State Liability Law (Germany)

The state liability law is an area of the German public law , the liability consequences of doing Hoheitstrager controls.

The actions of administrative authorities can violate official duties and therefore set state injustice, which is why it is the subject of state liability law. A prominent basis for claims is the general public liability claim from Section 839 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for fiscal action by an official or Section 839 of the German Civil Code in conjunction with Article 34 of the Basic Law (GG) for sovereign action by an official. If the official acts culpably , the claimant can demand compensation for the damage that is attributable to the breach of official duty. However, in some cases the claim basis provides for the limitation or exclusion of the claim. Legislative (normative) injustice can, according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, lead to official liability claims if fundamental rights protection obligations that the state is responsible for protecting have been violated or if there is an evident breach of duty. Passive Legitimized 839 BGB officials in cases of § themselves and in cases of § 839 BGB in conjunction with Art. 34 of the Basic Law, the employment body . The relevant legal route is civil jurisdiction according to Art. 34 S. 3 GG, § 40 Abs. 2 S. 1 of the Administrative Court Code (VwGO) .

In claim competition to the official liability claims and stand by other bases of claim, the lack of appropriate legal largely regulations on legal development is based. This includes, for example, the right to remedy the consequences , which is aimed at eliminating unlawful consequences of sovereign action as well as encroachment equivalent to expropriation , which compensates for unlawful factual impairment of property or legally incorrect specification of the social bond of property.

The system of claims under state liability law also includes expropriation and equity compensation . It also includes customary self-sacrifice claims , such as expropriating interference , which obliges to compensate for unforeseeable, atypical and unreasonable property restrictions. In addition, state violations of custody and welfare resulting from special public law connections can lead to claims, as can the creation and implementation of no-fault situations that trigger claims from strict liability regulated by special law .

History of origin

The German state liability law is only regulated in the main in the law. A key standard is § 839 BGB, which dates from the time of the German Empire and which deals with the personal liability of public officials from tort law. Since this provision was often the subject of political criticism, especially because of its limited scope of liability, several drafts for the new regulation of state liability law were created. The State Liability Act , which the West German legislature passed at the beginning of the 1980s and which came into force on January 1, 1982, represents a high point of this development . However, this law was declared unconstitutional and null and void by the Federal Constitutional Court on October 19, 1982, as the federal government lacked the relevant legislative competence . With effect from November 5, 1994, Art. 74, Paragraph 1, No. 25 of the Basic Law granted the Federation competing legislative competence for state liability law. The federal government could now regulate state liability law with the consent of the Bundesrat in accordance with Article 72 (2) of the Basic Law. However, there have been no corresponding attempts to date, which is why fragmentary regulations have remained. Therefore, the state liability law was largely by judicial development of the law developed. In the case of the legally standardized claims, this is shown in numerous analogies and teleological reductions in order to close unplanned gaps and to correct regulations that are no longer perceived as contemporary. Other claims were first constructed through case law.

In the GDR , state liability law was regulated by the law regulating state liability of May 12, 1969. Its central basis for claims contained a no-fault claim for damages in the event of unlawful violation of a citizen or his personal property through sovereign acts. Otherwise it showed parallels to § 839 BGB. After reunification , based on the Unification Treaty of August 31, 1990 , the law continued to apply in the five new federal states and East Berlin, initially with modifications as state law. In Berlin , Saxony and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania it was later canceled without replacement. Also Saxony-Anhalt picked up the State Liability Act, but replaced it with a new compensation law. In Brandenburg and Thuringia , the GDR's state liability law still applies today.

The legal process to be followed varies between the different bases of claims. Statutory liability claims traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of civil jurisdiction . On the one hand, this is due to legal dogmatic reasons, and on the other hand, at the time the BGB was created, civil jurisdiction offered more comprehensive legal protection than administrative jurisdiction , which was relatively poorly developed. However, the administrative and social justice systems have established bases for claims that fall within their jurisdiction, such as the general right to remedy the consequences and the social law manufacturing claim .

Official liability, § 839 Abs. 1 S. 1 BGB in connection with Art. 34 S. 1 GG

→ Main article : Public liability

Section 839, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 34, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law, defines the general public liability claim. This is a tortious claim for damages that obliges the public sector to compensate for the damage caused by a culpable breach of official duty.

History of origin

Section 839 BGB came into force on January 1, 1900 and has remained essentially unchanged since then. However, his normative environment has changed, as a result of which the opponent has changed: In the German Empire , § 839 BGB basically represented the sole legal basis of the official liability claim. According to this, the civil servant was personally liable for damages. This was based on the consideration that unlawful action represented an individual exceeding the entrusted mandate by an official, for which the state could not be held responsible. However, according to Art. 77 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code, the German Länder had the option of introducing liability on the part of the Land instead of personal civil servant liability. This should protect the injured party from the risk of the official's bankruptcy and at the same time reduce the official's liability risk. Most countries made use of the possibility of transferring liability. Art. 131 of the Weimar Constitution (WRV) made the transfer of civil servants' liability to the state the rule, so that throughout Germany, instead of the civil servant, the corporation that had employed them was liable. The Parliamentary Council , which drafted the Basic Law between 1948 and 1949, took up this transfer of liability and standardized it in Art. 34 sentence 1 GG with only minor changes in content compared to the model. Therefore the general public liability claim currently results from § 839 BGB in connection with Art. 34 S. 1 GG.

The official liability claim is directed against the corporation in whose service the official is accused of having breached official duties. If the latter does not have an employer, for example because the civil servant is an entrusted person , the body that has entrusted the officer with a task is liable.

Acting by an official in the exercise of an office

A claim to official liability is linked to the actions of an official. A civil servant is someone who exercises a sovereign activity. § 839 Abs. 1 BGB uses the term of the civil servant in the sense of liability law. Civil servants are therefore not only those with civil servant status , but also public employees . Private individuals who work in the sphere of responsibility of a public authority are also civil servants in the sense of liability law. This applies, for example to persons with a public task mortgaged are about TÜV examiners. The administrative assistant who performs an auxiliary activity for the public sector, such as a school guide, is also considered an official . Finally, a self-employed person can also be considered a civil servant if an authority employs him to perform its tasks. This applies, for example, to a towing company who tows a vehicle on behalf of the police .

The broad understanding of the concept of a civil servant in the context of the official liability claim is based on the influence of Art. 34 GG. In contrast to § 839 BGB, this does not use the term civil servant , but is linked to the performance of a public task regardless of the status of a person. This should allow the state to be attributed any behavior that is related to such a task. The legal relationship in which the sovereign is employed should not have any influence on liability. Since Art. 34 GG takes precedence as constitutional law, jurisprudence expands the term of the civil servant in § 839 BGB by the figure of the civil servant in the sense of liability law in a constitutional manner.

Section 839 of the BGB is linked to the actions of an official who exercises German sovereignty. It therefore does not apply to the actions of institutions and servants of the European Union . This is Art. 340 para. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is relevant normalizes a no-fault compensation claim against the Union.

The official acts must be carried out in the exercise of a public office. This applies if it is spatially and temporally related to the fulfillment of a sovereign task and appears as part of a sovereign issue. This is missing, for example, in the case of private law action by a public authority, for example on the basis of a guarantee contract ( Section 765 BGB). A public office is also not exercised if a police officer uses a company car for private purposes.

Breach of official duty

Liability according to § 839 BGB still requires the violation of an official duty. This is a duty that a public official has towards his employer. Official duties result in particular from laws, administrative regulations and directives . However, not every official duty is suitable for substantiating third party claims. This only comes into consideration in the case of obligations which at least also aim to protect the claimant. A breach of an obligation that only serves to protect the general public or another public authority cannot therefore justify a claim to official liability.

