Crises are not only a test for society, they also pose a challenge to the legal order. This is revealed by the worldwide handling of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease with a clarity that until recently probably nobody thought possible. Even in liberal democratic states, far-reaching restrictions on personal freedoms have been imposed, including lockdowns. In addition to questions of proportionality, the scope of the parliamentary prerogative in the Corona crisis has been under discussion in Germany since March 2020. Contrary to some voices in legal literature, even serious encroachments on fundamental rights can be justified, at least temporarily, by executive orders based on the general clause under infection control law and its cursory clarifications. Though, as the duration and complexity of crisis management increases, so too does the constitutional exigency for fundamental decisions by the legislature. The question of parliamentary prerogative also arises in the discussion about compensation payments, for example, for closure of businesses and other establishments during the lockdown. Since special provisions of infection control law often do not apply, some advocate a recourse to unwritten state liability law. However, this law is only geared to selective compensation and does not usually provide a legal basis for state liability in the Corona crisis. Here, too, the legislature must make improvements, if encroachments on fundamental rights – namely on the freedom of property – are no longer deemed proportionate without financial compensation. When assessing proportionality, however, the numerous aid programs must be taken into account.
{"title":"Der Parlamentsvorbehalt in der Corona-Krise","authors":"Armin von Weschpfennig","doi":"10.3790/VERW.53.4.469","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.53.4.469","url":null,"abstract":"Crises are not only a test for society, they also pose a challenge to the legal order. This is revealed by the worldwide handling of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease with a clarity that until recently probably nobody thought possible. Even in liberal democratic states, far-reaching restrictions on personal freedoms have been imposed, including lockdowns.\u0000In addition to questions of proportionality, the scope of the parliamentary prerogative in the Corona crisis has been under discussion in Germany since March 2020. Contrary to some voices in legal literature, even serious encroachments on fundamental rights can be justified, at least temporarily, by executive orders based on the general clause under infection control law and its cursory clarifications. Though, as the duration and complexity of crisis management increases, so too does the constitutional exigency for fundamental decisions by the legislature.\u0000The question of parliamentary prerogative also arises in the discussion about compensation payments, for example, for closure of businesses and other establishments during the lockdown. Since special provisions of infection control law often do not apply, some advocate a recourse to unwritten state liability law. However, this law is only geared to selective compensation and does not usually provide a legal basis for state liability in the Corona crisis. Here, too, the legislature must make improvements, if encroachments on fundamental rights – namely on the freedom of property – are no longer deemed proportionate without financial compensation. When assessing proportionality, however, the numerous aid programs must be taken into account.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"469-500"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43749677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In German building law, existing buildings are usually exempt from new construction standards. However, an exception can be made if a building presents a danger to life or health. The authorities may then demand the retrofitting of the otherwise grandfathered building. This article analyses the German jurisdiction in matters of retrofitted fire safety. It finds that the interpretation of the courts concerning the word ‘danger’ leads to an undermining of the grandfathering, ultimately rendering it void of meaning in the field of fire safety. In particular, three sometimes overlapping interpretations can be distinguished: First, some courts assume that any building that does not comply with current building standards poses a danger to life or health. As such, no grandfathered building would be able to benefit from its protected status and the notion of grandfathering is reduced to absurdity. Second, some courts argue that ‘danger’ in the context of fire safety requires an interpretation that is different from the common doctrine. The common interpretation assumes that ‘danger’ has a binary outcome (i. e. either ‘danger’ or ‘no danger’) and occurs when there is ‘sufficient probability’ of damage. In contrast, proponents of a deviating interpretation argue that danger should already be assumed to occur when damage is ‘not totally improbably’, i. e. applying an interpretation of the term ‘danger’ with fewer requirements. Third, other courts justify the retrofitting of grandfathered buildings by arguing that a danger of fire exists in every building at all times. The courts thereby dismiss their responsibility to prove the existence of a danger with respect to a particular building. The article shows that none of the justifications used in courts endure from a dogmatic point of view.
