trespassing , theft and damage up to a value of 25 marks). They could only be challenged up to the Higher Regional Court.
The Reichsgericht decided until 1934 in the first and last instance for the investigation and decision in cases of high treason and treason , if these crimes were directed against the emperor or the Reich ( § 136 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 GVG ). In this respect, there was no appeal instance. In this first instance jurisdiction, the Reichsgericht was the factual instance. This responsibility was also born. The Reichsgericht did not have its own investigative judge . The investigating judges at the regional courts (today at the higher regional courts and at the Federal Court of Justice ) were responsible for the decisions before the public prosecution was brought by the Oberreichsanwalt , which under the StPO were the responsibility of the judge . Until 1923 the first senate dealt with the business of the preliminary judicial investigation , which according to the StPO a. F. was possible until the 1970s, and ruled on the complaints regarding the decisions of the investigating judge; the main trial took place before the combined second and third Senate. From 1923 to 1934 the 4th and 5th Criminal Senate shared these political criminal matters , in 1933/34 with the participation of the 6th Criminal Senate . In 1934 responsibility for high treason and treason was transferred to the People's Court .
Due to a large number of applicable civil specific laws, the decision collections resulting from the individual case law volumes - for civil law the RGZ decision volumes and for criminal law the RGSt decision volumes - have been structured in their tables of contents for external orientation aid. For example, in section I the decisions on imperial law (matters relating to ADHGB , KO , Reichs-HPflG ) were assigned, section II decisions on common law , section III on Prussian law, section IV on Rhenish law and section V on procedural law .
- Revisions (and appeals in patent matters): no mark ; Revisions in criminal matters from 1933 D
- first instance criminal cases: C (until 1920), J (1920s)
- Complaints up to 1910: complaint
- then (especially according to FGG ): B.
- other complaints in civil matters: GB
- other complaints in criminal matters: TB
- Extraordinary objections: BStS ( Special Criminal Senate , from 1939)
- Cancellation complaints: C (from 1940)
- abstract norm control ( Art. 13 WRV ): Tgb (1925–32)
- Large Senates : GSZ , GSE , GSSt (from 1935)
- Poor Law : A
Formation of file numbers : While Roman numerals were used throughout for the civil senates, the criminal senates were initially not designated in the file number at all, from 1906 to 1933 also with Roman numerals and then with Arabic numerals. The management of the files was based on the regulations governing the establishment of the court registry at the Imperial Court .
Jurisprudence of the Reichsgericht
Wilhelminian Empire 1879–1918
With the exception of its jurisdiction in matters of high treason and treason, the Reichsgericht was purely a legal remedy. Its task was to ensure the uniformity of jurisdiction over the entire territory of the Reich, because a central civil code had not yet been codified and the particular applicable private legal systems were not coordinated. For example, PrALR , Rhenish , Baden , Saxon or uncodified Roman common law applied side by side. In total, around 46 more important individual rights had to be met. In the end, harmonization was not as difficult for the Reichsgericht as the first glance suggests, because the pandectistic university operations and the equally pandectistic teaching knowledge of the dominant common law , prepared by Windscheid , Vangerow and Brinz , shaped judges who found their way through the legal fragmentation.
Since its establishment, the Reichsgericht has been interpreted by critics as a continuation of the Prussian Supreme Tribunal . The judiciary was monarchical and conservative, especially in the area of criminal law at the time of the empire critical voices at the court were in the minority - as in other state institutions at the time. In 1912, for example, the court regarded it as an insult that the Social Democratic Party published a brochure in 1907 which was addressed to civil servants and asked them to vote for the SPD - at a time when the SPD was already the strongest parliamentary group in the Reichstag posed. Furthermore, in its judgment of October 12, 1907, in the high treason trial against Karl Liebknecht , the Imperial Court stated that the soldiers' unconditional duty of obedience to the emperor was a central provision of the constitution of the empire. On the other hand, the defendant had unsuccessfully stressed during the trial that imperial orders were null and void if they were intended to breach the constitution.
