Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Power in Germany and the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Two Faces of Judicial Power

  • 246 Accesses

Abstract

What are the preconditions that allow constitutional courts to exercise power? To answer this question, I discuss the effects of (non-)institutionalized features inherent in the design of the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) on the court’s ability to (threaten to) make decisions. Moreover, I show that the political branches have established procedures to account for the court’s influence when presenting bills. Finally, I argue that the court and political actors need to account for the environment in which they interact. All these components define a court’s strength and are combined in two indices to compare preconditions of judicial power across Europe. The indices show that the GFCC is a representative case to study judicial power. Assessing the judicial–political processes around Germany’s parental custody reform from 1998 puts the hypotheses on the two faces of judicial power to a preliminary test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barreiro, B. (1998). Judicial Review and Political Empowerment: Abortion in Spain. West European Politics, 21(4), 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, R., Bazy Malaurie, C., Clayton, R., Dimitrov, P., Grabenwarter, C. (2017). Poland. Opinion. Venice Commission [European Commission for Democracy Through Law], 2017(904), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, H., Bailer, S., Ohmura, T., Saalfeld, T., Sieberer, U. (2016). Namentliche Abstimmungen im Bundestag 1949 bis 2013: Befunde aus einem neuen Datensatz. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 47(1), 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix, C., Miller, M.K., Rosato, S. (2013). A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1523–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borowski, M. (2003). The Beginnings of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court. Ratio Juris, 16(2), 155–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, S. (2009). The Politics of Constitutional Veto in France: Constitutional Council, Legislative Majority and Electoral Competition. West European Politics, 32(2), 384–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, S., Hönnige, C. (2017). Constitutional Courts as Veto Players: Lessons from the United States, France and Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 56(3), 529–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunn, B. (2004). Möglichkeiten einer Rechtsförmlichkeitsprüfung im parlamentarischen Verfahren. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 37(3), 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]. (2017). The World Factbook. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexhage, B. (2015). Bicameral Legislatures. An International Comparison. The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dribbusch, B. (1996). Gegen Vaters Willen. taz, die Tageszeitung, March 8, 1996, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dribbusch, B. (1997). Heute verabschieded der Bundestag das neue Kindschafzsrecht. taz, die Tageszeitung, September 28, 1997, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyevre, A. (2010). Unifying the Field of Comparative Judicial Politics: Towards a General Theory of Judicial Behaviour. European Political Science Review, 2(2), 297–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyevre, A. (2011). The German Federal Constitutional Court and European Judicial Politics. West European Politics, 34(2), 346–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1957). An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engst, B.G. (2017). Die vierte Gesetzeslesung. Verfassungsgerichte des deutsch-österreichischen Modells als Vetospieler. In V. Frick, O. W. Lembcke, and R. Lhotta (Eds.) Politik und Recht. Umrisse eines politkwissenschaftlichen Forschungsfeldes (pp. 281–301). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engst, B.G., Gschwend, T., Schaks, N., Sternberg, S., Wittig, C. (2017). Zum Einfluss der Parteinähe auf das Abstimmungsverhalten der Bundesverfassungsrichter – eine quantitative Untersuchung. Juristen Zeitung, 72(17), 816–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engst, B.G., Gschwend, T., Sternberg, S. (2020). Die Besetzung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Ein Spiegelbild gesellschaftlicher Präferenzen? Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 61(1), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L., Knight, J. (1998). The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L., Knight, J., Shvetsova, O. (2001). The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government. Law and Society Review, 35(1), 117–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldkamp, M.F. (2011). Datenhanbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1990 bis 2010. Ergänzungsband. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato, D., König, T., Proksch, S.O. (2013). Government Agenda-Setting and Bicameral Conflict Resolution. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedomehouse. (2017). Freedom in the World. https://freedomhouse.org (accessed February 21, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, T. (2013). Das ferne Gericht. Wirkungsanalysen zum Verhältnis zwischen Bundersverfassungsgericht und Verwaltungsbehörden. In C. Boulanger, and M. Wrase (Eds.) Die Politik des Verfassungsrechts. Interdisziplinäre und vergleichende Perspektiven auf die Rolle und Funktion von Verfassungsgerichten (pp. 217–240). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, T., Rogowski, R. (2002). The Implementation of German Federal Constitutional Court Decisions: Judicial Orders and the Federal Legislature. In R. Rogowski, and T. Gawron (Eds.) Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (pp. 239–256). New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, T., Rogowski, R. (2015). Die Wirkung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. In R. C. van Ooyen, and M. H. W. Möllers (Eds.) Handbuch Bundesverfassungsgericht im politischen System (pp. 153–168). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.L. (2007). The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 507–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.L., Caldeira, G.A., Baird, V.A. (1998). On the Legitimacy of National High Courts. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabenwarter, C., Hoffmann-Riem, W., Suchocka, H., Tuori, K., Velares, J. (2013). Opinion on the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law of Hungary. Venice Commission [European Commission for Democracy through Law], 2013(720), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanretty, C. (2013). The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 703–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanretty, C. (2014). The Bulgarian Constitutional Court as an Additional Legislative Chamber. East European Politics and Societies, 28(3), 540–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecker, W. (2006). Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Luftsicherheitsgesetz. Kritische Justiz, 39(2), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hönnige, C. (2007). Verfassungsgericht, Regierung und Opposition. Die vergleichende Analyse eines Spannungsdreiecks. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hönnige, C. (2008). Verfassungsgerichte in den EU-Staaten: Wahlverfahren, Kompetenzen und Organisationsprinzipien. Journal for Comparative Government and European Policy, 6(3), 524–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hönnige, C. (2009). The Electoral Connection: How the Pivotal Judge Affects Oppositional Success at European Constitutional Courts. West European Politics, 32(5), 963–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hönnige, C., Gschwend, T., Wittig, C., Engst, B.G. (2015). Constitutional Court Database (CCDB), V17.01 [Mar.].