{"title":"Bestandsschutz und Gefahr","authors":"Laura Lorena Wallenfels","doi":"10.3790/VERW.53.4.575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.53.4.575","url":null,"abstract":"In German building law, existing buildings are usually exempt from new construction standards. However, an exception can be made if a building presents a danger to life or health. The authorities may then demand the retrofitting of the otherwise grandfathered building.\u0000This article analyses the German jurisdiction in matters of retrofitted fire safety. It finds that the interpretation of the courts concerning the word ‘danger’ leads to an undermining of the grandfathering, ultimately rendering it void of meaning in the field of fire safety.\u0000In particular, three sometimes overlapping interpretations can be distinguished: First, some courts assume that any building that does not comply with current building standards poses a danger to life or health. As such, no grandfathered building would be able to benefit from its protected status and the notion of grandfathering is reduced to absurdity. Second, some courts argue that ‘danger’ in the context of fire safety requires an interpretation that is different from the common doctrine. The common interpretation assumes that ‘danger’ has a binary outcome (i. e. either ‘danger’ or ‘no danger’) and occurs when there is ‘sufficient probability’ of damage. In contrast, proponents of a deviating interpretation argue that danger should already be assumed to occur when damage is ‘not totally improbably’, i. e. applying an interpretation of the term ‘danger’ with fewer requirements. Third, other courts justify the retrofitting of grandfathered buildings by arguing that a danger of fire exists in every building at all times. The courts thereby dismiss their responsibility to prove the existence of a danger with respect to a particular building. The article shows that none of the justifications used in courts endure from a dogmatic point of view.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"575-600"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42745081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Der motorisierte Individualverkehr ist in den Blick der Klimapolitik geraten. Von allen klimarelevanten Sektoren sind im Verkehrssektor die wenigsten CO2-Einsparungen festzustellen. Mit dem neuen Brennstoffemissionshandelsgesetz ist eine CO2-Bepreisung des Verkehrs auf den Weg gebracht worden, aber es wird bezweifelt, ob der nationale Emissionshandel hinreichende Lenkungswirkungen entfaltet und finanzverfassungsrechtlich zulässig ist. Es ist verfehlt, den Emissionshandel als Alternative zu ordnungsrechtlichen Instrumenten zu begreifen. Außerdem mahnt der Beitrag im Hinblick auf die verfassungsrechtliche Bewertung zur Vorsicht. Sinn macht der CO2-Preis für den Verkehr, wenn nachgeschärft wird. Dazu gehört eine beherzte Reform der Energiesteuern, aber auch die Einführung einer streckenbezogenen Pkw-Maut sowie eine übergreifende Verkehrsplanung. Im Ergebnis ist zu begrüßen, dass die CO2-Emissionen des Verkehrs einen Preis erhalten, aber naiv anzunehmen, allein darüber würde die Verkehrswende gelingen. Individual motorized transport has become the focus of climate policy. Of all the climate-relevant sectors, the transport sector has seen the fewest reductions in CO2 emissions. The new Fuel Emissions Trading Act (“Brennstoffemissionshandelsgesetz”) initiates carbon pricing for the transport sector. Nonetheless, it remains doubtful whether national emissions trading has sufficient steering effects and if it complies with the constitutional finance law. It would be erroneous to understand emissions trading as an alternative to regulatory instruments. In addition, the article urges caution with regard to the constitutional assessment. Moreover, carbon pricing for the traffic sector only makes sense if it is increased. This includes a courageous reform of energy taxes, but also the introduction of a route-based car toll and comprehensive traffic planning. As a result, carbon pricing of the transport sector is appreciated, however it would be naïve to assume that it alone would lead to a sustainable transport policy (“Verkehrswende”).