The obligation to act in accordance with the law is an official duty to protect third parties with extensive content. This is rooted in the binding of public authority to the law, standardized by Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law . It obliges civil servants not to violate applicable law when exercising official activities. This forbids, for example, the violation of someone else's legal interest. A public official must also fulfill his duty to maintain safety . A municipality that neglects the maintenance of its traffic routes, for example, violates this. If a public official doubts the legality of a legal norm that he should apply in the course of his work, he must seek judicial review. If, for example, a building permit authority considers a development plan to be null and void, it cannot simply execute it, but must endeavor to clarify the legality of the plan. Finally, a public official must interpret legal norms in a reasonable manner and exercise his discretion correctly.

Another official duty is the duty to act as efficiently as possible. A civil servant who culpably delays a decision violates this obligation. After all, civil servants must provide citizens with correct information and provide them with adequate education and advice.

When legislating, the legislature acts exclusively in the general interest. Therefore, the enactment of an unlawful law does not in principle trigger any liability for damages according to § 839 BGB. This is only possible in exceptional cases, for example in the case of project-related legal planning.

fault

The acting official must have caused the breach of official duty. According to Section 276 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), this presupposes that he is accused of intent or negligence . Whoever recognizes the violation of an official duty and at least approves it acts willfully. In accordance with Section 276 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB), anyone who fails to recognize the unlawfulness of his / her actions because he / she neglects the care required in traffic is negligent.

If a public official incorrectly applies a legal norm to an individual case, this happens negligently if he disregards the highest court rulings or misunderstood the clear content of the norm. However, if a norm is ambiguous and has not yet been developed through case law, the civil servant does not act negligently if he interprets the norm in a legally justifiable manner. According to the Collegiate Courts Directive , a civil servant is still not at fault if a collegiate court incorrectly assesses his conduct as lawful. This is based on the consideration that a public official cannot be expected to have better legal knowledge than a multi-judge panel .

Can an authority of a duty not comply because it is not sufficiently equipped in terms of personnel or objective, is this lack of organization without personal fault of authorities employee's organizational fault is.

damage

Ultimately, damage must have occurred as a result of the breach of official duty. Damage represents an involuntary loss of a legally protected good. Which items can be compensated as damage is generally assessed according to general damage law ( § 249 - § 254 BGB).

According to Section 249 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the damaging party is obliged to restore the condition that would have existed if the damaging event had not occurred. According to the difference hypothesis, the amount of the damage results from a comparison of the existing financial position of the claimant with that which would exist if the public official had acted lawfully. If the last-mentioned financial situation shows a greater value, there is damage.

According to general damage law, the restoration takes place through restitution in kind . However, this does not apply to liability according to § 839 BGB; this is aimed exclusively at replacement in money. This is based on the fact that the state's obligation to pay compensation due to the assumption of liability according to Art. 34 sentence 1 GG corresponds to the liability that would apply to civil servants. However, as a rule, he could not eliminate damage resulting from a breach of official duty by restitution in kind, which is why he was only liable for monetary compensation. The indemnifiable damage also includes lost profits ( § 252 BGB) and immaterial damage ( § 253 BGB). As a result, the potential scope of an official liability claim is above average compared to other state liability claims.

The necessary causality between breach of official duty and damage exists if the damaging act cannot be ignored without the damage being eliminated and it was not so unforeseeable that the damaging party did not have to reckon with it.

Grounds for exclusion

§ 839 BGB excludes a claim from official liability in certain groups of cases.

Subsidiarity, § 839 Abs. 1 S. 2 BGB

Content and purpose

If the civil servant only acts negligently, the claimant cannot claim against a government agency pursuant to Section 839 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) by way of official liability insofar as he can obtain harm in other ways. This applies, for example, if a third party is liable in addition to the position claimed, for example another damaging party. The subsidiarity clause is a negative element of the official liability claim. Anyone who asserts a claim based on official liability in court must therefore prove that only the state is liable to them as the debtor.

With § 839 Abs. 1 S. 2 BGB the legislature aimed to reduce the liability risk of the civil servant, so that he is not hindered in his work by fear of personal liability. Since the official liability on the basis of Art. 34 GG in the meantime does not affect the civil servant personally, but his corporation, this protective purpose is outdated. Because the legislature has not yet revised the subsidiarity clause, jurisprudence has developed case groups through teleological reduction of Section 839 (1) sentence 2 BGB in which the norm is not applied or only to a limited extent.

Exceptions

The subsidiarity clause does not apply, for example, if the state liability is linked to the fact that a public official has caused a traffic accident. This exception is based on the fact that people who participate in road traffic in the same way should also be liable in the same way. However, the state has privileged liability if the public official makes use of special powers in road traffic, such as those under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act . In this case, the sovereign acts differently than the other road users in road traffic, so that he can also be treated differently in terms of liability law.

Furthermore, official liability is not subsidiary if the claimant's alternative means of compensation should not reasonably relieve the state of its liability. This applies, for example, to the entitlement to continued remuneration , which pursues socio-political purposes. The same applies to claims to which the injured party is entitled against their insurance .

Finally, the principle of subsidiarity does not apply if the injured party has an alternative claim against a sovereign. This is based on the fact that the public sector represents a uniform addressee of liability due to the transfer of liability under Article 34 of the Basic Law.

Judge's privilege, § 839 Abs. 2 BGB

If the official liability claim is linked to the fact that a judge has made a mistake in the context of a decision in a legal matter, the state is only liable in accordance with Section 839 (2) sentence 1 BGB if the judge's actions result in a criminal offense . In particular, perversion of justice ( Section 339 StGB), acceptance of benefits ( Section 331 (2) StGB) and corruption ( Section 332 (2) StGB) are possible offenses .

However, the term and understanding of the provision have changed over the course of time: Initially, the general rule was judge privilege, then this changed to judge privilege and finally to judge privilege. The legal norm aims to protect the legal force of judicial decisions. Since a court decision serves to finally settle a situation, its review should be limited to exceptional cases as part of a state liability process. The privilege of judges is sometimes viewed very critically in the legal literature.

In the liability process, the claimant has to prove that his official liability claim is not excluded due to the judge's privilege. He must therefore prove that a judge has fulfilled the objective and subjective elements of a criminal norm.

Primary legal protection takes precedence, Section 839 (3) BGB

An official liability claim is further excluded according to § 839 Abs. 3 BGB if the injured party intentionally or negligently failed to avert the damage by using a legal remedy by means of primary legal protection . This reason for exclusion is intended to reduce the liability risk of civil servants. Therefore, the justification of this provision has been disputed since the liability was transferred to the state, as was that of the subsidiarity clause.

Procedural matters

A claim from official liability expires within the regular limitation period, which is three years according to § 195 BGB. In accordance with Section 199 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the statute of limitations begins at the end of the year in which the claim arose and the injured party learns or negligently fails to recognize that the requirements for the official liability claim are met. There is gross negligence if the claimant does not take into account generally accessible information, does not ask obvious questions or does not give obvious considerations.

In accordance with Section 71 (2) No. 2 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG), civil law has been opened for public liability claims . In principle, the civil court independently examines the legality of the civil servant's actions. However, if an administrative court decision has already been made in this regard, the civil court is bound by its content, insofar as it becomes legally binding in accordance with Section 121 VwGO .

Competitions

The general public liability claim stands in free competition next to claims from strict liability . The same applies to claims for compensation. It is subsidiary to other claims that regulate liability for damages for breaches of official duties. Such more specific standards are, for example, Section 19 of the Federal Notary Code , which regulates liability for breaches of official duties by notaries . Also more specific than § 839 BGB is § 839a BGB, which contains provisions on the liability of judicial experts .

