State Court for the German Reich

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The State Court of Justice for the German Reich (StGH) was the constitutional court of the Weimar Republic limited to disputes under state organization law . In 1927 he described himself as the “guardian of the imperial constitution”.

Seat, organization, procedure and collection of decisions

The State Court was established on the basis of Article 108 of the Weimar Constitution (WRV) in conjunction with the law on the State Court of July 9, 1921 ( RGBl. P. 905) at the Reich Court with its seat in Leipzig . The StGH was not a permanent court, but was convened as required. The president was in personal union the president of the Reichsgericht. The StGH decided on its own rules of procedure. The decisions were made “in the name of the empire” and were final. According to Art. 19 II WRV, the Reich President was responsible for their enforcement .

In addition to the expressly regulated decisions in the main, the StGH saw itself authorized in 1925 in the Lübeck Bay case as well as to issue temporary injunctions.

There was no special official collection of the StGH decisions; they were published as an appendix to the decisions of the Reichsgericht in civil matters and in two private collections.

Responsibilities

State jurisdiction in the German Reich suffered from a fragmentation of responsibilities and gaps in competence during the Weimar period. The State Court of Justice was not responsible for resolving constitutional disputes at the national level. There was neither an abstract nor a concrete control of norms , so the court could not examine imperial laws for their conformity with the imperial constitution. There was also no decision-making authority in a so-called organ complaint in disputes between the highest Reich organs .

In the Weimar Republic , however, such extensive powers were occasionally required. In this context, the controversy between Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen over the guardian of the constitution is well known , in which the latter campaigned for constitutional jurisdiction, while Schmitt awarded the role of the highest constitutional guardian to the Reich President. The StGH itself tried to strengthen its importance and did not shy away from extensive use of its competencies. With a broad interpretation of the relevant norms of the imperial constitution, he opened up a broad field of activity.

The already incomplete state jurisdiction in Weimar was also distributed over many instances. It was the Reichsgericht and not the StGH that was responsible for examining the compatibility of Land and Reich law (abstract control of norms , Art. 13 II WRV). In special areas, other courts such as the Reichsfinanzhof were also responsible for abstract control of norms. The constitutional court in the broader sense was also the electoral review court at the Reichstag .

The StGH thus did not have extensive jurisdiction, but according to the Reich constitution it was called upon to decide on ministerial charges and some constitutional disputes.

Ministerial charge

According to Art. 59 WRV charges could be brought before the StGH against the Reich President , the Reich Chancellor or a Reich Minister. The subject of the proceedings was the charge of culpably violating the Reich constitution or a Reich law. Only the Reichstag was authorized to apply. The motion to raise ministerial charges had to be signed by at least a hundred members of the Reichstag and required the approval of the majority required for constitutional amendments. The proceedings were to be conducted according to the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Arbitration body should be a specially formed StGH. It consisted of the President of the Reichsgericht, one member each of the Prussian Higher Administrative Court , the Bavarian Supreme Regional Court and the Hanseatic Supreme Regional Court, and a lawyer. Five further assessors were to be elected by the Reichstag and the Reichsrat . The constitution made no statements about possible punishments. The quasi-criminal ministerial charge remained theory: in the 13 years of the factual validity of the WRV, it was never raised, neither in the Reich nor in the federal states.

Constitutional disputes

However, the other competence of the StGH jurisdiction, the federal constitutional dispute, gained considerable weight. Art. 19 para. 1 WRV contained a general clause in favor of the StGH, which was supplemented by special provisions in the Reich constitution. The term constitutional disputes was understood to mean legal disputes about the specific interpretation and application of the imperial constitution and the state constitutions.

