grundrechtspruefung

/verfassungsrecht:grundrechtspruefung

Purpose

The fundamental rights review follows the three-stage scheme: scope of protection → interference → constitutional justification. For equality rights, the new formula on Art. 3(1) of the Basic Law applies. This skill ensures that the individual stages, their special cases (third-party effect, duty of protection, rights to benefits) and the limits on limits (in particular proportionality) are fully worked through.

Inputs

challenged act of state authority (statute, administrative act, judgment or mere administrative action)
named fundamental right (Art. 1–19 of the Basic Law) or right equivalent to a fundamental right
affected person(s); legal person? foreigner?
type of limitation (qualified statutory reservation, simple statutory reservation, constitutionally inherent limitations)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides statutes, standard commentaries and relevant leading Federal Constitutional Court decisions on the fundamental right. Drafter carries out the three-stage scheme in the style of a legal opinion. Reviewer checks the completeness of the stages, proportionality and the new formula for Art. 3 of the Basic Law.

Procedure

1. Scope of protection

Dimension	Content
Personal	A right of everyone or a right of Germans (Art. 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 of the Basic Law only for Germans)? Legal person (Art. 19(3) of the Basic Law)?
Substantive	Which conduct / states are covered?

For rights of freedom: to be interpreted broadly, in case of doubt in dubio pro libertate. In interpreting the scope of protection, the four classical methods are to be applied.

2. Interference

Classical concept of interference (final, direct, legal-formal, with command and coercion) vs. modern concept of interference (any impairment of the protected interest of the fundamental right attributable to the state). Today's prevailing view follows the modern concept — cf. Sachs, in: Sachs GG, before Art. 1 marginal no. 78 ff.

Special constellations:

Indirect third-party effect (Federal Constitutional Court, Lüth, BVerfGE 7, 198): fundamental rights as an objective order of values have effect through general clauses of civil law (Sections 138, 242 of the Civil Code).
Duties of protection: fundamental rights as a mandate to protect (BVerfGE 39, 1); prohibition of falling short of the minimum standard.
Rights to benefits: only exceptionally original claims to participation (minimum subsistence level, BVerfGE 125, 175).

3. Constitutional justification

3.1 Limitation

Simple statutory reservation (e.g. Art. 8(2), Art. 12(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law)
Qualified statutory reservation (e.g. Art. 11(2) of the Basic Law)
Constitutionally inherent limitations (unreservedly guaranteed fundamental rights such as Art. 4 GG, Art. 5(3) GG, Art. 8(1) GG for assemblies in the open air — note special case para. 2)

3.2 Limits on limits

Requirement of citation Art. 19(1) sentence 2 GG
Prohibition of individual-case laws Art. 19(1) sentence 1 GG
Guarantee of the essence Art. 19(2) GG
Proportionality (see 3.3)
in the case of Art. 5 GG: Interaction doctrine (BVerfGE 7, 198 — "Lüth")

3.3 Proportionality

Step	Standard
Legitimate purpose	Public interest compatible with the constitution
Suitability	Measure promotes the purpose (legislature's prerogative of assessment)
Necessity	No equally effective, milder means available
Appropriateness (in the narrow sense)	Balancing severity of the interference ↔ weight of the purpose

In the case of Art. 12 GG: Three-stage theory (BVerfGE 7, 377 — "Apothecary Judgment") — regulation of the practice of a profession, subjective choice of profession, objective choice of profession.

4. Equality rights (Art. 3 GG) — new formula

Test	Standard
Unequal treatment of essentially equal things (or vice versa)	factually comparable circumstances
Justification	Depending on the ground for differentiation: from the mere prohibition of arbitrariness to strict proportionality (in particular differentiation based on the person) — BVerfGE 55, 72 (new formula)

Special equality provisions: Art. 3(2), (3), Art. 6(5), Art. 33(1)–(3), Art. 38(1), Art. 6(1) GG.

5. Practical tips

In the case of fundamental rights not subject to a statutory reservation, first check whether the scope of protection itself does not resolve the conflict through a narrower definition (e.g. artistic advertising – Art. 5(3) GG).
In the case of dual affectedness of fundamental rights: relationship of speciality (e.g. Art. 14 GG before Art. 12 GG in the case of interferences with assets).
§ 31 BVerfGG is the only permissible place at which argument may be made with binding effect to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

Art. 1 GG (human dignity)
Art. 2 GG (general freedom of action, life/physical integrity)
Art. 3 GG (equality)
Art. 5 GG (freedom of opinion/press, art and science)
Art. 12 GG (freedom of occupation)
Art. 14 GG (property)
Art. 19 GG (requirement of citation, guarantee of the essence, legal person)
Art. 20 GG (proportionality as an emanation of the rule of law principle)