机动车交通进入了气候政策的观察状态。所有交通部门的二氧化碳排放量都是最少的。新的燃料排放交易法规已经启动了交易交易的碳定价，但是，国家排放交易体系是否具有足够的治理效力并且在财政法规中被允许这令人怀疑。将排放额交易作为惩罚性手段的替代性手段将是错误的。此外，宪法评估方面的贡献也提醒我们要谨慎行事。对运输经过后台时开的二氧化碳收费很合理这就需要对能源税进行大胆的改革，同时还引入了带有道路色彩的私家汽车，并提供了广泛的交通规划。结果，人们欢欣鼓舞的是，交通的二氧化碳排放得到了一个奖状，但如果认为仅仅以此来衡量交通变化就能成功的话，那么就太天真了。个人动力运输达到了《气候政策焦点》。所有气候相关部分组成部分，交通部门哈斯菲尔德:减少二氧化碳的二氧化碳。新燃料排放法通过碳排放监督运输。非营利性组织，它的历史浮出水面贸易伙伴关系是建立在基础法律之上的这会使温室气体的排放能达成谈判机制的解决方案。加在一种文字与平衡的平衡。莫利佛碳流量测验在迷路只会让人发觉根据过去十年来气温的变化来看As a result,碳,委员会将《运输的is的however it会是好ï你失去to assume独自一人时它会指示to a可持续运输政策(“Verkehrswende”).
{"title":"CO2-Bepreisung des Verkehrs","authors":"C. Franzius","doi":"10.3790/verw.53.3.421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.3.421","url":null,"abstract":"Der motorisierte Individualverkehr ist in den Blick der Klimapolitik geraten. Von allen klimarelevanten Sektoren sind im Verkehrssektor die wenigsten CO2-Einsparungen festzustellen. Mit dem neuen Brennstoffemissionshandelsgesetz ist eine CO2-Bepreisung des Verkehrs auf den Weg gebracht worden, aber es wird bezweifelt, ob der nationale Emissionshandel hinreichende Lenkungswirkungen entfaltet und finanzverfassungsrechtlich zulässig ist. Es ist verfehlt, den Emissionshandel als Alternative zu ordnungsrechtlichen Instrumenten zu begreifen. Außerdem mahnt der Beitrag im Hinblick auf die verfassungsrechtliche Bewertung zur Vorsicht. Sinn macht der CO2-Preis für den Verkehr, wenn nachgeschärft wird. Dazu gehört eine beherzte Reform der Energiesteuern, aber auch die Einführung einer streckenbezogenen Pkw-Maut sowie eine übergreifende Verkehrsplanung. Im Ergebnis ist zu begrüßen, dass die CO2-Emissionen des Verkehrs einen Preis erhalten, aber naiv anzunehmen, allein darüber würde die Verkehrswende gelingen.\u0000Individual motorized transport has become the focus of climate policy. Of all the climate-relevant sectors, the transport sector has seen the fewest reductions in CO2 emissions. The new Fuel Emissions Trading Act (“Brennstoffemissionshandelsgesetz”) initiates carbon pricing for the transport sector. Nonetheless, it remains doubtful whether national emissions trading has sufficient steering effects and if it complies with the constitutional finance law. It would be erroneous to understand emissions trading as an alternative to regulatory instruments. In addition, the article urges caution with regard to the constitutional assessment. Moreover, carbon pricing for the traffic sector only makes sense if it is increased. This includes a courageous reform of energy taxes, but also the introduction of a route-based car toll and comprehensive traffic planning. As a result, carbon pricing of the transport sector is appreciated, however it would be naïve to assume that it alone would lead to a sustainable transport policy (“Verkehrswende”).","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"421-456"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48882682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The widespread use of smartphones has given rise to numerous new mobility services, commonly described as ride sharing and/or ride pooling. Such services allow for a spontaneous and more flexible coordination of supply and demand, and thus promise to be a more efficient and ecological alternative to traditional modes of local transport. However, these services may also come to compete with public (and publicly funded) transport services. Further, the business models associated with these services may pose problems both for workers’ rights and in terms of consumer protection. The current legal framework, namely the German Passenger Transportation Act [Personenbeförderungsgesetz – PTA] only allows the provision of services according to certain pre-defined categories (i. e. line haul services, taxi services and vehicles for hire). Each of the categories enjoys specific privileges but is also subject to specific obligations. This regulatory regime is intended to guarantee a continuous and comprehensive supply with a variety of mobility services but turns out to be ill-equipped to accommodate new modes of transport which do not fit into any of the pre-defined categories. In Germany, this has led to several legal disputes about their permissibility. Recent plans to reform the PTA, put forward by the Federal Ministry of Transport and a multipartisan reform commission, involve some deregulation of transport services while retaining the overall regulatory system. Most importantly, they intend to incorporate ride pooling services both as part of the public transport system and as independent services. While the reform proposals point in the right direction, there is a need for more comprehensive reform. This would, firstly, entail a critical assessment whether the rigid regulatory system in its current form is still feasible. Secondly, ecological requirements should play a greater role when tendering and licensing transport services. As to that, the possibilities to award special compensation in accordance with EU-Regulation 1370/2007 should be used more widely. A more comprehensive reform would, thirdly, also consider the way (esp. municipal) authorities can plan transport services. Not only would such planning have to include different (new) mobility services. One should also aim at better synchronising different planning tools to integrate a multitude of mobility services. Finally, new mobility services pose further challenges that, however, are typical for the digital and platform economy, such as dynamic and individual pricing, issues of data protection and a possible need for regulated self-regulation.