Recourse against the public official

According to Art. 34 sentence 2 GG, regulations can be created by which the public official may be taken into recourse in the event of willful or grossly negligent behavior , as far as the employing body pays for the damage to the third party. Statutory recourse claims arise against persons with civil servant status from the civil service laws ( Section 48 of the Civil Service Status Act , Section 75 of the Federal Civil Service Act ) and for employees from their employment and collective bargaining agreement . In the case of judges, the provisions of civil service law in accordance with § 46 , § 71 of the German Judges Act are applied accordingly. There is a right of recourse against soldiers under Section 24 (1) of the Soldiers Act . Private individuals who work for the state on the basis of a debt relationship can be claimed from their contractual relationship. In North Rhine-Westphalia , members of the municipal council can also take recourse in accordance with Section 43 (4) of the municipal code.

Expropriation and content and limit determination subject to compensation

According to the joint clause of Article 14, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law, expropriation may only take place if the law that orders or authorizes the expropriation provides for appropriate compensation. An expropriation exists if a sovereign deprives a citizen of a position of ownership in order to fulfill a public task. In the absence of a compensation scheme, the law enabling expropriation is unconstitutional. The amount of the compensation is based on the market value of the confiscated property at the time of expropriation. However, it can also exceed or fall below the market value. The direct follow-up costs of expropriation, such as the costs of moving to a new location, are also reimbursed. Expropriation is provided for by law, particularly in building law and infrastructure law . Corresponding regulations include, for example, the Building Code (BauGB), the Federal Highway Act (FStrG) and the Land Procurement Act (LBG).

The Basic Law does not provide for any obligation to pay compensation if a sovereign does not expropriate, but only determines the content and limitations of property rights. However, if such an interference proves to be particularly burdensome, according to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, there is an obligation to pay compensation in order to maintain the principle of proportionality prescribed by the constitution . The court first formulated this in the deposit copy decision of 1981. This had a law as its subject matter that ordered the delivery of a deposit copy of every printed work appearing within the scope of the law without reimbursement of costs. The court ruled that the burden on publishers of expensive small editions is so burdensome that it violates their property rights if it does not compensate them. Corresponding compensation regulations can be found in particular in the law of environmental protection , monument protection , building planning law and right of way .

Expropriating intervention

→ Main article : Expropriation

The claim from expropriating interference is not standardized by law, but recognized under customary law. The civil courts initially regarded the guarantee of property through Article 14 of the Basic Law as a dogmatic basis . After the Federal Constitutional Court rejected this derivation in the wet pebbles decision of 1981, the civil courts based the expropriating intervention on the customarily recognized idea of ​​sacrifice, which was expressed in Sections 74, 75 of the introduction to the Prussian General Land Law (ALR). The claim aims for monetary compensation. In public law, it fulfills the function that the compensation claim under neighboring law from Section 906 (2) sentence 2 BGB has in civil law.

Requirements and legal consequences

A claim from expropriating interference presupposes that sovereign action leads directly to an impairment of a legal interest protected by Art. 14 GG. These include, for example, private property , limited real rights , claims and intellectual property rights . Events that impair the usability of the property come into question as impairments. For example, the case law assessed the lawful operation of a landfill as an element of the offense, which attracted birds that damaged seeds on a neighboring agricultural area.

Furthermore, the sovereign action must directly result in a disadvantage for the claimant. Damage to a seized vehicle through vandalism may be considered as such . The necessary immediacy exists if there is an internal connection between the intervention and the result. This assesses itself on the basis of an evaluative allocation of the consequences of damage according to areas of responsibility and risk: in particular, the risk of disadvantage occurring must already be applied during the intervention. The case law denied this in the example of vandalism, because this represented an unpredictable result of interference caused by the intervention of third parties.

Ultimately, from the claimant's point of view, the disadvantage must prove to be a special sacrifice. A special sacrifice exists if the impairment clearly goes beyond what is legally required of it. According to Section 287 (1) sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the judging court judges the victim limit at its own discretion based on the circumstances of the individual case. The case law assumed that the victim limit was exceeded when road works brought a neighboring company to a standstill.

Competitions

The claim is superseded by written compensation claims. Priority regulations contain, for example, the general hazard prevention laws of the federal states, which grant a right to compensation if a citizen suffers damage as a result of the claim as a non-disruptor . Such a claim is standardized, for example, in Article 87 (1) of the Bavarian Police Tasks Act (PAG). According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, such bases of claims apply analogously to claims against a pretend disruptor , provided that the pretense of danger is not attributable to him. The scope of the expropriating interference is therefore essentially limited to atypical real files that are not covered by written claims.

It is controversial in jurisprudence whether the institute of expropriating interference still has a right to exist after the deposit copy decision. Against this, it is argued that the recognition of the content and limitation provisions, which are also aimed at compensation for property encroachment, replaced the expropriating encroachment. In favor of the continuation of the claim from expropriating interference, it is argued that compensation for the content and limitation determination that is subject to compensation can only be considered on a legal basis due to the legal reservation. If the legislature fails to create appropriate compensation regulations, this would put citizens at a disadvantage. This would contradict the function of the legal reservation.

Procedural matters

A claim from expropriating interference is asserted before the civil courts in accordance with Section 40 (2) sentence 1 VwGO. It expires within the regular limitation period.

Intervention equivalent to expropriation

→ Main article : Intervention equivalent to expropriation

A claim for compensation can still result from an encroachment equivalent to expropriation. Like the claim from expropriating interference, this is based on the idea of ​​self-sacrifice recognized under customary law.

Requirements and legal consequences

A claim from encroachment equivalent to expropriation presupposes that a sovereign intervenes unlawfully in a legal position protected by Art. 14 GG. Furthermore, the intervention must lead to an immediately disadvantageous consequence for the claimant, which from his point of view is a special sacrifice. The existence of a special sacrifice is indicated by its illegality, since an illegal claim goes beyond what the legal system requires of the citizen.

An encroachment equivalent to expropriation can be any unlawful violation of property by a sovereign. For example, case law considered it to be a factual element that a traffic light gave a wrong signal , which led to an accident. She also judged the cause of a forest fire by a target practice by the Bundeswehr to be an expropriation-like intervention .

Competitions

If an infringement of property at the same time fulfills the requirements of the official liability claim according to § 839 Abs. 1 S. 1 BGB in connection with Art. 34 S. 1 GG, the claim from expropriation-equivalent interference has no independent meaning. Due to their different derivation, both claims are in free competition with one another. The claim from an encroachment equivalent to expropriation acquires independent significance if the prerequisites for the official liability claim are not met or if the claimant cannot prove this.

The claim equivalent to expropriation is suppressed by written claims for compensation. The general hazard prevention laws of the federal states contain such claims. For example, Section 39 (1) lit. b of the Regulatory Authorities Act of North Rhine-Westphalia, the public authority for compensation if a regulatory authority harms someone through illegal use.

Procedural matters

A claim from encroachment equivalent to expropriation is asserted before the civil courts in accordance with Section 40 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 VwGO. It expires within the regular limitation period.

Self-sacrifice

→ Main article : Entitlement to sacrifice

The unwritten general claim to sacrifice, like the expropriating and expropriation-like interference, is based on the idea of ​​sacrifice. It is aimed at granting adequate compensation in money.

A right to sacrifice presupposes that a sovereign intervenes lawfully or unlawfully in the life, health, physical integrity or freedom of movement of a citizen and this interference causes impairment which, from the point of view of the claimant, presents itself as a special sacrifice in favor of the general public. If the interference is illegal, the existence of a special sacrifice is indicated.

