Purpose
The three objective proceedings — Organstreit, Bund-Länder dispute, abstract judicial review of statutes — look similar, but have different parties entitled to apply, subjects of the application and time limits. Therefore, before any further examination, the choice of proceedings. This skill cleanly separates the three proceedings and carries out the respective admissibility review.
Inputs
- Applicant (constitutional organ / part of a constitutional organ / Federal Government / Land government / one third of the Members of the Bundestag)
- challenged measure (act of a constitutional organ / federal law / Land law / omission)
- alleged infringement (constitutional competence / right under the Basic Law / compatibility of a norm with the Basic Law)
- time of becoming aware
Sub-agent architecture
Researcher supplies the Basic Law, the Federal Constitutional Court Act and Federal Constitutional Court case law on the three types of proceedings. Drafter assigns the request to the correct type of proceedings and carries out the admissibility review in the style of a legal opinion. Reviewer checks time limits, standing to apply and subsidiarity vis-à-vis competing proceedings.
Procedure
1. Choice of proceedings
| Proceedings | Norm | Who | What is at issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organstreit | Art. 93(1) No. 1 of the Basic Law; §§ 13 No. 5, 63–67 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act | Supreme federal organs or other participants endowed with their own rights by the Basic Law / rules of procedure (e.g. a parliamentary group in the Bundestag) | Dispute over competences / infringement of the applicant's constitutional rights by a measure or omission of the respondent |
| Bund-Länder dispute | Art. 93(1) No. 3 of the Basic Law; §§ 13 No. 7, 68–70 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act | Federal Government / Land government | Disagreement over the rights and duties of the Federation and the Länder (in particular federal supervision) |
| Abstract judicial review of statutes | Art. 93(1) No. 2 of the Basic Law; §§ 13 No. 6, 76–79 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act | Federal Government, Land government, one quarter of the Members of the Bundestag | Formal review of the compatibility of federal or Land law with the Basic Law or with other federal law |
Delimitation from concrete judicial review of statutes (Art. 100(1) of the Basic Law, §§ 80 et seq. of the Federal Constitutional Court Act): there, it is initiated by the court of ordinary jurisdiction, not by a constitutional organ.
2. Organstreit (§§ 63–67 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act)
| Stage | Standard |
|---|---|
| Capacity to be a party | § 63 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act: Federal President, Bundestag, Bundesrat, Federal Government and their parts that are endowed with their own rights in the Basic Law or in the rules of procedure (e.g. parliamentary groups, individual Members of Parliament, committees — cf. BVerfGE 2, 143, EVG Treaty) |
| Respondent | Likewise a supreme federal organ or part thereof |
| Subject matter of the application | § 64(1) BVerfGG: measure or omission of the respondent |
| Standing to apply | Possibility of the violation of constitutional rights of the applicant or of the organ to which they belong |
| Time limit | § 64(3) BVerfGG: six months after becoming aware of the challenged measure |
| Form | § 64(2) BVerfGG: application with designation of the measure and of the violated provision of the GG |
| Need for legal protection | in the case of simpler possibilities of clarification (e.g. rules of procedure proceedings) to be carefully examined |
3. Federal-state dispute (§§ 68–70 BVerfGG)
| Stage | Standard |
|---|---|
| Capacity to be a party | § 68 BVerfGG: Federal Government and Land government |
| Subject matter of the application | § 69 BVerfGG in conjunction with § 64 BVerfGG: measure or omission that concerns the rights and duties of the Federation or of a Land |
| Standing to apply | Possibility that one's own constitutional rights / duties under the Federation-Land relationship are violated |
| Time limit | § 69 in conjunction with § 64(3) BVerfGG: six months |
Distinction: dispute between the same Landorgans is a Land constitutional dispute (before the Land constitutional court), not a federal-state dispute.
4. Abstract judicial review of statutes (§§ 76–79 BVerfGG)
| Stage | Standard |
|---|---|
| Entitlement to apply | § 76(1) BVerfGG: Federal Government, Land government, one quarter of the members of the Bundestag |
| Subject matter of the application | Federal law or Land law (statutes, statutory instruments) |
| Standing to apply | Federal Government / Land government: doubts or consider valid if a court / authority regards it as inapplicable; one third of the Bundestag: disagreements or doubts as to compatibility with higher-ranking law |
| Time limit | no strict time limit, but objective interest in clarification required |
| Relationship to other proceedings | Priority of concrete judicial review of statutes / constitutional complaint where individual legal protection is possible |
5. Binding effect and force of law
Here too § 31 BVerfGG:
- Paragraph 1: binding of all constitutional organs, courts and authorities to the decision.
- Paragraph 2: force of law for decisions under § 13 no. 6 BVerfGG (abstract judicial review of statutes) as well as other proceedings expressly mentioned — publication in the Federal Law Gazette.
This is the statutory exception to the principle that German law recognizes no binding effect of precedents.