{"title":"Regulierungsansätze für plattformgestützte Mobilitätsdienste – Reformbedarf und Reformbestrebungen","authors":"M. Fehling, N. Schröter","doi":"10.3790/verw.53.3.381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.3.381","url":null,"abstract":"The widespread use of smartphones has given rise to numerous new mobility services, commonly described as ride sharing and/or ride pooling. Such services allow for a spontaneous and more flexible coordination of supply and demand, and thus promise to be a more efficient and ecological alternative to traditional modes of local transport. However, these services may also come to compete with public (and publicly funded) transport services. Further, the business models associated with these services may pose problems both for workers’ rights and in terms of consumer protection.\u0000The current legal framework, namely the German Passenger Transportation Act [Personenbeförderungsgesetz – PTA] only allows the provision of services according to certain pre-defined categories (i. e. line haul services, taxi services and vehicles for hire). Each of the categories enjoys specific privileges but is also subject to specific obligations. This regulatory regime is intended to guarantee a continuous and comprehensive supply with a variety of mobility services but turns out to be ill-equipped to accommodate new modes of transport which do not fit into any of the pre-defined categories. In Germany, this has led to several legal disputes about their permissibility.\u0000Recent plans to reform the PTA, put forward by the Federal Ministry of Transport and a multipartisan reform commission, involve some deregulation of transport services while retaining the overall regulatory system. Most importantly, they intend to incorporate ride pooling services both as part of the public transport system and as independent services.\u0000While the reform proposals point in the right direction, there is a need for more comprehensive reform. This would, firstly, entail a critical assessment whether the rigid regulatory system in its current form is still feasible. Secondly, ecological requirements should play a greater role when tendering and licensing transport services. As to that, the possibilities to award special compensation in accordance with EU-Regulation 1370/2007 should be used more widely. A more comprehensive reform would, thirdly, also consider the way (esp. municipal) authorities can plan transport services. Not only would such planning have to include different (new) mobility services. One should also aim at better synchronising different planning tools to integrate a multitude of mobility services. Finally, new mobility services pose further challenges that, however, are typical for the digital and platform economy, such as dynamic and individual pricing, issues of data protection and a possible need for regulated self-regulation.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"381-420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46023905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article deals with state responsibility for the provision of sustainable mobility for people and goods, which is available and affordable for everyone. The legal structure of that responsibility can be shaped based on a general legal theory of network-bound infrastructures that distinguishes between the provision of transport infrastructure network, the regulation of (public and private) transport services, and a general legal framework (technical safety, consumer protection, environmental requirements, etc.). The governmental responsibility for mobility is rooted in the German constitution and governed by constitutional rules aimed at protecting health, environment and climate. By analyzing the ways, the legislator and the executive branch follow their responsibilities, some general principles, means and instruments can be found. Among these the instrumental function and limited range of competition is crucial. “Modal split” and “multimodality” of mobility have to be managed by special means of distribution, transfer policy (shifting transport from the roads to the railways), and (digital) interconnectivity. In the light of this the article focusses on two challenges of Germany’s sustainable transport policy (Verkehrswende)—reorganization of railway transport by introducing a nationwide synchronized timetable, and reorganization of local mobility by new instruments of urban planning and interconnectivity.