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S.P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: Oklahoma UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismayr, W. (2006). Der Deutsche Bundestag im Politischen System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, K. (2013). Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts. German Law Journal, 14(8), 1345–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (1942). Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the Austrian and the American Constitution. Journal of Politics, 4(2), 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (2008 [1931]). Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein? Abhandlungen zur Theorie der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in der pluralistischen, parlamentarischen Demokratie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneip, S. (2007). Starke und schwache Verfassungsgerichte: Gibt es eine optimale Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit für die Demokratie? In S. Kropp, and H.-J. Lauth (Eds.) Gewaltenteilung und Demokratie. Konzepte und Probleme der "horizontal accountability" im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 91–109). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneip, S. (2008). Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit im Vergleich. In O. W. Gabriel, and S. Kropp (Eds.) Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich Strukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte (pp. 631–655). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kommers, D.P., Miller, R.A. (2012). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Durham: Duke University Press, 3rd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, T. (2001). Bicameralism and Party Politics in Germany: An Empirical Social Choice Analysis. Political Studies, 49(3), 411–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranenpohl, U. (2010). Hinter dem Schleier des Beratungsgeheimnisses. Der Willensbildungs- und Entscheidungsprozess des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, J.N. (2016). The Politics of Judicial Procedures: The Role of Public Oral Hearings in the German Constitutional Court. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 990–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landfried, C. (1985). The Impact of the German Federal Constitutional Court on Politics and Policy Output. Government and Opposition, 20(4), 522–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landfried, C. (1992). Judicial Policy-Making in Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court. West European Politics, 15(3), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landfried, C. (1994). The Judicialization of Politics in Germany. International Political Science Review, 15(2), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuffen, D. (2007). Case Selection and Selection Bias in Small-n Research. In T. Gschwend, and F. Schimmelfennig (Eds.) Research Design in Political Science: How to Practice What They Preach (pp. 145–160). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linzer, D.A., Staton, J.K. (2015). A Global Measure of Judicial Independence, 1948–2012. Journal of Law and Courts, 3(2), 223–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchterhandt, O., Starck, C., Weber, A. (2007). Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Teilband I: Berichte. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manow, P., Burkhart, S. (2007). Legislative Self-Restraint Under Divided Government In Germany, 1976–2002. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(2), 167–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M.G., Gurr, T.R., Jaggers, K. (2014). Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristcs and Transistions, 1800–2013. Vienna, VA: Center for Systemic Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, I., Strøm, K. (1995). Parliamentary Committees. In H. Döring (Ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe (pp. 249–307). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, W.F. (2014). Congress and the Court: A Case Study in the American Political Process. New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim, M. (2003). Der Bundespräsident. In J. Isensee, and P. Kirchhof (Eds.) Hanbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 1072–1103). Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 3rd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niclauß, K. (2015). Der Parlamentarische Rat und das Bundesverfassungsgericht. In R. C. van Ooyen, and M. H. W. Möllers (Eds.) Handbuch Bundesverfassungsgericht im politischen System (pp. 191–204). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palm, U. (2007). Der wehrlose Staat? Der Einsatz der Streitkräfte im Innern nach der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Luftsicherheitsgesetz. Archiv des oeffentlichen Rechts, 132(1), 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parcelle Jr., R.L., Curry, B.W., Marshall, B.W. (2011). Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Politbarometer (2013). Partielle Kumulation (1977–2011). ZA2391—Version 3.0.0. Köln: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffaelli, R. (2012). Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States. European Parliament: Directorate General for Internal Policies (PE 462.470).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rios-Figueroa, J., Staton, J.K. (2014). An Evaluation of Cross-National Measures of Judicial Independence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 30(1), 104–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., Morris, B., Larkin, P. (2013). Fitting the Bill: Brining Commons Legislation Committees into Line With Best Practice. London: University College London—The Constitution Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rütters, P. (2011). Worüber wir reden, wenn wir über den Bundespräsidenten reden. Oder: ... auf dem Weg zur Präsidentialisierung des Regierungssystems? Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 42(4), 863–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, M., Nierhaus, M., Mann, T. (2018). Art. 82 [Ausfertigung, Verkündung und Inkrafttreten von Bundesrecht]. In M. Sachs (Ed.) Grundgesetz. Kommentar (p. Art. 82). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele, K.L. (2003). Constitutional Negotiations: Political Contexts of Judicial Activism in Post-Soviet Europe. International Sociology, 18(1), 219–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaich, K., Korioth, S. (2015). Das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Stellung, Verfahren Entscheidungen. München: C.H. Beck, 10th ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. (1982). The Constitutional Court of the German Federal Republic: Jurisdiction over Individual Compaints. International and Comparative Law Quaterly, 31(2), 331–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starck, C., Weber, A. (2007). Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Westeuropa. Teilband I: Berichte. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2 ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staton, J.K. (2010). Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S., Gschwend, T., Wittig, C.E., Engst, B.G. (2015). Zum Einfluss der öffentlichen Meinung auf Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: Eine Analyse von abstrakten Normenkontrollen sowie Bund-Länder-Streitigkeiten 1974–2010. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 56(4), 570–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Streng, F. (2011). Die Zukunft der Sicherungsverwahrung nach der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: Zum Urteil des Zweiten Senats des BVerfG vom 4.5.2011. Juristen Zeitung, 66(17), 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • SZ. (1995). Kindschaftrecht muß warten. Kabinet verschiebt Beratungen / Grüne: Kinderrechte stärken. Süddeutsche Zeitung, December 14, 1995, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • SZ. (1997). Experten plädieren für gemeinsames Sorgerecht. Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 25, 1997, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanberg, G. (1998). Abstract Judicial Review, Legislative Bargaining, and Policy Compromise. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(3), 299–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanberg, G. (2005). The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veit, S. (2010). Bessere Gesetze durch Folgenabschätzung? Deutschland und Schweden im Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voigt, S., Gutmann, J., Feld, L.P. (2015). Economic Growth and Judicial Independence, a Dozen Years On: Cross-Country Evidence Using an Updated Set of Indicators. European Journal of Political Economy, 38, 197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Münch, E.M. (1997). Ehelich oder unehelich - In der nächsten Woche wird die Reform des Kindschaftsrechts verabscheidet. Die Zeit, September 19, 1997, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesel, U. (2004). Der Gang nach Karlsruhe: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik. München: Karl Blessing Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittig, C.E. (2016). The Occurrence of Separate Opinions at the Federal Constitutional Court: An Analysis with a Novel Database. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Benjamin G. Engst

Authors
  1. Benjamin G. Engst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin G. Engst .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Engst, B.G. (2021). Judicial Power in Germany and the European Union. In: The Two Faces of Judicial Power. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46016-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation