3 ms·
That is not entirely true. There is the „Verfassungsbeschwerde“. There are limitations in place that boil down to three criteria that have to be met. The compla
by lhoff 4y ago
That is not entirely true. There is the „Verfassungsbeschwerde“. There are limitations in place that boil down to three criteria that have to be met. The complainant has to be personally, currently and immediately effected. The later is the criteria that is fulfilled if you were convicted. That’s why a lot of decisions of the court are part of an ongoing process. However a decision of a lower court is not the only way to fulfill that criteria. A recent example is the decision regarding the climate protection act
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsbeschwerde https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsbeschwerde
- Xylakant 4y agoHence I wrote “in most cases”. Note that the Verfassungsbeschwerde in the climate protection case argued that the state failed to create sufficient laws to protect constitutional rights (sorry, edit, I recalled that wrong): the challenge was actually directed at a specific law, arguing that the law is insufficient to protect constitutional right. It was partially successful in that regard. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-031.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemit... This, however, is unlikely to be a successful line of arguing here: A law exists, and I doubt the affected afghan people would like to challenge that law’s constitutionality. (Sidetrack): there are more cases where you can appeal directly to the Verfassungsgericht. A relatively common case is when the police forbids or severely limits demonstrations and time is to short for a regular court to make a decision. This is still similar to going through the ordinary courts, because you’re challenging the constitutionality of a state-actor decision.