Social Security Agency Decision
The so-called social insurance agency decision is a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of May 2, 1967 (reference: BVerfGE 21, 362 - social insurance agency), in which the Federal Constitutional Court clarified that legal entities under public law cannot invoke the fundamental rights of the Basic Law .
facts
The then Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen (now Deutsche Rentenversicherung Westfalen ) paid a survivor's pension to a widow due to her husband's fatal traffic accident caused by a British soldier stationed in Germany. The LVA thereupon demanded damages from the Office for Defense Burdens in the context of official liability . The office rejected this on the basis of the subsidiarity clause of Section 839 (1) sentence 2 BGB; the maximum amount for traffic accidents according to § 12 StVG has already been exhausted and the LVA cannot assert any further claims for damages.
The LVA sued, but was unsuccessful in the second instance, the appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice. The LVA then lodged a constitutional complaint because it saw its right to property and the principle of equality violated. In contrast to the injured party himself, the LVA could not claim any compensation for the damage, which constitutes inadmissible unequal treatment.
Summary of the decision
The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint of the state insurance institution as inadmissible.
This is namely a legal person under public law. Article 19.3 of the Basic Law says that the fundamental rights also apply to legal persons insofar as they are applicable by their nature, but this only applies to legal persons under private law. Because a constitutional complaint serves to assert a violation of fundamental rights by public authorities. However, as a legal person under public law, the LVA itself is the bearer of public authority. You cannot be addressee and beneficiary of fundamental rights at the same time; the state cannot benefit from its own basic rights.
Something different only applies if the legal person concerned under public law is assigned to the area of life protected by the fundamental rights. Therefore, universities and faculties, for example, can invoke the freedom of art and science under Article 5 (3) of the Basic Law. In this case, they are institutions that are not created by the state and do not exercise state authority.
Consequences of the judgment
With this ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court clarified the scope of the fundamental rights. In similar cases, such as the Sasbach decision , the Federal Constitutional Court applied the criteria set out in this decision.
In the 2nd broadcasting judgment, for example, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that public broadcasters can invoke the fundamental right to freedom of broadcasting as an outgrowth of freedom of expression.