The State Court was thus responsible for

  • Constitutional disputes within a country if there was no regional court to settle them (Article 19, Paragraph 1, 1st alternative WRV). The jurisdiction of the StGH was thus subsidiary. Countries without their own constitutional jurisdiction were Prussia , Saxony , Lippe , Lübeck , Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Schaumburg-Lippe . In contrast, there were corresponding courts in Bavaria , Württemberg , Baden , Thuringia , Hesse , Hamburg , Mecklenburg-Schwerin , Oldenburg , Anhalt and Waldeck . The StGH of the Reich was not responsible here.
  • Disputes of a non-private nature between different countries or between the Reich and a country at the request of one of the disputing parties (Article 19 Paragraph 1, 2nd alternative WRV). This meant disputes under public law over sovereign rights, national borders, international treaties and public property. The governments were entitled to bring legal action.
    Of greater significance beyond the Weimar Republic were the Danube sinking case of 1927 or the Lübeck Bay case decided in 1928 .
  • Property disputes in the reorganization of the Reich territory (Article 18 Paragraph 7 WRV). A special case of disputes between the countries was the decision on property disputes when the countries were reorganized. However, the StGH was not responsible for legal control over the reorganization itself. The court only dealt with the provision once, when in 1929 it dismissed the action brought by a political party against the unification of Waldeck with Prussia .
  • Constitutional disputes between the Reich and a country (Reich-Länder dispute), (Article 19 Paragraph 1, 3rd alternative WRV). According to this provision, the StGH should only decide if another court was not responsible. The subject of the proceedings could be disputes about the interpretation of concluded contracts, about the participation of the states in the will formation of the Reich or about claims of a state against the Reich, especially claims of a financial nature. The provision served to delimit the spheres of competence of the Reich and the states and to protect the federal states from impermissible interference by the Reich.
  • Reich-Länder dispute over the implementation of Reich laws by the Länder (Article 15 Paragraph 3 WRV). This protection of competencies also served the special case of the Reich-Länder dispute in Article 15, Paragraph 3. The StGH decided in the event of disagreements about notices of defects in the exercise of Reich supervision . The basis was the obligation of the state governments, at the request of the Reich government, to remedy deficiencies that occurred when a country was executing the Reich laws. The StGH issued a total of three decisions in this area.
  • Decision on the powers of expropriation and sovereign rights transferred to the Reich with the formation of the Deutsche Reichsbahn (Article 90 WRV). The Reich was entitled to expropriate for railroad purposes, which was the task of the state authorities until the Weimar Constitution came into force. The sovereign rights addressed in Art. 90 related to the railway police , tariff setting, the organization of the railway authorities and the law on civil servants. This provision is also a special case of the Reich-Länder dispute.
  • Disputes that arose as a result of the cancellation of the reservation rights of Bavaria and Württemberg with the post and telegraph administration and accordingly with railways, waterways and navigation marks (Articles 170, 171 WRV). This regulation was another special standard to supplement Art. 19 Para. 1, 3rd old WRV. The StGH should decide if the parties involved have not reached an agreement by a deadline. However, the parties reached an agreement in good time and the provisions of Articles 170 and 171 were therefore irrelevant.

In these cases, the court consisted of the President of the Reich Court, three Reich Court Councilors and one judge each from the Prussian Higher Administrative Court, the Bavarian Administrative Court and the Saxon Higher Administrative Court. In the event of Art. 90 WRV, a special panel should be formed with the participation of representatives from the Reichstag and the Reichsrat.

The StGH and the "Preußenschlag"

One of the most famous decisions of the State Court is the case of Prussia versus Reich concerning the so-called Prussian strike . On July 20, 1932, an emergency ordinance issued by Reich President Paul von Hindenburg under Article 48 WRV declared the Prussian government to be deposed and appointed Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen "Reich Commissioner for Prussia". The Free State of Prussia sued the StGH against this. The court once rejected the application for an interim injunction against the Reich due to the lack of short-term evidence of a presidential excess of discretion. In addition, the “confusion in the life of the state”, which appeared threatening to the court, seemed impractical due to the unclear dual jurisdiction applied for by the government and commissioners. In the later final judgment, the State Court denied the legality of the removal of the government, since it had not been guilty of any breach of duty under Art. 48 Paragraph 1 WRV, the temporary appointment of a temporary Reich Commissioner by way of the emergency ordinance under Art. 48 Paragraph 2 but was admissible, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the Reich President, rather the internal security and order of Prussia's internal situation was endangered.

The Prussian government was then able to continue to represent Prussia in the Reichsrat and vis-à-vis the states, but the Reichskommissar ruled within Prussia. The judgment was supposed to convey by not agreeing that either side was fully right. But in public it was presented as a divided, indecisive decision that was widely viewed as the defeat of Papen's government. The fact that the trial also proves the fundamental inappropriateness of a judicial procedure to deal with political power struggles, as Ernst Rudolf Huber and Carl Schmitt presented in 1932 in “Staatsgewalt und Reichsgericht”, was an indication that political solutions would also be sought in the future beyond legality. Even the ruling of the Reichsgericht was ignored by the Papen government and the Reich President, and the emergency ordinance was not withdrawn or modified. A reinstatement of the government after "restoring law and order" was never intended.

End of the State Court

After Adolf Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933, Weimar's constitutional jurisdiction came to an end immediately. The leader principle applied , which did not provide for a review of decisions of the executive by an independent judicial authority. The StGH stopped its work. There was no dissolution law or any other formal act. The court announced its final decisions on February 21, 1933.

Appreciation

The StGH was the first independent Reich constitutional court in German legal history. However, its importance was significantly less than that of the Federal Constitutional Court . Between 1920 and 1933, fewer than 180 decisions were made in the area of ​​the entire Weimar state judiciary. In the comparable period after 1952, the Federal Constitutional Court had around 600 published decisions. This was mainly due to the high proportion of constitutional complaints , a legal remedy that did not exist in the Weimar Republic.