The right to sacrifice is subsidiary to more specific claims. Such claims are standardized, for example, in Section 60 of the Infection Protection Act for vaccination damage and Section 1 of the Criminal Prosecution Compensation Act for criminal judgments that are subsequently repealed or amended . In addition, the right to sacrifice takes a back seat to other compensation options insofar as these compensate for the impaired interest of the claimant. Such compensations can be, for example, social benefits .

Civil law recourse has been opened for claims in accordance with Section 40 (2) sentence 1 VwGO. It expires within the regular limitation period.

Consequences removal claim

→ Main article : Consequences removal claim

The unlawful consequences of a sovereign interference in a subjective right can be eliminated with the help of the claim to remedy the consequences . Unlike numerous other legal institutions of state liability law, which go to monetary compensation, the claim is directed to natural restoration of the original lawful condition. The claim for the removal of consequences is not standardized by law, but recognized in law. The only disputed issue is whether it is derived from the defense function of fundamental rights , from the rule of law ( Article 20.3 of the Basic Law) or from an analogy to civil law defense claims. However, there is agreement about the prerequisites for the factual basis of the claim, so that this dispute has no effect in legal practice.

Requirements and legal consequences

A claim to remedy the consequences requires a sovereign intervention in the legal sphere of a citizen. Typically, this takes place through administrative acts , immissions emanating from public institutions, defamation through sovereign statements and state information. A sovereign intervention in the property guarantee exists, for example, if an authority temporarily admitted a homeless person to a private apartment by means of an administrative act (instruction order).

Furthermore, the intervention must lead to an illegal situation. A situation that the person concerned does not have to tolerate is illegal. Obligations to tolerate may arise, for example, from the law, from an administrative act and from a contract . In the example of the homelessness admission, the obligation to tolerate follows from the admission order. It does not apply if the disposition is done through the passage of time or in another way.

Finally, the unlawful situation must persist at the time the claim is asserted. This is the case, for example, if the homeless person remains in the apartment after the period specified in the admission order has expired and a new admission order is not issued.

If the prerequisites for the right to remedy the consequences are met, the citizen can request the sovereign to restore the condition that existed before the intervention. This obliges to eliminate all consequences that result directly from the intervention. The characteristic of immediacy is characterized to a large extent by an evaluative attribution: Consequences are considered to be immediate that the acting sovereign aimed at in his actions or that represent an obvious consequence of his actions. In the case of homelessness, for example, it is an obvious consequence that the homeless person stays in the apartment after the period of admission has expired. The apartment owner can therefore demand that the authorities issue an eviction order against them.

The right to remedy the consequences is excluded if the opposing party is unable to remedy the illegal situation for legal or factual reasons. This reason for exclusion comes into consideration in particular if the elimination of the consequences requires that the authority encroaches on another citizen's right. The expulsion of a homeless person can, for example, conflict with his or her right to physical integrity ( Article 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, Basic Law). Likewise, the claimant cannot request the rectification of the consequences if the associated expense is unreasonable for the sovereign, for example because it clearly exceeds the claimant's interest in restoring a lawful condition.

Procedural matters

The right to remedy the consequences is enforced through administrative law in accordance with Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 VwGO. The action for avoidance , the general action for performance and the action for obligation come into consideration .

According to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, the claim is subject to the standard statute of limitations. According to § 199 BGB (1) BGB, this begins at the end of the year in which the injured party becomes aware of the existence of his prerequisites or negligently ignores this. According to § 195 BGB, it is three years. If the injured party does not know the requirements and cannot be accused of ignorance, the statute of limitations according to Section 199 (3) No. 1 BGB at the latest within ten years after the occurrence of the unlawful situation. According to another opinion, the statute of limitations is thirty years, which corresponds to the standard statute of limitations before the law of obligations reform of 2002: The legislature deliberately failed to create a regulation regarding the limitation of claims, which is why it can be assumed that it did not want to change this through the reform.

Competitions

Some laws codify claims that build on the general aftermath claim. For example, in accordance with Section 29 (1) sentence 1 of the Lower Saxony Law on Public Security and Order, a seized item must be surrendered as soon as the conditions for security no longer apply. Section 113 (1) sentence 2 VwGO also enables the removal of the consequences of the contested administrative act as an annex to an action for rescission . These claims take precedence over the general claim to remedy the consequences. The claim to remedy the consequences competes with the claims for monetary replacement, insofar as they are aimed at the same claim goal.

Manufacturing claim under social law

→ Main article : Production claim under social law

The social law manufacturing claim is a sub-case of the public law claim to remedy the consequences, which is intended to compensate for breaches of duty by social service providers. It was developed by the Federal Social Court after the previously recognized state liability law claim bases proved to be unsuitable to fully meet the interests within social law legal disputes: The official liability claim often turned out to be impractical because it imposes the procedural hurdle on the claimant, a public official To prove fault. With the help of the general right to remedy the consequences, the claimant is often unable to achieve his desired goal of receiving a social benefit, since the claim is only aimed at restoring the status quo ante.

With the help of the manufacturing claim, anyone who loses the opportunity to demand a social benefit due to an official error can demand that the authority restore the condition that would have existed if this error had not occurred. The manufacturing claim thus establishes a right to receive the lost social benefit.

Because the socio-legal production claim is based on legal training, it is being suppressed by statutory compensation circumstances.

Public law defense and injunctive relief

The public law defense and injunction is not regulated by law. Its dogmatic derivation, like that of the claim to eliminate consequences, is controversial in jurisprudence. However, the existence of the claim and its requirements are generally recognized. The public law defense and injunctive relief is closely related to the claim to remedy the consequences and precedes it: While the claim to remedy the consequences is directed against the consequences of an interference, the defensive and injunction claim serves to prevent an imminent interference (omission) or an ongoing one End the intervention (defense).

The right to defense and injunctive relief exists if state action that would impair the legal position of the claimant is imminent or continues and that the claimant does not have to tolerate. The claim is particularly important in the area of ​​state information, the protection of honor and immissions.

Breach of duty in public law obligations

A claim for damages against a sovereign can result from an analogy to § 280 BGB. This analogy is derived from the finding of the jurisprudence that between citizens and the state there can be public law closeness that are comparable to civil law obligations. By transferring liability standards under the law of obligations, case law aims to achieve an appropriate balance of interests.

Requirements and legal consequences

The claim requires the existence of a public law obligation. The proximity relationship required for this arises, for example, through the conclusion of a public law contract and the establishment of an official relationship. It also arises if a sovereign takes an item into custody , for example as a result of a seizure. Ultimately, an obligation arises within the framework of a public service and usage relationship, for example through the use of the public water supply.

A claim analogous to Section 280 of the German Civil Code also requires that the debtor breaches an obligation arising from the debt relationship. As such, performance obligations according to § 241 Paragraph 1 BGB come into consideration as well as obligations of consideration according to § 241 Paragraph 2 BGB analogously. A breach of the duty of consideration is, for example, damage to the creditor's property.

After all, the debtor must be responsible for the breach of duty. According to Section 276 (1) BGB, he is responsible for intentional and negligent behavior. According to § 278 BGB, the debtor not only has to be responsible for his own behavior, but also for that of his legal representatives and vicarious agents . A vicarious agent is an auxiliary person who is consciously deployed to fulfill his own obligation, such as an employee . It is controversial in jurisprudence whether homeless people who are assigned to unfamiliar living space represent vicarious agents of the state.

If the conditions outlined above are met, the claimed sovereign owes compensation for all damage caused by his breach of duty.