On the other hand, in the field of civil law, some landmark decisions were made during this period that are still valid today. The Reichsgericht affirmed pre-contractual liability ( culpa in contrahendo ), abbreviated to cic, which was not regulated by law at the time . on this, Civil Code version ) The Reichsgericht also developed the category of “ positive breach of contract ”, which was also unknown to the Civil Code. It developed liability due to positive breach of contract based on the regulation of BGB, which is still valid today , according to which a debtor is liable for intentional or negligent behavior. The positive breach of contract was recognized under customary law for decades. Following the reform of the law of obligations that came into force in 2002, the corresponding cases are now being resolved using the new version of BGB.
In the Weimar Republic , the court continued its conservative line, including reactionaries, particularly in the area of criminal law. This shows the ambivalence of the judgment passed on December 21, 1921 against three participants in the right-wing Kapp Putsch : On the one hand, the Reichsgericht emphasized that the provisions on high treason protect the current constitution of the German Reich and thus also the Weimar constitution of November 11th August 1919. Furthermore, actual or supposed political grievances should not be remedied by means of a coup d'état, because the sentence “The end justifies the means” is incompatible with the provisions on high treason. On the other hand, there was only one conviction - the interior minister of the coup government Traugott von Jagow was only sentenced to a minimum of five years imprisonment (the mildest and most honorable form of deprivation of liberty for offenses and crimes). When determining the sentence, the Reichsgericht u. a. from (quote): "During the sentencing, the accused, who, under the spell of selfless patriotism and followed Kapp's call for a seductive moment , was granted mitigating circumstances. (...) A five-year imprisonment appeared appropriate to the fault of the accused." The same day the criminal proceedings against two co-defendants were discontinued . The reason given was that they had not played a leading role in the coup, so that the amnesty law of August 4, 1920 applied. The three criminal proceedings that were concluded on December 21, 1921 were also the only criminal proceedings that were carried out before the Reichsgericht against participants in this putsch.
The court continued this conservative line. For example, in the spectacular Weltbühne trial on November 23, 1931 , Carl von Ossietzky was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for espionage because an article had appeared in his magazine that referred to the secret and illegal armament of the Reichswehr (so-called public treason ). Since at the same time the violence from the right was not dealt with decisively enough or this was justified in some judgments, especially in the so-called fememide trials, this and similar trials contributed to the accusation that the judiciary was “blind in the right eye during the Weimar Republic " been.
In the 1920s, the Leipzig trials took place before the Imperial Court . However, German war crimes were only punished in a few cases . Many trials were discontinued and the few convictions were later secretly overturned against two members of the Navy for sinking an English hospital ship.
However, at the same time, some landmark civil law decisions were made. Thus the category of "discontinuation of the business basis " was developed, which was previously unknown to the civil code - today an integral part of the civil law system (cf. the revised § 313 BGB that came into force in the course of the reform of the law of obligations in 2002). The revaluation jurisprudence developed under the impact of the global economic crisis (see also German inflation 1914 to 1923 ) , with which the Reichsgericht granted itself the power to review laws for their validity for the first time, was downright revolutionary , which led to the previously recognized mark being the same -Mark principle ( nominal value principle , nominalism ) was abandoned because of galloping inflation .
After the seizure of power of Adolf Hitler were the to the bar Law on registration Jewish and Socialist Richter (Senate President among them Alfons David and Reichsgerichtsrat Hermann Grossmann forced) to submit their farewell, and prevented Jewish lawyers at the Supreme Court in the further work.
In the period that followed, the Reichsgericht did not oppose the seizure of power and the numerous illegal acts of violence. Rather, it got deeply entangled in the Nazi regime of injustice, for example when it sentenced the Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe to death on the basis of an illegal law in the Reichstag fire trial. In spite of this ruling, the case law of this court was a thorn in the side of the new state leadership, as it acquitted the other co-defendants and thus refuted Hermann Göring's public claim that a communist attempted overthrow was underway. For this reason, among other things, the Reich Court of Justice was deprived of jurisdiction in matters of treason and treason in 1934 by the law establishing the People's Court .