Commentaries

Herdegen, in: Maunz/Dürig GG, loose-leaf (as of: current supplement), Art. 1(1) marginal no. 1 et seq.
Murswiek/Rixen, in: Sachs GG, 9th ed. 2021, Art. 2 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Jarass, in: Jarass/Pieroth GG, 18th ed. 2024, Art. 3 marginal no. 1 et seq. (new formula)
Scholz, in: Maunz/Dürig GG, Art. 12 marginal no. 1 et seq. (three-stage theory)
Schlaich/Korioth, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht, 12th ed. 2021, marginal no. 442 et seq. (review of fundamental rights)

Case law

BVerfG, judgment of 15 January 1958 – 1 BvR 400/51, BVerfGE 7, 198 ("Lüth")
BVerfG, judgment of 11 June 1958 – 1 BvR 596/56, BVerfGE 7, 377 ("Apotheken-Urteil", three-stage theory)
BVerfG, judgment of 16 January 1957 – 1 BvR 253/56, BVerfGE 6, 32 ("Elfes", general freedom of action)
BVerfG, judgment of 15 December 1983 – 1 BvR 209/83 et al., BVerfGE 65, 1 ("Volkszählung", informational self-determination)
BVerfG, order of 7 October 1980 – 1 BvL 50/79 et al., BVerfGE 55, 72 (new formula on Art. 3 GG)
BVerfG, order of 16 May 1995 – 1 BvR 1087/91, BVerfGE 93, 1 ("Kruzifix")
BVerfG, judgment of 9 February 2010 – 1 BvL 1/09 et al., BVerfGE 125, 175 (subsistence minimum)

Output format

GUTACHTEN GRUNDRECHTSPRÜFUNG
<Datum> — <Skill-Mandat-ID>

A. Sachverhalt
   <knapp>

B. Frage
   Verletzt <Hoheitsakt> den/die Betroffenen in Art. … GG?

C. Kurzantwort
   <1 Satz>

D. Prüfung

   I.   Schutzbereich
        1. Persönlich (Jedermannsgrundrecht / Deutschengrundrecht /
           juristische Person Art. 19 III GG)
        2. Sachlich

   II.  Eingriff
        (klassisch / modern; ggf. mittelbare Drittwirkung,
        Schutzpflicht, Leistungsrecht)

   III. Verfassungsrechtliche Rechtfertigung
        1. Schranke
           (einfacher / qualifizierter Gesetzesvorbehalt /
           verfassungsimmanent)
        2. Schranken-Schranken
           a) Zitiergebot Art. 19 I 2 GG
           b) Wesensgehaltsgarantie Art. 19 II GG
           c) Verhältnismäßigkeit
              aa) Legitimer Zweck
              bb) Geeignetheit
              cc) Erforderlichkeit
              dd) Angemessenheit
           d) ggf. Wechselwirkungslehre / Drei-Stufen-Theorie

E. Bei Art. 3 GG
   I.   Ungleichbehandlung wesentlich Gleicher
   II.  Rechtfertigung (Willkürverbot ↔ Verhältnismäßigkeit nach
        Differenzierungsgrund — „neue Formel")

F. Ergebnis
   Grundrechtsverletzung ✅/❌

G. Risiken / offene Punkte

H. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (excerpt, opinion style)

B. Question Does § X LandesHeilprG violate the complainant in his occupational freedom under Art. 12(1) GG? D.I. The scope of protection of Art. 12(1) GG covers every activity that is intended to be permanent and permitted for the purpose of creating and maintaining a basis of livelihood; the complainant exercises such an activity as a non-medical practitioner. D.II. In this activity he is directly and purposefully affected by the reservation of a permit — interference affirmed. D.III.1. The limitation is Art. 12(1) sentence 2 GG. D.III.2.c) Proportionality is to be examined under the three-stage theory (BVerfGE 7, 377): This is a subjective restriction on choice of occupation; the legitimate purpose is patient protection; suitable; necessary, since a milder means (notification requirement) does not achieve the purpose equally effectively; proportionate, insofar as the permit requirements do not disproportionately impede the activity.

Risks / typical mistakes

Scope of protection defined too narrowly — leads to the subsequent proportionality review being circumvented.
Interference affirmed without attribution — in the case of private conduct, first examine third-party effect.
Proportionality incomplete — necessity and proportionality in the narrow sense are often merged.
Art. 3 GG with a mere arbitrariness test instead of a new formula, although a personal differentiation criterion is present.
forgot the doctrine of interaction in the case of Article 5(1) of the Basic Law in conjunction with a general law.
misinterpreted Section 31 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act — binding effect covers only supporting grounds, not obiter dicta.