Competitions

The claim from Section 280 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BGB is in free competition with other claims. From the point of view of the claimant, liability according to the principles of contract law has the advantage that the fault of the sovereign is assumed by analogy in accordance with Section 280 (1) sentence 2 BGB. Furthermore, the subsidiarity principle of Section 839 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 BGB in the context of Section 280 BGB cannot be applied analogously.

Procedural matters

According to Section 40 (2) sentence 1 VwGO, civil courts generally decide on contractual claims for damages by a citizen against the state. The administrative courts are, however, responsible for claims arising from disputes in the context of civil servant relationships and public law contracts. If the state makes claims against a citizen, the administrative courts always decide on this.

Public law management without mandate

The public-law management without a mandate is an analogy to the legal institute of the same name of civil law . The purpose of the rules of management without an order is to find an appropriate balance of interests in cases in which a person without an order or other authorization acts in the legal sphere of another. To this end, they establish a legal obligation that gives claims for reimbursement of expenses , compensation for damages and surrender.

According to the general view in jurisprudence, the rules of management can be transferred into public law without a mandate if a citizen is active in the legal sphere of a sovereign. This is the case, for example, if he cleans a body of water for which a sovereign is responsible. It is disputed whether the public-law management without a mandate is also an option in the opposite case, in which a sovereign acts in the legal sphere of a citizen, for example because it avoids a danger in their interests. While the jurisprudence basically affirms this possibility, it is predominantly rejected in the legal theory because it leads to the circumvention of the public cost law.

A management justifies a claim for reimbursement of expenses if it is made with the will of the authority or - if such a will cannot be determined - in their interest. This is usually only considered in exceptional cases and emergencies, since the public interest is usually directed towards the fact that a task is carried out by the competent sovereign and not by a private person. Claims from public-law management without an order come into consideration, for example, if a private person takes care of a lost animal .

Compensation via the public-law management without an order is not possible if more specific regulations finally regulate the compensation. Such overriding regulations are, for example, the provisions on the bearing of costs in the law of administrative enforcement or the allocation of costs in the hazard prevention law.

For claims arising from public-law management without a mandate, administrative judicial channels are available in accordance with Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 VwGO.

Strict liability

→ Main article : strict liability

In some areas, German law provides for no-fault liability for damages, which is referred to in jurisprudence as strict liability. This is characterized by the fact that it does not assume any fault on the part of the opposing party.

A strict liability claim requires a violation of legal interests that is related to typically dangerous behavior by the opposing party. In most cases strict liability is linked to the operation of a potentially dangerous facility, such as a motor vehicle ( Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act ) or an aircraft ( Section 33 of the Aviation Act ). It also applies to liability for animal hazards ( Section 833 sentence 1 BGB) and environmental damage ( Section 1 of the Environmental Liability Act ) as well as consumer protection ( Section 1 (1) sentence 1 of the Product Liability Act ).

There is no strict liability that specifically relates to matters under public law. Some voices in jurisprudence therefore endeavor to develop appropriate bases for claims in legal training. The prevailing view in jurisprudence is opposed to this: In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, it is reserved for the legislature to introduce strict liability. The doctrine argues that there is no legal rule to which such liability could be attached and from which facts could be derived. In view of the other bases for claims of state liability law, there is also no practical need for strict public-law liability.

Public law reimbursement claim

→ Main article : Reimbursement claim under public law

The reimbursement claim under public law is used to reverse asset shifts that have taken place without a legal reason. It is based on legal training. The dogmatic basis of the claim is disputed. Some legal scholars assume that the claim is based on an analogy to the enrichment law of the BGB. Others derive the claim from the principle of the legality of the administration, which is rooted in the rule of law in Article 20 (3) of the Basic Law. However, the dispute will not result in practice, since the claim and its requirements are recognized by custom.

The claim presupposes a shift in assets within the framework of a legal relationship under public law. Such a relationship exists, for example, when the state levies a fee or grants a subsidy . This postponement must have taken place without legal grounds. This applies if the opponent is not entitled to the retention of the service. If these prerequisites are met, the opposing party owes the surrender of the service.

The claim is subsidiary to written reimbursement claims. Such claims exist, for example, for the restitution of benefits that were granted on the basis of an administrative act that was subsequently repealed ( Section 49a of the Administrative Procedure Act ), of non-owed salary payments ( Section 12 (2) of the Federal Salary Act ), of training support payments made without a reason ( Section 20 of the Federal Training Support Act ) and of overpaid or wrongly charged fees ( Section 21 of the Federal Fees Act ).

For claims to reimbursement, administrative judicial channels are open in accordance with Section 40 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 VwGO. If the citizen requests reimbursement from a public authority, the general action for performance is a permissible form of legal protection. In principle, this is also permissible if a public authority requests reimbursement. However, if the performance was granted by an administrative act, the authority can, according to the prevailing reverse side theory, proceed against its debtor with the aid of a performance notice.

Plan warranty

Compensation claims against the state can result from the fact that the state undertakes planning that leads to considerable burdens for individuals. This typically occurs in the area of economic and spatial planning . Developments that can cause considerable burdens are, for example, changes in taxes and customs duties . The need for a compensation claim arises in such cases from the fact that sovereigns create trust in the public through planning. This can induce the citizen to make economic expenditures on the basis of a certain planning status.

If a sovereign changes his planning, this can disappoint the citizen's trust worthy of protection so much that a compensation option is necessary for reasons of equity. As a rule, there is no entitlement to receive a planning situation due to the predominant public interest in the changeability of plans. As far as possible, however, citizens can demand that their interests be adequately taken into account during planning. As far as this is excluded for factual or legal reasons, the citizen is entitled to compensation insofar as this is necessary to avoid undue hardship.

A corresponding claim is standardized, for example, in Section 39 sentence 1 of the Building Code. According to this, the sponsor of a development plan is obliged to compensate if a person incurs expenses trusting the existence of the plan and these lose value due to a change in the plan. Section 74 (2) of the Administrative Procedure Act standardizes a claim for compensation if it is not possible to take into account private rights in the planning. Whether there is an unwritten claim to plan warranty beyond this and what conditions it has has not yet been clarified in law. The Federal Constitutional Court considers such a claim to be possible if the interests of the private and those of the public are weighed up in favor of the private. The Federal Court of Justice assumes that such a claim could result from a contract-like relationship between citizen and state and from the protection of legitimate expectations under Article 14 of the Basic Law.

Union law official liability

The official liability claim under Union law represents a claim for damages. It was created by the European Court of Justice through legal training in the Francovich ruling of 1991 and further developed in subsequent decisions. It was designed for cases in which someone suffers damage as a result of a member state of the Union violating Union law. The dogmatic basis of the claim is the requirement of loyalty from Article 4 (3) of the Treaty on European Union , the official liability claim against the Union from Article 34 (2) TFEU and the principle of effet utile .

The official liability claim under Union law presupposes that a sovereign violates a provision of Union law that at least also protects a right, good or interest of the claimant. This applies, for example, to fundamental freedoms and the provisions of state aid law . Furthermore, the violation must be sufficiently qualified, i.e. obvious and serious. The case law assumes this in particular in cases in which a member state does not implement a European directive in due time or a national court grossly misjudges Union law. If this violation of the law causes damage, the claimant can demand compensation.

The legal consequences of the official liability claim under Union law are generally assessed according to the state liability law of the member states. Liability under Union law in Germany is thus assessed according to Section 839 of the German Civil Code. The European Court of Justice, however, demands that the claim neither falls short of the official liability claims of national law nor is it designed in such a way that the effective enforcement of Union law is jeopardized. For the latter reason, the subsidiarity principle of Section 839 (1) sentence 2 BGB and the judge's privilege of Section 839 (2) BGB do not apply.

