德国联邦宪法法院判决中的职业自由和私有财产保护

P. Kucherenko
{"title":"德国联邦宪法法院判决中的职业自由和私有财产保护","authors":"P. Kucherenko","doi":"10.31857/s102694520024326-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, on the example of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the correlation between the freedom of profession and the constitutional guarantee of private property in Germany will be considered. As an example, one of the early cases of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany called “District Chimney Sweeper”, which was decided on April 30, 1952, is taken. In this case, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany came to the conclusion that the “enterprise” of a chimney sweep is a craft in which the private law aspects of economic life completely fade into the background, and in which moments of strict public law regulation certainly dominate. This circumstance does not allow us to bring the concept of “guaranteed right to engage in a craft” under “property” in the sense of Article 14 of the German Basic Law of 1949.","PeriodicalId":82769,"journal":{"name":"Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of profession and protection of private property in the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany\",\"authors\":\"P. Kucherenko\",\"doi\":\"10.31857/s102694520024326-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, on the example of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the correlation between the freedom of profession and the constitutional guarantee of private property in Germany will be considered. As an example, one of the early cases of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany called “District Chimney Sweeper”, which was decided on April 30, 1952, is taken. In this case, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany came to the conclusion that the “enterprise” of a chimney sweep is a craft in which the private law aspects of economic life completely fade into the background, and in which moments of strict public law regulation certainly dominate. This circumstance does not allow us to bring the concept of “guaranteed right to engage in a craft” under “property” in the sense of Article 14 of the German Basic Law of 1949.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31857/s102694520024326-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31857/s102694520024326-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文将以德国联邦宪法法院的判决为例,考察德国职业自由与宪法对私有财产的保障之间的关系。以1952年4月30日判决的德国联邦宪法法院早期的“地区扫烟囱者”一案为例。在这个案例中,德国联邦宪法法院得出的结论是,扫烟囱的“企业”是一种技艺,在这种技艺中,经济生活的私法方面完全退居次要地位,在这种技艺中,严格的公法监管无疑占主导地位。这种情况不允许我们把1949年德国基本法第14条意义上的“从事一艘船的权利得到保障”的概念置于“财产”之下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Freedom of profession and protection of private property in the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany
In this article, on the example of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the correlation between the freedom of profession and the constitutional guarantee of private property in Germany will be considered. As an example, one of the early cases of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany called “District Chimney Sweeper”, which was decided on April 30, 1952, is taken. In this case, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany came to the conclusion that the “enterprise” of a chimney sweep is a craft in which the private law aspects of economic life completely fade into the background, and in which moments of strict public law regulation certainly dominate. This circumstance does not allow us to bring the concept of “guaranteed right to engage in a craft” under “property” in the sense of Article 14 of the German Basic Law of 1949.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal protection and rational use of geological heritage in geoparks The Russian system of pre-trial proceedings as a synthesis of different types of criminal procedure Legal regulation circulation of digital rights in United States of America Feignfullness prohibition: administrative and legal research with elements of an economic approach The first Criminal Code of Soviet Russia and the responsibility of professional criminals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1