Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
German Law Journal reported last November on the German Government's plans to take the extraordinary move of seeking a constitutional ban of the extreme right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany. At the end of January, 2001, the Federal Government filed its motion for a ban of the NPD with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. At the end of March, 2001, the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the Bundesrat (Federal Legislative Chamber of the States) followed with separate motions. The Federal Constitutional Court now has before it three separate actions, raising distinct claims and presenting distinct evidence, seeking the constitutional excommunication of the NPD. The motions present a unified front from every political sector of the German constitutional order: the executive, the legislature and the Länder (federal states). This lock-step approach to the effort to ban the NPD was part of the master-scheme of Federal Interior Minister Otto Schily, who pressed hard to gain support for the move to seek a ban from all mainstream political parties and all the Länder, at least in part to limit the political fall-out in the case that the Constitutional Court finds against the motions.
(1) Government Commits to Seeking a Ban of the Extreme Right-Wing National Democratic Party of Germany, 1 GERM. L. J. 2 (November 1, 2000) http://www.germanlawjournal.com Google Scholar
(2) Only the Free Democratic Party (FDP or Liberals) refused to throw its support behind the motions seeking a ban.Google Scholar
(3) Government Commits to Seeking a Ban of the Extreme Right-Wing National Democratic Party of Germany, 1 GERM. L. J. 2, Para. 1 (November 1, 2000) http://www.germanlawjournal.com Google Scholar
(4) Information about Mahler, expressing both support and criticism, is in abundance in the Internet (in German). The short biographical-sketch presented here was drawn exclusively from information on the web-sites of: (a) the Deutsches Historisches Museum (German Historical Museum), http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/MahlerHorst/; and (b) Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus (Information Service Against Right-Wing Extremism), http://www.idgr.de/lexicon/bio/m/mahler-horst/mahler.html.Google Scholar
(5) For a discussion of the German hate-speech law, see Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Convicts Foreigner for Internet Posted Incitement to Racial Hatred, 2 GERMAN L. J. 8 (May 1, 2001) http://www.germanlawjournal.com; Federal Constitutional Court Reverses the Hate-Speech Conviction of Journalist Who, For an Article About a Local Political Candidate, Penned the Headline: “Culture: A Jew?”, 1 GERM. L. J. 3 (November 15, 2000) http://www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar
(6) For a brief introduction to this procedural device, see the article The Federal Constitutional Court's Emergency Power to Intervene: Provisional Measures Pursuant to Article 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, also in this issue, under Public Sector.Google Scholar
(7) Thus fulfilling the requirement that such motions for an injunction arise out of proceedings before the Court: Article 32(1) states “In a dispute …” This has been interpreted to mean a dispute over which the Federal Constitutional Court would have jurisdiction. See BVerfGG Kommentar, Berkemann, p. 578–579.Google Scholar
(8) NPD Parteiverbot Verfahren, 2 BvB 1/01 vom 3.7.2001, http://www.bverfg.de/.Google Scholar
(9) Id. at Paragraph 25.Google Scholar
(10) Id.Google Scholar
You have
Access