The lack of a constitutional complaint with which every citizen could complain about the violation of his or her fundamental rights was the greatest deficiency of the Weimar constitutional jurisdiction. There was an extensive catalog of fundamental rights in the imperial constitution. But most of the articles were only programmatic and were not directly applicable, enforceable law. The way to the state court was not open to the citizen. During the Weimar period, the protection of fundamental rights was largely understood not as the task of the constitutional but of the administrative courts . Art. 107 of the WRV provided for the establishment of a Reich Administrative Court. However, this only happened in 1941. The court was accordingly ineffective.

literature

  • Hans Lammers , Walter Simons (ed.): The case law of the State Court for the German Reich and the Reichsgericht on the basis of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of the Reich Constitution , volumes 1.1920 / 28 (1929) -6.1932 (1939) - ZDB -ID 977275-3
  • Erwin Bumke (Ed.): Selected decisions of the State Court for the German Reich and the Reichsgericht according to Art. 13 II of the Reich Constitution , Issues 1.1930–9.1932 - ZDB -ID 510497-x
  • Gotthard Jasper : The protection of the republic. Studies on state safeguarding of democracy in the Weimar Republic 1922–1930. Tubingen 1963.
  • Wolfgang Wehler: The State Court for the German Reich - The Political Role of Constitutional Jurisdiction in the Time of the Weimar Republic. Diss. Bonn 1979.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See StGH RGZ 118, appendix p. 1 (4), decision of October 15, 1927, Az. 4/26.
  2. ↑ List of the 75 decisions published in the appendix of RGZ :
    RGZ Lammers / Simons date Register
    number    		 object
    102, 415 1, A III 16 1921-07-12 St. 5/21 Braunschweig. Term of election of the national assembly
    102, 425 1, A III 13 1921-07-12 St. 4/21 Bremen. Committees of inquiry of the citizenship
    104, 423 1, A III 7 1922-01-12 2/21 Württemberg. Parliamentary committees of inquiry
    106, 426 1, AI 6 1923-06-15 10/22 State Treaty on State Railways. Resignation to the national service
    107, 1 * 1, AI 2 1923-06-30 4/21 Expropriation for imperial railways in Prussia
    107, 17 * 1, A III 4 1923-09-29 3/22 Saxony. State Audit Office
    108, 426 1, AI 5 1924-07-12 6/22 Saxony. Free travel for the synodals on the Reichsbahn
    109.1 * 1, AI 7 1924-09-27 1/23 Classification of the state railway officials taken over
    109, 17 * 1, AI 3 1924-10-18 5/23 Licensing of railways
    109, 30 * 1, AI 8 1924-10-18 4/23 Seniority of the Reichseisenbahn officials
    111, 1 * 1, A III 1 1924-05-10 5/22 Prussian Nobility Act of June 23, 1920
    111, 21 * 1, A II 4 1925-10-10 2/25 Interim disposal
    112, 1 * 1, A III 2 1925-11-21 3/25 Issuing emergency ordinances in Prussia
    112, 13 * 1, AI 12 1925-11-21 1/25 Reich waterways. Dams of the empire
    112, 21 * 1, A II 2 1925-06-29 7/23 State treaties. Clausula rebus sic stantibus
    112, 33 * 1, AI 11 1925-12-12 3/24 Reich waterway administration
    113, 1 * 1, A II 6 1926-06-05 4/25 Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Its quality as "land"
    114, 1 * 1, A II 7 1926-10-16 4/25 Mecklenburg. Monastery and estate assets
    114, 7 * 1, AI 14 1926-10-16 2/26 Joint academy. Art. 174 RVerf.
    115, 1 * 1, AI 9 1926-11-20 1/26 Railway officials. State Treaty of April 30, 1920 (?)
    116, 1 * 1, AI 10 1927-05-07 3/26 German State Railroad Company. Board of Directors
    116, 18 * 1, A II 1 1927-06-18 7/25 Sinking of the Danube
    116, 45 * 1, A III 15 1927-06-18 1/27 Braunschweig. Parliamentary committees of inquiry
    118, 1 * 1, A III 5 1927-10-15 4/26 Appreciation of state services to the churches
    118, 22 * 1, A III 20 1927-12-17 6/27 Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Suffrage
    118, 41 * 1, AI 1 1927-10-15 3/27 Bremen customs exclusion areas
    120, 1 * 1, AI 16 1927-12-03 5/26 Saxony. Old retirees
    120, 19 * 1, A III 11 1928-05-12 3/28 Jurisdiction of the State Court
    121, 1 * 1, A II 3 1928-06-09 5/25 Pollution of the Weser water
    121, 8 * 1, A III 6 1928-07-07 4/28 Party ability
    121, 13 * 1, A III 3 1928-07-09 9 and 11/27 Emergency Ordinance Law. Municipal body. Flag compulsion
    122, 1 * 1, A II 5 1928-07-07 2/25 Sovereign rights in the Bay of Lübeck
    122, 17 * 1, AI 19 1928-11-17 4/27 Beer tax community. Invalidity of an imperial law
    123, 1 * 2, A III 10 1929-01-19 6/28 Bavarian State Court
    123, 13 * 2, A III 11 1929-03-22 13/28 Saxony. State election
    124, 1 * 2, A III 12 1929-03-22 7/28 Württemberg suffrage
    124, 19 * 2, A III 1 1929-03-23 8/28 Emergency Ordinance Law. Approval of the state parliament
    124, 40 * 2, A III 15 1929-03-23 5/28 Waldeck
    125, 1 * 2, A III 2 1929-07-13 5 and 7/29 Emergency Ordinance Law
    126, 1 * 2, A III 3 1929-10-23 19/29 Interim disposal
    126, 9 * 2, A III 8 1929-12-11 19/28 Prussia. Right of self-government. Umgemeindungen
    126, 14 * 2, A III 7 1929-12-11 9, 11, 14, 15,
    16 and 18/29    		 Prussia. Right of self-government. Incorporations
    126, 25 * 2, AI 3 1929-12-13 Tgb. 35/28 Bavarian disciplinary proceedings
    127, 1 * 2, A III 4 1929-12-19 19/29 Officials and referendums
    127, 25 * 2, AI 1 1929-12-09 3/29 Reich supervision. title
    127, 49 * 4, A III 24 1930-02-19 8/29 Mecklenburg-Strelitz State Councilors
    128, 1 * 4, A III 1 1930-02-17 12/28 Prussia. Suffrage
    128, 16 * 2, A III 13 1929-12-07 13/27 Braunschweig. State and Church
    128, 46 * 4, A III 16 1930-02-18 10/29 Württemberg government. Dispute your order
    129, 1 * 4, A III 8 1930-06-24 2/29 Expert authority of the parliamentary groups
    129, 9 * 4, AI 4 1930-07-11 5/30 School prayers
    129, 28 * 4, AI 3a 1930-07-18 7/30 Interim disposal
    130, 1 * 4, AI 3b 1930-11-21 7/30 Objections to the rapporteur's decisions
    130, 3 * 4, A III 10 1930-11-21 2/30 Public corporations may be a party to their membership
    130, 11 * 4, A III 4 1930-11-21 21/29 Prussian provincial election law
    131, 1 * 4, AI 1 1930-11-25 11/28 Board member of the Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft
    132, 1 * 4, A III 23 1931-04-24 4/30 Lübeck Citizenship Election Act
    133, 1 * 4, A III 25 1931-04-28 16/30 Schaumburg-Lippe. Emergency Ordinance Law
    133, 15 * 4, A III 21 1931-04-28 14/30 Stop. Incorporation. Suffrage
    133, 29 * 4, A III 11 1931-06-13 12/30 and 1/31 Commercial tax liability of lawyers
    134, 1 * 5, AI 1 1931-10-24 18/30 De-registration from religious education
    134, 12 * 5, A III 16 1931-12-05 11 and 13/31 Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Incorporation
    134, 26 * 5, A III 8 1931-12-05 17/30 Saxony. Municipal tax emergency ordinance
    135, 1 * 5, A III 1 1932-02-12 12/31 Prussia. Right of the minority in the state parliament to convene
    135, 30 * 5, A III 3 1932-03-15 10/31 Prussia. Ordinance law. State Election Act
    137, 1 * 5, A III 13 1932-06-18 1/30 Lip. Acquisition of business shares
    137.5 * 5, A III 12 1932-06-21 2/32 Hesse. Ministry of Commerce
    137, 17 * 5, A III 4 1932-06-20 10/31 Prussian savings regulation. Civil servant rights
    137, 47 * 5, A III 2 1932-06-21 9/31 Prussian Police Administration Act
    137, 65 * 5, AI 2 1932-07-25 15/32 Prussia. Appointment of a Reich Commissioner
    138, 1 * 5, AI 3 1932-10-25 15, 16, 17
    and 19/32    		 Prussia. Appointment of a Reich Commissioner
    138, 43 * 6, A III 2 1932-10-24 14/31 Württemberg. Municipal suffrage
    139, 1 * 6, A III 4 1932-11-10 13/32 Braunschweig. Quorum of the state parliament
    139, 7 * 6, A III 5 1932-12-20 20/32 Prussia. Convocation of the state parliament
    139, 17 * 6, A III 8 1932-12-20 39/32 Prussia. Election of the Prime Minister
  3. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: Imperial power and state court . G. Stalling, January 1, 1932 ( google.de [accessed March 25, 2016]).