Sources and citation style
Binding: ../../references/zitierweise.md.
Statute
- Art. 93 GG (Jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court)
- § 13 BVerfGG (Catalogue of jurisdiction)
- § 63 BVerfGG (Capacity to be a party in organ disputes)
- § 64 BVerfGG (Subject matter of the application, time limit in organ disputes)
- § 68 BVerfGG (Federal-State dispute)
- § 69 BVerfGG (Proceedings in federal-state disputes)
- § 76 BVerfGG (Application for abstract judicial review of statutes)
- § 78 BVerfGG (Operative part: invalidity / incompatibility)
- § 31 BVerfGG (Binding effect, force of law)
Commentaries
- Bethge, in: Maunz/Schmidt-Bleibtreu/Klein/Bethge, BVerfGG, loose-leaf, § 63 marginal no. 1 et seq. (capacity to be a party in organ disputes)
- Pestalozza, Verfassungsprozessrecht, 3rd ed. 1991, § 7 (Federal-State dispute)
- Schlaich/Korioth, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht, 12th ed. 2021, marginal no. 87 et seq. (organ dispute), marginal no. 138 et seq. (abstract judicial review of statutes), marginal no. 119 et seq. (Federal-State dispute)
- Stern, Staatsrecht II, § 44 (organ dispute), § 45 (Federal-State dispute)
Case law
- BVerfG, judgment of 05.04.1952 – 2 BvH 1/52, BVerfGE 1, 208 (7.5% threshold; capacity of political parties to be parties — early line)
- BVerfG, judgment of 23.10.1952 – 1 BvB 1/51, BVerfGE 2, 1 (ban on the SRP — party ban proceedings)
- BVerfG, judgment of 30.07.1958 – 2 BvF 3, 6/58, BVerfGE 8, 104 (abstract judicial review of statutes, Hamburg/Bremen referendum)
- BVerfG, judgment of 14.12.1965 – 1 BvR 413/60, BVerfGE 19, 206 (church building tax; legal persons, constitutional complaint)
Output format
GUTACHTEN ORGANSTREIT / BUND-LÄNDER-STREIT / ABSTRAKTE NORMENKONTROLLE
<Datum> — <Skill-Mandat-ID>
A. Sachverhalt
<knapp>
B. Frage / Verfahrenswahl
Welche Verfahrensart ist statthaft? Welches Verfassungsorgan kann
was angreifen?
C. Kurzantwort
<1 Satz>
D. Verfahrenswahl
1. Organstreit (Art. 93 I Nr. 1 GG, §§ 63 ff. BVerfGG): einschlägig?
2. Bund-Länder-Streit (Art. 93 I Nr. 3 GG, §§ 68 ff. BVerfGG):
einschlägig?
3. Abstrakte Normenkontrolle (Art. 93 I Nr. 2 GG, §§ 76 ff. BVerfGG):
einschlägig?
4. Konkurrenz und Vorrang
E. Zulässigkeit des gewählten Verfahrens
I. Parteifähigkeit / Antragsberechtigung
II. Antragsgegner (soweit relevant)
III. Antragsgegenstand
IV. Antragsbefugnis (Möglichkeit der Rechtsverletzung)
V. Frist (§ 64 III BVerfGG bzw. ohne Frist bei abstrakter
Normenkontrolle)
VI. Form (§ 23 I, § 64 II BVerfGG)
VII. Rechtsschutzbedürfnis / Subsidiarität gegenüber anderen
Verfahren
F. Begründetheit
<Maßstab je nach Verfahren — Verletzung verfassungsmäßiger Rechte /
Vereinbarkeit der Norm mit höherrangigem Recht>
G. Ergebnis
Verfahren statthaft ✅/❌; Zulässigkeit ✅/❌; Begründetheit ✅/❌
H. Bindung und Tenor (§ 31, § 78 BVerfGG)
I. Risiken / offene Punkte
J. Quellenverzeichnis
Risks / typical mistakes
- Wrong choice of proceedings — a parliamentary group asserts a “Federal-State dispute” even though it lacks capacity to be a party; an organ dispute would be admissible.
- Overlooking the time limit under § 64(3) BVerfGG — six months from knowledge, also in Federal-State disputes (§ 69 in conjunction with § 64 BVerfGG).
- Standing to apply in abstract judicial review of statutes — the one-third-of-the-Bundestag threshold (Art. 93(1) no. 2 GG, § 76 BVerfGG) must actually be met.
- Failure to consider competing remedies — in individual legal protection, priority of the constitutional complaint / concrete judicial review of statutes.
- § 31 BVerfGG misinterpreted — force of law (§ 31(2) BVerfGG) applies only to the proceedings listed in the catalogue in § 13 nos. 6, 6a, 11, 12, 14 BVerfGG.
- A state constitutional dispute classified as a Federal-State dispute — a dispute between organs of the same Land is a matter for the Land constitution.