{"title":"Gewährleistung umweltverträglicher Mobilität für alle","authors":"G. Hermes","doi":"10.3790/verw.53.3.311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.3.311","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with state responsibility for the provision of sustainable mobility for people and goods, which is available and affordable for everyone. The legal structure of that responsibility can be shaped based on a general legal theory of network-bound infrastructures that distinguishes between the provision of transport infrastructure network, the regulation of (public and private) transport services, and a general legal framework (technical safety, consumer protection, environmental requirements, etc.). The governmental responsibility for mobility is rooted in the German constitution and governed by constitutional rules aimed at protecting health, environment and climate. By analyzing the ways, the legislator and the executive branch follow their responsibilities, some general principles, means and instruments can be found. Among these the instrumental function and limited range of competition is crucial. “Modal split” and “multimodality” of mobility have to be managed by special means of distribution, transfer policy (shifting transport from the roads to the railways), and (digital) interconnectivity. In the light of this the article focusses on two challenges of Germany’s sustainable transport policy (Verkehrswende)—reorganization of railway transport by introducing a nationwide synchronized timetable, and reorganization of local mobility by new instruments of urban planning and interconnectivity.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"311-346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41394954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Das deutsche Recht des Öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs bedarf der Modernisierung. Das klimapolitisch bedingte Ziel der Verkehrswende ist ohne eine Stärkung umweltfreundlicher Mobilitätsformen und damit auch des öffentlichen Verkehrs nicht erreichbar. Hierzu kann das Recht einen größeren Beitrag leisten als bisher. Aktuelle Reformvorschläge zielen vor allem darauf ab, die Chancen der Digitalisierung nutzbar zu machen und die Zulassung von on demand-Verkehren zu erleichtern. Eine Überarbeitung des Rechtsrahmens sollte jedoch auch die Marktstruktur in den Blick nehmen. Hierzu bedarf es der Ausrichtung der Regelungen an klaren ordnungspolitischen Leitbildern, aber auch einer grundsätzlichen Entwicklungsoffenheit. Der Beitrag zeigt den Rahmen für eine Novellierung des Personenbeförderungsrechts vor dem Hintergrund seiner überkommenen Ausgestaltung sowie unter Berücksichtigung verfassungs- und europarechtlicher Vorgaben auf und nimmt einige zentrale Reformfragen näher in den Blick. German public transport law requires modernization. The climate policy-related goal of Germany’s sustainable transport policy (Verkehrswende) cannot be achieved without strengthening environmentally friendly forms of mobility as well as public transport. Law can make a greater contribution to this than before. Current reform proposals are mainly aimed at exploiting the opportunities offered by digitalisation and at allowing on-demand traffic. However, a revision of the legal framework should also take into consideration the structure of the market. This requires aligning the regulations with clear regulatory guidelines, but also with a fundamental openness to development. The article shows the framework for an amendment to the law on passenger transport against the background of its traditional form, taking into account constitutional and European law requirements, and takes a closer look at some key reform issues.
{"title":"Modernisierung des ÖPNV-Rechts (auch) zur Förderung der Verkehrswende","authors":"M. Knauff","doi":"10.3790/verw.53.3.347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.3.347","url":null,"abstract":"Das deutsche Recht des Öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs bedarf der Modernisierung. Das klimapolitisch bedingte Ziel der Verkehrswende ist ohne eine Stärkung umweltfreundlicher Mobilitätsformen und damit auch des öffentlichen Verkehrs nicht erreichbar. Hierzu kann das Recht einen größeren Beitrag leisten als bisher. Aktuelle Reformvorschläge zielen vor allem darauf ab, die Chancen der Digitalisierung nutzbar zu machen und die Zulassung von on demand-Verkehren zu erleichtern. Eine Überarbeitung des Rechtsrahmens sollte jedoch auch die Marktstruktur in den Blick nehmen. Hierzu bedarf es der Ausrichtung der Regelungen an klaren ordnungspolitischen Leitbildern, aber auch einer grundsätzlichen Entwicklungsoffenheit. Der Beitrag zeigt den Rahmen für eine Novellierung des Personenbeförderungsrechts vor dem Hintergrund seiner überkommenen Ausgestaltung sowie unter Berücksichtigung verfassungs- und europarechtlicher Vorgaben auf und nimmt einige zentrale Reformfragen näher in den Blick.\u0000 German public transport law requires modernization. The climate policy-related goal of Germany’s sustainable transport policy (Verkehrswende) cannot be achieved without strengthening environmentally friendly forms of mobility as well as public transport. Law can make a greater contribution to this than before. Current reform proposals are mainly aimed at exploiting the opportunities offered by digitalisation and at allowing on-demand traffic. However, a revision of the legal framework should also take into consideration the structure of the market. This requires aligning the regulations with clear regulatory guidelines, but also with a fundamental openness to development. The article shows the framework for an amendment to the law on passenger transport against the background of its traditional form, taking into account constitutional and European law requirements, and takes a closer look at some key reform issues.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"347-380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49268486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zusammenfassung Die Subjektivität des Rechtsschutzes ist ein zentrales Prinzip der deutschen Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit. Allerdings steht dieses Prinzip unter erheblichem Anpassungsdruck. Die vorliegende Untersuchung analysiert das Prinzip des subjektiven Rechtsschutzes sowie die Tendenzen hin zu einer Objektivierung des Rechtsschutzes, die sich in der gegenwärtigen verwaltungsgerichtlichen Praxis und Wissenschaft finden. Gezeigt wird, dass Tendenzen zur Objektivierung des Rechtsschutzes kein isoliertes Phänomen im Bereich des unionsrechtlichen Umweltrechts sind, sondern entsprechende rechtliche Fragestellungen auch in anderen Rechtsbereichen aufgeworfen werden. Es wird gezeigt, dass und wie sich die Tendenzen zur Objektivierung ohne einen Systembruch in den auf subjektiven Rechtsschutz ausgelegten Rahmen integrieren lassen. Subjective Rights-based Legal Protection as a Traditional Principle and Tendencies Towards its Objectification A fundamental principle of German administrative jurisdiction is that access to courts depends on whether the plaintiff can claim the infringement of a subjective right. However, this principle has been under pressure for years. This article analyses the subjective rights-based principle of legal protection as well as tendencies towards an objectification of legal protection. Objectification here means that legal protection is offered also in constellations that are not about protecting individual rights in a traditional understanding, but aim for an objective control of the administration’s acts. While these developments have been widely discussed in regard to the effects of European Union environmental law, this article shows that tendencies towards objectification are not isolated phenomena in the field of environmental law, but also occur in other areas of law.
{"title":"Der subjektive Rechtsschutz nach klassischem Konzept und Tendenzen seiner Objektivierung","authors":"Christian Marxsen","doi":"10.3790/verw.53.2.215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.2.215","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Zusammenfassung\u0000 Die Subjektivität des Rechtsschutzes ist ein zentrales Prinzip der deutschen Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit. Allerdings steht dieses Prinzip unter erheblichem Anpassungsdruck. Die vorliegende Untersuchung analysiert das Prinzip des subjektiven Rechtsschutzes sowie die Tendenzen hin zu einer Objektivierung des Rechtsschutzes, die sich in der gegenwärtigen verwaltungsgerichtlichen Praxis und Wissenschaft finden. Gezeigt wird, dass Tendenzen zur Objektivierung des Rechtsschutzes kein isoliertes Phänomen im Bereich des unionsrechtlichen Umweltrechts sind, sondern entsprechende rechtliche Fragestellungen auch in anderen Rechtsbereichen aufgeworfen werden. Es wird gezeigt, dass und wie sich die Tendenzen zur Objektivierung ohne einen Systembruch in den auf subjektiven Rechtsschutz ausgelegten Rahmen integrieren lassen.\u0000 Subjective Rights-based Legal Protection as a Traditional Principle and Tendencies Towards its Objectification\u0000 A fundamental principle of German administrative jurisdiction is that access to courts depends on whether the plaintiff can claim the infringement of a subjective right. However, this principle has been under pressure for years. This article analyses the subjective rights-based principle of legal protection as well as tendencies towards an objectification of legal protection. Objectification here means that legal protection is offered also in constellations that are not about protecting individual rights in a traditional understanding, but aim for an objective control of the administration’s acts. While these developments have been widely discussed in regard to the effects of European Union environmental law, this article shows that tendencies towards objectification are not isolated phenomena in the field of environmental law, but also occur in other areas of law.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"215-252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42230925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：