The official liability claim under Union law is in free competition in German state liability law alongside the general official liability claim. It has independent significance in particular if the factual requirements of § 839 BGB are not met. This applies, for example, if the Union law is violated by the legislature, for whose misconduct the state is generally not liable in the absence of a violation of an official duty to protect third parties.

In accordance with Section 71 (2) No. 2 of the GVG, civil law has been opened for public liability claims under Union law. According to §§ 195, 199 BGB, the claim expires within three years.

Liability for violation of the European Convention on Human Rights

State liability claims for damages and compensation can arise as a result of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

According to Article 41 , the European Court of Human Rights can order states that are bound by the Convention to compensate the person concerned for the violation of a Convention guarantee by means of monetary compensation. This requires the court to determine that the condemned state has violated the Convention or its Additional Protocols. Often the claim is based on, for example, excessively long court proceedings that violate the affected person's right to a fair and expeditious trial ( Art. 6 ECHR). Furthermore, the right to compensation presupposes that national law only permits imperfect reparation for the consequences of this violation. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, this is the case insofar as domestic law does not permit the restoration of the situation that existed before the violation. After all, causal and attributable damage is required. Material and immaterial impairments of the claimant come into question as impaired positions.

Another state liability claim arises from Art. 5 Para. 5 ECHR. According to this, a person can claim damages from a member state of the Convention if he suffers damage due to a violation of his right to freedom and security (Art. 5 ECHR).

See also

• Liability of municipal elected officials

literature

• Manfred Baldus, Bernd Grzeszick, Sigrid Wienhues: State liability law: the right to public compensation . 4th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8114-9151-9 .
• Steffen Detterbeck, Kay Windthorst, Hans-Dieter Sproll (eds.): State liability law . CH Beck, Munich 2000, ISBN 3-406-45837-8 .
• Claus Dörr : BGB. State liability. §§ 839, 839a BGB . 1st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2019, ISBN 978-3-406-73008-5 (623 pages).
• Bernd Hartmann: Public Liability Law: Economization - Europeanization - Dogmatization . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2013, ISBN 978-3-16-152525-4 .
• Peter Itzel, Karin Schwall, Christoph Stein: Practical handbook of official and state liability law . 2nd Edition. Springer, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-13001-4 .
• Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: State liability law . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 .
• Bernd Rohlfing: official liability (=  university prints ). Universitätsverlag Göttingen , 2015, ISBN 978-3-86395-218-1 ( univerlag.uni-goettingen.de [PDF; accessed on March 21, 2020]).
• Bernd Tremml, Michael Karger, Michael Luber: The official liability process: official liability, notary liability, European law . 4th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 3-8006-3116-4 .
• Martin Will, Benedikt Quarch: Staatshaftungsrecht , CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-72198-4 .
• Holger Wöckel: Basic features of the German state liability law . 2006, urn : nbn: de: bsz: 25-opus-75067 ( freidok.uni-freiburg.de ).

Web links

• Text of the GDR State Liability Act
• Text of the State Liability Act ( Memento of September 2, 2012 in the Internet Archive )

