Constitutional judges remain silent on Syria deployment of the Bundeswehr, which is unconstitutional and incompatible with international law, and deny the German population any protection against the danger of world war and against the jihadist „blitzkrieg“, which has been prognosticated for Germany and Europe for 2016
Unser Politikblog | 12.07.2016
After the press conference of the 12.06.2016 in Dresden, the plaintiff now addresses herself to the public also in writing.
|photo: (c) Unser Politikblog (photo shows the court room|
of the Constitutional Court
At the 17.03.2016, the civil and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing has filed a Constitutional complaint (file number 2 BvR 576/16) against the resolution by the Bundestag of the 03.12.2015 (file number 18/6866) on the Syria deployment of the Bundeswehr. The seven applications of the complaint have demanded to prohibit the German Syria deployment, to impose on the members of the Bundestag (as far as foreign and safety policy are concerned) appropriate criteria for the self investigation of their conscience prescribed in art. 38 par. 1 s. 2 Basic Law, to biometrically register all immigrants, who have come to Germany since 2015, to appropriately limit the power of think tanks over Germany in the area of foreign and safety policy (in order to protect the Basic Law and the UN Charter), to restore the ability of Germany to defend its whole territory against the danger of a jihadist attack, to completely limit the prescriptions of the TEU on safety policy with an interpretation in conformity with the Basic Law and with the UN Charter, and to oblige, for that purpose, the Federal Government to get an advisory opinion by the ICJ, or to state, according to art 53 VCLT, the voidness of the TEU because of incompatibility with the UN Charter.
The Constitutional Court has made provisions in the Lisbon judgement to limit the Common Foreign and Safety Policy (CFSP) of the EU, which have made possible the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty without the TEU getting void. Those provisions have been disregarded by the EU Council of Ministers (incl. by the German Defence Minister) at the 16./17.11.2015 (file number 14120/15) and by the Bundestag at the 03.12.2015 (file number 18/6866).
The complaint has been based on the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law) in connection with the peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), on the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), on the basic rights to life, to physical integrity, and to freedom (art. 2 Basic Law), on the function reservation (art. 33 par. 4 Basic Law), and on the universal human rights to security (art. 9 ICCPR) and to health (art. 12 CESCR).
At the 12.04.2016, the 3rd Chamber (Constitutional judges Prof. Dr. Huber, Müller, and Dr. Maidowski) of the 2nd Senate of the Constitutional Court have unanimously concluded not to admit the Constitutional complaint and referred for that to art. 93a and 93b BVerfGG. An explanation for the non-admittance has not been given. The non-admittance has, according to the post stamp, been sent at the 14.04.2016, and it has reached the post box in the morning of the 15.04.2016.
According to art. 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG, a resolution on a non-admittance does not have to be explained. Art. 93a BVerfGG determines as a „must“ prescription, depending on which conditions a Constitutional complaint has to be admitted, namely if there is a personal affectedness regarding basic rights, or if the decisive legal questions are furthering the Constitutional jurisdiction. If a Constitutional complaint fulfills these conditions, it has to be admitted; if it does not fulfill them, it may not be admitted.
What the own, current, and immediate affectedness regarding basic rights, as a precondition of the admittance of a Constitutional complaint, means, has been explained in no. 78 of the aviation safety law judgement of the 15.02.2006 (file number 1 BvR 357/05). The condition of the own and current affectedness is basically fulfilled, if the plaintiff explains, that she, with a certain probability, is affected in her basic rights by the measures based on the tackled prescriptions. Immediate affectedness means, that the prescriptions change the legal position of the plaintiff already before any act of their implementation. This condition is also fulfilled, if the plaintiff cannot or cannot reasonably complain against an act of its implementation. According to these standards, the personal affectedness regarding the aviation safety law has been confirmed. The then plaintiffs had credibly explained, that they often use civil air planes for private and professional reasons.
The fundamental importance for Constitutional law means the furthering of the Constitutional jurisdiction, i. e., which of the invoked decisive legal questions have not yet been decided by the Constitutional Court, or which have to be investigated again because of a changed situation or because of new legal arguments.
So a non-admittance, even if it is issued without any explanation, always implies the silent allegation, that none of the invoked affectednesses regarding basic rights and human rights, or none of the invoked decisive legal questions for the furthering of Constitutional jurisdiction were given.