Procedures in International Law by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
Published: 2008-09-11T06:52:31+00:00

29 CE 1995 Association Greenpeace France. Solution validée par la CEDH. Lodemann, Catharina, Die Geschichte des französischen acte de gouvernement (2005, Verlag Peter Lang Frankfurt), provides a good summary and treatment of the case law.

30 Biehler, Auswärtige Gewalt (Mohr & Siebeck, Tübingen, 2005) p. 88 et seq.

31 Eyermann and Fröhler, Kommentar zur Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung (9th ed., 1988) zu

§ 42 VwGO, Rz. 70 et seq.: Stelkens in Stelkens/Bonk/Leonhardt Kommentar zum Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (5th ed., 1998) zu § 42 VwVfG, Rz. 97.

32 Schneider, Hans, “Gerichtsfreie Hoheitsakte” in Recht und Staat 1951, p. 42 et seq., Helmut Rumpf, Regierungsakte im Rechtsstaat (1955) p. 21 et seq.

33 Anon v Germany ex parte British Military Government in Germany, Oberverwaltungsgericht Münster, Beschluss vom 23.9.1958 in DVBl. 1959, 294.

5.2 Act of State

165

the German courts putting forward some environmental concerns against the use of the land by the British. The application was not granted against the German executive government which had allocated the private lands of the applicants to the British military for use free of charge under the international law of belligerent occupation. The court found that jurisdiction and locus standi must be denied as the case concerned the review of justizfreier Hoheitsakt, on this there is unanimity in the jurisprudence of courts and scholarly works.34 In an answer of the Auswärtiges Amt (Foreign Ministry) to the Bundestag, the German government made reference to this decision of the Münster Oberverwaltunggericht and elaborated:

“Der erkennende Senat habe in seinem Beschluss ausgeführt, dass

die geforderten Maßnahmen in den Bereich der Beziehungen zu aus-

ländischen Staaten fallen und damit zu den justizfreien Hoheitsakten

gehörten. Das Gericht habe sich mit dieser Entscheidung der von der

Bundesregierung vertretenen Rechtsauffassung angeschlossen.”35

“The Senate/bench (of the court) elaborated in its decision that the

requested measures are part of the relations between foreign states

and, therefore, must be considered to be part of state acts not subject

to judicial review. The Court followed with this decision the legal

opinion held by the Federal Government.”

The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court of Final Appeals) has also applied the justizfreier Hoheitsakt,36 as has the Bundesgerichtshof (Supreme Court).37 However, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) obiter felt uneasy about reducing access to the court38 with the justizfreier Hoheitsakt doctrine in the light of the constitutional guarantee to judicial review.39 This apodictic approach of the latter court albeit obiter has led to the demise of the development of the doctrine in German law and a practice on the part of the courts of reformulating the incompatible principles of full judicial review on the one hand and necessary discretion in foreign affairs including respect for foreign state acts on the other hand only in terms of judicial self restraint or prerogatives, außenpolitische Einschätzungsprärogative der Regierung. However, they will reach the 34 “darüber besteht in der Rechtsprechung und im Schrifttum Einigkeit” loc. cit.

35 Bundestagsdrucksache 3/756 zu 5. (of 11 December 1958). Translation by the author.

36 BVerwG in DVBl 1963, 728.

37 BGH MDR 1971, 200.

38 Under Article 19.4 of the Grundgesetz (Constitution) which is comparable to Article 6

of the ECHR. See BVerfG E 4, 157, 169.

39 See Article 19.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.