Individual evidence

1. ↑ BVerfGE 61, 149 : official liability.
2. ↑ More on the content of the State Liability Act Heinz Wöstmann: § 839 , Rn. 11-12. In: Johannes Hager (Ed.): J. von Staudinger's Commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 839–839a (Unauthorized Actions 4 - Public Liability Law) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-8059-0784-2 .
3. ^ ^{A b} Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: State liability law . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 5-6 .
4. ^ ^{A b} Heiko Sauer: State liability law . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 695 (696). Joachim Lege: System of German State Liability Law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2016, p. 81 (82).
5. ↑ Art. 9 Paragraph 2 in conjunction with Appendix II Chapter III Subject Area B Section II No. 1 of the Unification Treaty. Heinz Wöstmann: § 839 , Rn. 16-18. In: Johannes Hager (Ed.): J. von Staudinger's Commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 839–839a (Unauthorized Actions 4 - Public Liability Law) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-8059-0784-2 .
6. ^ Law to Repeal the Regulations on State Liability in the GDR, GVBl. 1995, p. 607.
7. ^ Sächsisches Rechtsbereinigungsgesetz, GVBl. 1998, p. 511.
8. ↑ Act to Repeal the State Liability Act of March 12, 2009, GVOBl. MV 2009, p. 281.
9. ↑ Law on the Regulation of Compensation Claims in the State of Saxony-Anhalt, GVBl. 1992, p. 655.
10. ^ Manfred Baldus, Bernd Grzeszick, Sigrid Wienhues: State liability law: the right of public compensation . 4th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8114-9151-9 , Rn. 268.
11. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 122 .
12. ^ Andreas Vosskuhle, Anna-Bettina Kaiser: Basic knowledge - public law: The official liability claim . In: Legal Training 2015, p. 1076.
13. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 11 .
14. ↑ Heinz Bonk, Steffen Detterbeck: Art. 34 , Rn. 9-12. In: Michael Sachs (Ed.): Basic Law: Comment . 7th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66886-9 .
15. ↑ BGHZ 99, 326 (330).
16. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 113 .
17. ↑ Hartmut Maurer : General administrative law . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-61452-1 , § 26, Rn. 13-14.
18. ↑ BGHZ 122, 85 (87).
19. ↑ Christof Muthers: § 839 , Rn. 65. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
20. ↑ OLG Cologne, judgment of January 19, 1968, 2 U 11/67 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1968, p. 655.
21. ↑ BGHZ 121, 161 (164–166).
22. ↑ Wolfgang Schlick: The case law of the BGH on the public-law compensation services - official liability . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, S. 3341. Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 16 .
23. ↑ Christof Muthers: § 839 , Rn. 59. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
24. ^ Wilfried Erbguth, Annette Guckelberger: General administrative law with administrative procedural law and state liability law . 10th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6097-8 , § 37 Rn. 7th
25. ^ BGH, judgment of March 16, 2000, III ZR 179/99 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, p. 2810.
26. ↑ RGZ 161, 145 (152).
27. ↑ Hubertus Kramarz: § 839 , Rn. 27. In: Hanns Prütting, Gerhard Wegen, Gerd Weinreich (ed.): Civil Code: Commentary . 12th edition. Luchterhand Verlag, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-472-09000-7 .
28. ^ BGH, judgment of March 20, 1967, III ZR 29/65 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1967, p. 1325.
29. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 195. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
30. ^ BGH, judgment of April 10, 1986, III ZR 209/84 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1987, p. 168.
31. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 198. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
32. ^ BGH, judgment of January 11, 2007, III ZR 302/05 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 830.
33. ↑ Heinz Wöstmann: § 839 , Rn. 130. In: Johannes Hager (Hrsg.): J. von Staudinger's comment on the German Civil Code: §§ 839–839a (Unauthorized acts 4 - official liability law) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-8059-0784-2 .
34. ↑ BGHZ 117, 83 .
35. ↑ BGHZ 45, 23 (29).
36. ^ BGH, judgment of July 7, 1988, III ZR 198/87 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1989, p. 101. Fritz Ossenbühl: Public law in the case law of the BGH . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, p. 2945.
37. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 107 .
38. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 285-291. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
39. ↑ BGHZ 198, 1 .
40. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 289. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
41. ↑ Rene Hoppe: The necessity of exhausting legal remedies as a prerequisite for official liability . In: Legal worksheets 2011, p. 167 (172). Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 290. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
42. ↑ OLG Koblenz, judgment of July 17, 2002, 1 U 1588/01 = New Journal for Administrative Law Jurisprudence Report 2003, p. 168.BGHZ 170, 260 .
43. ↑ BGHZ 170, 260 .
44. ↑ Christian Förster: Damage law - systematics and latest case law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2015, p. 801.
45. ↑ Hubertus Kramarz: § 839 , Rn. 57. In: Hanns Prütting, Gerhard Wegen, Gerd Weinreich (ed.): Civil Code: Commentary . 12th edition. Luchterhand Verlag, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-472-09000-7 .
46. ^ BGH, judgment of February 25, 1993, III ZR 9/92 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1993, p. 1799.
47. ↑ Hubertus Kramarz: § 839 , Rn. 55. In: Hanns Prütting, Gerhard Wegen, Gerd Weinreich (ed.): Civil Code: Commentary . 12th edition. Luchterhand Verlag, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-472-09000-7 . Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: State liability law . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 12-13 .
48. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 74 .
49. ↑ Christof Muthers: § 839 , Rn. 308. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 . Heinz Wöstmann: § 839 , Rn. 301. In: Johannes Hager (Hrsg.): J. von Staudinger's comment on the German Civil Code: §§ 839–839a (Unauthorized acts 4 - official liability law) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-8059-0784-2 .
50. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 306. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
51. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 81 .
52. ↑ Bernd Hartmann: Public Liability Law: Economization - Europeanization - Dogmatization . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2013, ISBN 978-3-16-152525-4 , pp. 159 .
53. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Papier, Foroud Shirvani: § 839 , Rn. 300-301. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
54. ↑ BGHZ 113, 164 .
55. ^ BGH, judgment of March 26, 1997, III ZR 295/96 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, p. 2109.
56. ↑ BGHZ 62, 380 on the earlier entitlement to continued payment of wages.
57. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 83 .
58. ↑ BGHZ 91, 48 (54).
59. ↑ Wolfgang Schlick: The case law of the BGH on official liability . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, p. 3349.
60. ↑ 18 years of litigation and the privilege of judges. In: right lens. Praetor Intermedia UG (limited liability), December 6, 2010, accessed on March 29, 2020 . 
61. ↑ Hartwig Sprau: § 839 , Rn. 63-67. In: Otto Palandt (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 74th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-67000-8 .
62. ↑ Christian Kirchberg: Legal Liability, Judge Liability, What Makes the Difference? In: BRAK-Mitteilungen 2018, pp. 59–63.
63. ↑ Marten Breuer: State liability for judicial injustice - an investigation into German law, European and international law . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-16-150535-5 , p. 169-170 .
64. ↑ Christof Muthers: § 839 , Rn. 222. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
65. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 102 .
66. ^ Friedrich-Christian Schroeder : A questionable judge privilege. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. February 3, 1995, accessed March 29, 2020 . 
67. ↑ Christof Muthers: § 839 , Rn. 312. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
68. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 93-96 .
69. ↑ Klaus Röhl: To differentiate between gross and simple negligence . In: JuristenZeitung 1974, p. 521.
70. ↑ BGHZ 9, 329 . BGHZ 175, 221 .
71. ↑ BGHZ 29, 38 (44). BGHZ 121, 161 (168).
72. ↑ BGHZ 13, 88 (92).
73. ↑ Heinz Bonk, Steffen Detterbeck: Art. 34 , Rn. 108. In: Michael Sachs (Ed.): Basic Law: Commentary . 7th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-66886-9 .
74. ^ Regarding recourse against judge Markus Scheffer: Recourse against judge for breach of official duty . In: New Journal for Administrative Law 2010, p. 425.
75. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 119 .
76. ↑ BVerfGE 58, 300 (330) : wet gravel .
77. ↑ Florian Becker: Art. 14 , Rn. 262. In: Klaus Stern, Florian Becker (Hrsg.): Basic rights - Commentary The basic rights of the Basic Law with their European references . 2nd Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28265-1 .
78. ↑ BVerfGE 24, 367 (420–421): Hamburg Dike Ordinance Act.
79. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 249 .
80. ↑ Gerrit Manssen: Staatsrecht II: Grundrechte . 13th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68979-6 , Rn. 714.
81. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 254-255 .
82. ↑ BVerfGE 58, 137 : deposit copy . BVerfGE 100, 226 : Monument protection.
83. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 329 .
84. ^ BGH, judgment of March 11, 2004, III ZR 274/03 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2004, p. 1018 (1019).
85. ↑ Christoph Gröpl: Art. 14 , Rn. 24-30. In: Christoph Gröpl, Kay Windthorst, Christian von Coelln (eds.): Basic Law: Study Commentary . 3. Edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-64230-2 .
86. ↑ ^{a b} BGH, judgment of December 13, 1979, III ZR 95/78 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1980, p. 770.
87. ^ Joachim Lege: System of the German State Liability Law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2016, p. 81 (85).
88. ↑ ^{a b} BGH, judgment of April 9, 1987, III ZR 3/86 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1987, p. 2573 (2574).
89. ↑ BGHZ 125, 19 .
90. ↑ Arnulf Schmitt-Kammler: The “Sonderopfer” - a living corpse under state liability law? In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1990, p. 2515 (2516).
91. ↑ ^{a b} Manfred Baldus, Bernd Grzeszick, Sigrid Wienhues: State liability law: the right to public compensation . 4th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8114-9151-9 , Rn. 324-345.