On March 13, 1938, the Austrian federal government passed a federal constitutional law on the reunification of Austria with the German Reich. With this "reunification", the German Reich adopted an Austrian constitutional law as a German Reich law. For Austria's highest civil court organization, this meant the dissolution of the Supreme Court in Vienna and the transfer of competences to the Imperial Court. This measure was carried out on April 1, 1939, and the Reichsgericht became the highest revision instance for Austrian civil matters. Although partial amendments to the substantive law of Austria were made, the relevant private legal system remained the Austrian ABGB . In the meantime, the 8th Civil Senate was established at the Reichsgericht, to which all legal matters of Austria, the Sudeten German territories and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were assigned, unless the special jurisdiction of the first five Senates was justified. Due to understaffing , it was dissolved again before the Reichsgericht came to an end.
The involvement was also deep in the area of civil law. A decision from 1935, in which the Reichsgericht ruled:
The decision committee must be joined in the fact that, given the fundamental importance of the race question in the National Socialist state, the training of young people of Aryan descent into a species and race-conscious national comrade is an inseparable part of the educational work and that this training is not guaranteed if the foster mother does not but the foster father is of Aryan descent.
In the form of legal training, the Reichsgericht recognized the fact that the spouse was Jewish in 1935 (even before the Nuremberg Laws were enacted ) as a ground for contesting marriage, although a formal legal basis for such terminations of marriage was only created with the marriage law promulgated in 1938 .
For the interpretation or reinterpretation of contracts with Jews:
The earlier (“liberal”) conception of the legal content of the personality did not make any fundamental value differences between beings with a human face according to the equality or difference of blood. ... The National Socialist worldview, on the other hand, corresponds to treating only people of German origin (and legally equals) in the German Reich as legally fully valid. This renews the fundamental delimitations of the earlier aliens law and revives ideas that were previously recognized by the distinction between fully legal persons and persons with lesser law. The degree of complete lawlessness was formerly equated with physical death, because the legal personality was completely destroyed; the structures of "civil death" and "monastery death" received their names from this comparison. If in No. 6 of the manuscript contract v. February 24, 1933 it is said that Ch. "Should not be able to carry out his directorial activity due to illness, death or a similar reason", a change in the legal validity of personality that has occurred from a legally recognized racial-political point of view is unobjectionable insofar as it prevents the directorial activity from being carried out in the same way as death or illness would.
With this ruling, the Reichsgericht responded to the racist disintegration of the private legal system that crystallized in the literature of the time and was catalyzed by the Kiel School . One of its most important representatives, the legal philosopher Karl Larenz , wrote in 1935 and only a few months before the judgment was passed: “Legal comrade is only someone who is a national comrade; People are comrades who are of German blood . Anyone outside of the national community is not in the right either. "
The disenfranchisement of the Jewish population took place under civil law with the support of the Reichsgericht, the legal tools were reinterpretation and scope for interpretation.
The decision-making practice of the Reichsgericht can also be seen as a tightening of the judgment practice, see article special court .
President of the Imperial Court
|No.||Surname||Taking office||Term expires|
|1||Eduard von Simson (1810-1899)||October 1, 1879||February 1, 1891|
|2||Otto von Oehlschläger (1831–1904)||February 1, 1891||November 1, 1903|
|3||Karl Gutbrod (1844–1905)||November 1, 1903||April 17, 1905|
|4th||Rudolf Freiherr von Seckendorff (1844–1932)||June 18, 1905||January 1, 1920|
|5||Heinrich Delbrück (1855–1922)||January 1, 1920||July 3, 1922|
|6th||Walter Simons (1861-1937)||October 16, 1922||April 1, 1929|
|7th||Erwin Bumke (1874–1945)||April 1, 1929||April 20, 1945|
In 1928 the library of the Reichsgericht contained 238,000 volumes of books and 818 journal titles; her budget was ℳ 55,000.
- 1879–1917 Karl Schulz
- 1917–1921 Erich von Rath
- 1921–1935 Hans Schulz
- 1935–1945 Paul Güntzel
End of the Imperial Court
With the collapse of National Socialism in 1945, the Reichsgericht was dissolved by the Allies and not rebuilt. In many cases, the last instance stipulated by procedural law was no longer available until further notice. The last president, Erwin Bumke , had committed suicide before the American army entered Leipzig . From August 25, 1945, 39 judges of the Reich Court in Leipzig (i.e. more than a third of the total staff) were arrested by the Soviet secret service NKVD and initially imprisoned in the Leipzig court prison without trial. The judges were later transferred to special camp No. 1 Mühlberg / Elbe and the survivors in autumn 1948 to special camp No. 2 in Buchenwald . When there were dismissals from January 1950 to 1955, only four judges of the Reichsgericht had survived, the rest had starved to death or died of illness. One of the survivors was August Schäfer , who later wrote a report on the camp time.
Supreme courts were temporarily established in the individual zones of occupation . In 1950 the newly founded Federal Court of Justice took over the duties of the Reich Court for the Federal Republic of Germany . Former judges of the Reichsgericht were among the first justices of the Federal Supreme Court. In the GDR , this task was carried out by the Supreme Court .
The Federal Court of Justice ruled in 1952 that the Reichsgericht ceased to exist on October 30, 1945.
- Arno Buschmann: 100 years of the foundation day of the Reichsgericht. In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1979, pp. 1966–1973.
- Thomas G. Dorsch: The imperial court building in Leipzig. Demand and reality of a state architecture. Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1999, ISBN 3-631-35060-0 (Zugl .: Marburg, Univ., Diss., 1998).
- Thomas Henne: Legal harmonization by the “Reichsgericht” in the 1870s. Starting conditions, methods and successes. Habilitation thesis, Frankfurt a. M. 2001.
- Friedrich Karl Kaul : History of the Reichsgericht Volume IV (1933-1945). Publishing house Detlev Auvermann KG, Glashütte im Taunus, 1971.
- Klemens Kelmmer: The Imperial Court in Leipzig. In: Deutsche Richterzeitung (DRiZ) 1993, pp. 26–31.
- Bernd-Rüdiger Kern and Adrian Schmidt-Recla (eds.): 125 Years of the Reichsgericht (Writings on Legal History (RG), Volume 126) , Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-428-12105-2 .
- Dieter Kolbe: President of the Reich Court of Justice Dr. Erwin Bumke . Studies on the decline of the Reichsgericht and the German administration of justice. Müller, Karlsruhe 1975, ISBN 3-8114-0026-6 .
- Adolf Lobe : 50 years of the Imperial Court. Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin / Leipzig 1929 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
- Erich Loest : Imperial Court . Linden-Verlag, Leipzig 2001, ISBN 3-86152-003-6 .
- Ingo Müller : No reason for nostalgia: the Imperial Court. In: Subject Justiz 2001, pp. 12–18 with additional references.
- Kai Müller: The guardian of the law. The position of the Imperial Court in the German Empire 1879–1918. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1997, (zugl .: Univ. Hannover, Diss., 1997), ISBN 3-7890-5052-0 ; Pp. 115–124 contain short biographies of the first four presidents of the Reich Court of Justice.
- Gerhard Pauli: The case law of the Reichsgericht in criminal matters between 1933 and 1945 and their continued effect in the case law of the Federal Court of Justice. de Gruyter, Berlin a. New York 1992, ISBN 3-11-013024-6 .
- Gerd Pfeiffer : Reichsgericht and jurisprudence. 1979.
- Bernd-Rüdiger Kern , Adrian Schmidt-Recla (eds.): 125 years of the Reichsgericht. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-428-12105-8 .
- Helmut Markgraf: Oddities from the case law of the Reichsgericht. Markgraf, Leipzig 2010, ISBN 978-3-9813954-0-2 .
- Elena Barnert: Schicksalsfäden - Jurisprudenz und Weltanschauung in RGZ 173, in: JuristenZeitung 2012, pp. 114–120.
- Decisions of the Reichsgericht in civil matters ( RGZ , 173 volumes, ); The jurisprudence of the Reichsgericht in the field of civil law, insofar as it is not printed in the official collection of decisions of the Reichsgericht ( RG Warn , ); Reference work of the Reich Court (2005–17, DNB )
- Decisions of the Reichsgericht in criminal matters ( RGSt , 78 volumes, ); Reference work of the Reichsgericht on criminal law (1995–99, DNB )
- Hans Heinrich Lammers , Walter Simons (Ed.): The case law of the State Court for the German Reich and the Reich Court on the basis of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Weimar Constitution. Department B (volumes 1, 4 and 6, )
- Distribution of business for the civil senates of the Imperial Court (1904) . In: Negotiations of the Reichstag 11 / I, Annex No. 782, pp. 4566–4567
- Other business distribution plans have been published:
- in the Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung until 1935 (only civil senate: 1927 Col. 1164 , 1930 Col. 746 ; also criminal senate: 1896 P. 52 , 1929 Col. 156, 1931 Col. 143)
- in the Reichsanzeiger until 1933 (civil senates only: 1927/191 , 1929/2 , 1930/303 , 1931/301 , 1933/304 )
- in the Official Gazette of German Justice from 1934 (only civil senates: 1934 p. 13 , 1935 p. 53 , 1936 p. 63 , 1937 p. 60 ; also criminal senates: 1938 p. 58 , 1939 p. 133 , 1940 p. 61 , 1941 p . 107 , 1942 p. 35 )
- Rules of Procedure of the Reichsgericht. In: Central-Blatt for the German Reich 1880 p. 1991 and 1886 p. 300 ; Journal for German Civil Trials , Volume 10 (1887), pp. 442–448
- dejure.org: RG case law overview
- § 87 Reichsbeamtengesetz ( Reichsbeamtengesetz ) (1873)
- § 90 Lawyers' Act (1878)
- §§ 6 , 7 Law to ensure uniform regulation of civil servant salaries (1920)
- Law on the State Court of Justice (1921)
- §§ 6, 7 Ordinance for the Protection of the Republic (1922)
- § 44 Reichsbahngesetz (1924)
- Art. 31 , 166 WRV
- from 1924: § 134 GVG (synoptic) ; Examples: RGSt 5, 60 (Breuder); RGSt 10, 420 (by Kraszewski); RGSt 12, 64 ( Reinsdorf / Niederwald attack ); RGSt 41, 138 (Austria); RGSt 56, 259 ( v. Jagow / Kapp-Putsch ); RGSt 62, 65 ( Salomon / Ponton process ; PDF ); World stage process ; Reichstag fire trial
- § 138 GVG (synoptic)
- Hans Hermann Seiler : History and the present in civil law. The Reichsgericht and the Austrian General Civil Code. Heymanns, Cologne 2005, ISBN 978-3-452-25387-3 , pp. 179-197 (181 f.).
- Act to implement Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich of April 8, 1920 ( RGBl. P. 510 ). In addition, Hans Heinrich Lammers , Walter Simons (ed.): The case law of the State Court for the German Reich and the Reich Court on the basis of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Weimar Constitution. Department B (volumes 1, 4 and 6, ). There are 24 decisions: RGBl. 1920, 2016 (Saxony, elementary schools; Hamburg, religious education; Bremen, religious education); 1921, 735 (Bavaria, elementary school teacher); 1921, 1359 (Braunschweig, Landschaftsordnung, RGZ 103, 91 ); RGBl. I 1924, 434 (Bremen, choice of headmaster); 1923, 292 (Prussia, state liability); 1924, 41 (Saxony, period of retirement); 1925, 49 (Thuringia, elementary schools); 1925, 180 ( Gotha , Fideikommisse); 1925, 348 (Braunschweig, Grundsteuer, RGZ 111, 134 ); 1925, 468 (Saxony, civil servant pay); 1926, 316 (Mecklenburg-Schwerin, elementary school teacher training); 1927, 286 (Prussia, school supervision); 1927, 513 (Lippe, property value tax; Württemberg and Bavaria, welfare); 1928, 16 (Württemberg, Minister); 1928, 373 (Baden, Officials Act); 1928, 399 (Lübeck, tenant protection); 1928, 414 (Saxony, state election law, RGZ 122, 306 ); 1930, 191 (Saxony, elementary school teacher); 1930, 202 (Thuringia, Enabling Act); 1931, 414 (Mecklenburg-Strelitz, property tax); 1933, 95 (swimming, water and building law).
- Law amending the general criminal procedure, the armed forces criminal procedure and the penal code of September 16, 1939 ( RGBl. I p. 1841 ), Art. 2
- Ordinance on the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, the special courts and other provisions of criminal procedure law of February 21, 1940 ( RGBl. I p. 405 ), § 34; Ordinance to further simplify the administration of criminal justice of August 13, 1942 ( RGBl. I p. 508 ), Art. 7 § 2
- September 23, 1879 ( BGH-OPAC )
- Annex to the memorandum on the BGB in: Benno Mugdan : The entire material on the Civil Code. I, 1899, p. 844 f.
- cf. RGSt 46, 151–154, judgment of June 28, 1912
- cf. in addition: The high treason trial against Karl Liebknecht before the Reichsgericht. Negotiation report with an afterword. Vorwärts bookstore, Berlin 1907
- cf. RGZ 78, 239 , ruling of November 7, 1911 - carpet roll case or also called linoleum roll case
- cf. for example on the positive breach of contract RGZ 66, 289 , ruling of July 9, 1907 - horse feed case - this judgment is a confirmation of a decision from 1902, where the Reichsgericht first accepted a positive breach of contract, cf. RGZ 52, 18 - rye fall -
- cf. on the Kapp Putsch trial: Karl Brammer, Constitutional Fundamentals and High Treason, Verlag für Politik und Wirtschaft, Berlin 1922
- (cf. on the Weltbühne trial: a) Heinrich Hannover / Elisabeth Hannover-Drück : Politische Justiz 1918–1933. Lamuv Verlag, Bornheim-Merten 1987, pp. 186-192 mw N .; b) the rejection of the retrial of the Weltbühne trial by a decision of the Federal Court of Justice of December 3, 1992, see BGHSt 39, 75–87 with further references.)
- cf. RGZ 100, 129 ff., Judgment of September 21, 1920 "Steam price case".
- cf. RGZ 111, 320, 323, judgment of November 4, 1925
- Cf. on this issue: Knut Wolfgang Nörr , The Judge Between Law and Reality - The Reaction of the Reichsgericht to the Crises of World War and Inflation, and the Development of a New Judicial Self- Image , Verlag C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1996, ISBN 3-8114- 5096-4 .
- cf. Lothar Gruchmann: Justice in the Third Reich 1933–1940. 3. Edition. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-486-53833-0 , p. 126 f.
- Welt online: Repealed is not acquitted
- RGBl. 1938, 237 f.
- Announcement by the Reich Minister of Justice of March 8, 1939 (RGBl. I 448).
- Friedrich Karl Kaul : History of the Reichsgericht , Volume IV (1933-1945), 1971, p. 44 ff; 338.
- RGZ 170, 255: From 1943 the RG only published judgments in the context of the ABGB.
- Reference: RGZ 147, 65, 68
- RG judgment v. June 27, 1936; the Charell case; according to Forum Justizgeschichte e. V. This judgment of the RG was published in the Juristic Wochenschrift (JW) 1936, p. 2529 ff.
- Quotation from Ernst Klee: Das Personenlexikon zum Third Reich. Fischer Taschenbuch 2005, p. 358.
- Friederike duration: The library of the Reichsgericht (= workbooks of the working group for legal library and documentation . Volume 24 ). Neugebauer, 2013, ISBN 978-3-85376-324-7 ( table of contents [PDF]).
- See Art. 1, Paragraph 2 of Act No. 2 of the Military Government of Germany, Control Area of the 21st Army Group, Official Gazette No. 3, p. 4
- The great death in the Imperial Court. In: Deutsche Richterzeitung 1957, pp. 249, 250
- BGHZ 6, 64 = NJW 1952, 937