92. ^ Wilfried Erbguth, Annette Guckelberger: General administrative law with administrative procedural law and state liability law . 10th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6097-8 , § 39 marginal no. 45.
93. ^ Wilfried Erbguth, Annette Guckelberger: General administrative law with administrative procedural law and state liability law . 10th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6097-8 , § 39 marginal no. 41.
94. ^ Heiko Sauer: State liability law . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 800 (802).
95. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 338-339 . Heiko Sauer: State liability law . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 800 (803).
96. ^ Heiko Sauer: State liability law . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 800 (803).
97. ↑ Hartmut Maurer : General administrative law . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-61452-1 , § 27, Rn. 108. Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: State liability law . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 331 .
98. ^ Christian Ernst: Before § 903 , Rn. 150. In: Reinhard Gaier (ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 7 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66540-0 .
99. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 269-273 .
100. ↑ BGHZ 32, 208 .
101. ^ BGH, judgment of December 18, 1986, III ZR 242/85 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1987, p. 1945.
102. ↑ BGHZ 37, 44 .
103. ↑ BGHZ 13, 88 .
104. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 322 .
105. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Paper: Art. 34 , Rn. 51-52. In: Theodor Maunz, Günter Dürig (ed.): Basic Law . 81st edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-45862-0 .
106. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 124-131 .
107. ↑ BGHZ 45, 46 (77).
108. ↑ ^{a b} Iris Kemmler: Claim to remedy the consequences, claim to production and claim to cease and desist . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2005, p. 659.
109. ↑ BGHZ 48, 58 (80).
110. ↑ BGHZ 20, 81 .
111. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 150 .
112. ↑ Iris Kemmler: Right to Eliminate Consequences, Right to Manufacture and Right to Failure . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2005, p. 908 (909).
113. ^ Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf: Elimination of the consequences of execution . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2010, p. 41 (42).
114. ↑ BVerwGE 69, 366 (370).
115. ↑ ^{a b} Christian Bumke: The claim to the removal of consequences . In: Juristische Schulung 2005, p. 22.
116. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 354-358 .
117. ^ Steffen Detterbeck: General administrative law with administrative procedural law . 15th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-70749-0 , Rn. 1208.
118. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 369 .
119. ↑ VGH Bayern, judgment of October 27, 1998, 8 B 97.1604 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1999, p. 1237.
120. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 399 .
121. ^ Wilfried Erbguth, Annette Guckelberger: General administrative law with administrative procedural law and state liability law . 10th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6097-8 , § 41 Rn. 15. Bernhard Kapsa: Chapter 21, Rn. 236. In: Kurt Haag, Reinhart Geigel (Hrsg.): The liability process: with inclusion of the material liability law . 27th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-66606-3 .
122. ↑ Heinz-Peter Mansel: The new regulation of the statute of limitations . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2002, p. 89 (90–91).
123. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 396-398 .
124. ↑ ^{a b} Iris Kemmler: Claim to remedy the consequences, claim to production and claim to cease and desist . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2005, p. 908 (910).
125. ^ Stefan Muckel, Markus Ogorek: Social law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-62637-1 , § 16, Rn. 29
126. ↑ ^{a b} Wilfried Erbguth, Annette Guckelberger: General administrative law with administrative procedural law and state liability law . 10th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6097-8 , § 41 Rn. 18th
127. ^ ^{A b} Heiko Sauer: State liability law . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 800 (801).
128. ↑ BGHZ 21, 214 (218).
129. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 402 .
130. ↑ OLG Frankfurt, judgment of 7 July 2011, 1 U 260/10.
131. ↑ BGHZ 59, 303 (305). BGH, judgment of March 8, 2007, III ZR 55/06 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2007, p. 1221.
132. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 405 .
133. ^ Wolfgang Fikentscher, Andreas Heinemann: Law of Obligations - General and Special Part . 11th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2017, ISBN 978-3-11-036436-1 , Rn. 656-657. (Retrieved from De Gruyter Online).
134. ^ BGH, judgment of December 21, 2005, III ZR 148/05 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2006, p. 963.
135. ^ Thomas Würtenberger, Dirk Heckmann, Steffen Tanneberger: Police law in Baden-Württemberg . 7th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2017, ISBN 978-3-8114-9402-2 , Rn. 340.
136. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 405 .
137. ↑ BVerwG, judgment of November 13, 2003, III ZR 368/02 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2004, p. 764.
138. ↑ BGHZ 63, 167 . BGH, judgment of July 19, 2007, III ZR 20/07 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2008, p. 349.
139. ↑ Marco Staake: The police as managing director without a mandate? In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2004, p. 800. Christoph Thole: The management without a contract on the retreat - the end of the "also foreign" business? in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2010, p. 1243.
140. ↑ BVerwG, judgment of September 6, 1988, 4 C 5.86 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1989, p. 922 (923).
141. ↑ Elke Gurlit: § 35 , Rn. 15. In: Dirk Ehlers, Hermann Pünder (ed.): General administrative law . 15th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-11-036835-2 . (Retrieved from De Gruyter Online).
142. ^ BGH, judgment of June 21, 2012, III ZR 275/11 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2012, p. 707.
143. ↑ Jürgen Oechsler: The public law management in the animal found cases . In: Legal Training 2016, p. 215.
144. ↑ OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, judgment of February 16, 2007, 9 A 4239/04 = Nordrhein-Westfälische Verwaltungsblätter 2007, p. 437.
145. ↑ Elke Gurlit: § 35 , Rn. 16. In: Dirk Ehlers, Hermann Pünder (ed.): General administrative law . 15th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-11-036835-2 . (Retrieved from De Gruyter Online).
146. ↑ Hein Kötz: Liability for special danger: - General clause for strict liability . In: Archives for civilist practice 1970, p. 15.
147. ^ Andreas Spickhoff: The basic structure of tortious fault liability . In: Juristische Schulung 2016, p. 865 (866).
148. ^ Karl Zeidler: "Administrative product" and strict liability . In: Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1959, p. 681 (685). Wilhelm Henke: The legal forms of social security and general administrative law . In: Publications of the Association of German Constitutional Law Teachers 1970, p. 149 (172–179). Ernst Forsthoff: textbook of administrative law, general part . 10th edition. tape I . CH Beck, Munich 1973, ISBN 978-3-406-01199-3 .
149. ↑ BGHZ 55, 229 (234).
150. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 454-457 .
151. ↑ ^{a b c} Iris Kemmler: Claim to remedy the consequences, claim to production and claim to cease and desist . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2005, p. 659 (660).
152. ↑ Elke Gurlit: § 35 , Rn. 25. In: Dirk Ehlers, Hermann Pünder (Ed.): General administrative law . 15th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-11-036835-2 . (Retrieved from De Gruyter Online).
153. ↑ BVerwGE 20, 295 (297).
154. ↑ Elke Gurlit: § 35 , Rn. 32. In: Dirk Ehlers, Hermann Pünder (ed.): General administrative law . 15th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-11-036835-2 . (Retrieved from De Gruyter Online).
155. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 471-472 .
156. ↑ ^{a b} BVerfGE 30, 393 : Berlinhilfe.
157. ↑ ^{a b} BGHZ 45, 83 .
158. ↑ Peter Badura: § 10, Rn. 68-70. In: Ernst Benda, Werner Maihofer, Hans-Jochen Vogel (eds.): Handbook of Constitutional Law of the Federal Republic of Germany . 2nd Edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-11-087506-5 . (Retrieved from De Gruyter Online).
159. ↑ ECJ, judgment of November 19, 1991, C-6/90 and C-9/90 = Collection 1991, I-5357: Francovich.
160. ↑ ECJ, judgment of September 30, 2003, C-224/01 = Collection 2003, I-10239: Köbler.
161. ↑ ECJ, judgment of March 5, 1996, C-46/93 and C-48/93 = Collection 1996, I-1029: Brasserie du Pêcheur.
162. ↑ At a glance Klaus Dörr: The Union law state liability claim in Germany twenty years after Francovich . In: European magazine for commercial law 2012, p. 86. Walter Frenz, Vera Götzkes: The community law state liability . In: Legal worksheets 2009, p. 759.
163. ^ BGH, judgment of January 22, 2009, III ZR 233/07 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2009, p. 2534.
164. ↑ BGH, judgment of October 19, 2010, III ZR 196/11 = European Journal for Economic Law 2013, p. 194. ECJ, judgment of September 30, 2003, C-224/01 = Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2004, p. 79 .
165. ^ Manfred Baldus, Bernd Grzeszick, Sigrid Wienhues: State liability law: the right of public compensation . 4th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8114-9151-9 , Rn. 312-317.
166. ↑ Björn-Peter Säuberlich: State liability under European influence - the duty to interpret the official liability claim in accordance with Community law in the event of legislative injustice . In: Europarecht 2004, p. 954. Klaus Dörr: The Union law state liability claim in Germany twenty years after Francovich . In: European Journal for Business Law 2012, p. 86 (87).
167. ↑ ECJ, judgment of March 24, 2009, C-445/06 = Collection 2009, I-2119: Danske Slagterier.
168. ^ Manfred Baldus, Bernd Grzeszick, Sigrid Wienhues: State liability law: the right of public compensation . 4th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8114-9151-9 , Rn. 320.
169. ↑ Hans-Peter Vierhaus: For the relationship between compensation according to Art. 41 ECHR and damages see § 839 BGB, Art. 34 GG in the case of excessively long proceedings in German trials . In: Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt, Peter Masuch, Mark Villiger (eds.): Festschrift for Renate Jaeger. Fundamental rights and solidarity. Enforcement and proceedings , NP Engel Verlag, Kehl 2011, pp. 719–740.
170. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 646 .
171. ^ Fritz Ossenbühl, Matthias Cornils: Staatshaftungsrecht . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-64151-0 , p. 648-650 .

Please note the information on legal issues!