German Constitutional Court ignores anti- constitutional changes by the Lisbon treaty
Constitutional Court ignores anti-constitutional change of the type of state towards the "guaranteeing state"
Constitutional Court ignores anti-constitutional change of the type of state towards the "guaranteeing state" for the second time and publishes incorrect information; situation of peaceful resistance (art. 20 par. 4 Basic Law) enacted ?
press declaration of 24.09.2009
At the 22.09.2009, the Constitutional Court of Germany has not admitted for decision four constitutional complaints, each of which have contained applications for interim injunction. One constitutional complaint has been filed at the 17.09.2009 by Prof. Dr. Kerber (file number 2 BvR 2136/09) and three at the 18.09.2009 by the internationally well-known citizens and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing (file number 2 BvR 2167/ 09). You find her complaints at the link
At the link www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-106.html the Constitutional Court has published misleading press declaration. Their press declaration gives the impression, as if at the 22.09.2009 only one constitutional complaint had not been admitted for decision !
This is an obvious hiding of three constitutional complaints - in significant contrast to the obligation to explain and to make transparent any sovereign action in a state under the rule of the law and as well in con-trast to the usual procedure of the Constitutional Court.
The human rights acitivist has especially claimed in her constitutional complaints, that the "Lisbon Treaty" can only be ratified, if the change of the type of state zu the "guaranteeing state" is explicitely prohibited before in the law on the integration responsibility (IntVG).
The "guaranteeing state" is already incompatible with core of the Basic Law (German constitution). The today chairman of the 2nd chamber of the Constitutional Court, Herr Prof. Dr. Andreas Voßkuhle, has stated this in thesis no. 12 of a speech beforde the association of German national law professors (VVDStRL) in Ocober 2002. ("Leistungsgrenzen des Verfassungsrechts", Tagungs-band Nr. 62,S. 331). See at the link:
The then statement of Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle, that the constitution (the German Basic Law) is already from its core ("bereits vom Ansatz her") not open for a mix between state and society (private economy), means nothing else than, that he must be fully aware, that already the version of a "guaranteeing state", which he has presented in October 2002, is in highest degree unconstitutinal.
Today, Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle is, what noone could anticipate in October 2002, chairman of the 2nd senate of the Constitutinal Court, which is responsible to judge on the constitutional complaints with regard to the law consenting to the "Lisbon Treaty" and with regard to the laws accompa-nying the "Lisbon Treaty".
Now, the "Lisbon Treaty" wants to enforce upon all 27 EU member states a much more radical version of the "guranteeing state" than the one, which Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle had presented to the mightiest organisation of national law professors in Germany - despite the incompatibility of that version with the German Basic Law.
Already an earlier constitutional complaint of the citizens and human rights acitivist (file number 2 BvR 1958/08) against the law consenting to the "Lisbon Treaty", which also has proved the unconstitutionality of the change of the type of state towards the "guaranteeing state", has not for-mally been admitted for decision, even though that constitutional complaint has obviously raised new and at the same time decisive legal questions, because because of the constitutional complaint with file number 2 BvR 1958/ 08, the Constitutional Court has decided on the 30.06.2009, that the basic rights and the structure principles of the Basic Law are the highest law in Germany, that task of the state "peace" is, for Germany, equally-ranking with the whole "European unification", and that all prescriptions of the Common Foreign and Safety Polica of the EU mustnot be supranationalized. The constitutional complaint with file number BvR 1958/08 has been filed at the 24.09.2008, has obviously been formally correct and constitutionally justified. It has contained an application on suspected bias against Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle and an application on interim injunction with regard to the application on suspected bias. In spite of that, the court has let it happen, that the President of Germany has ordered the announcement of the law consenting to the "Lisbon Treaty" at the 08.10.2008. The announcement has happened at the 14.10.2008 (BGBL II 2008,1038).
And that, even though the unconstitutionality with regard to the "guaranteeing state" has been proven. The citizens rights activist has, because of respect for the personality rights of the judge, not presented to the public the chapter of her complaint with the application on suspected bias. Also after the first Lisbon judgement of the 30.06.2009, she still has believed, that the court, being ashamed by their own irregularities,
has preferred to check the question of the "guaranteeing state" at the level of the accompanying laws. She even has not filed a second applica-tion on grounds of suspected bias and has, instead of that, made trasparent the, in October 2002 obviously existing, honesty of Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle.
The "Lisbon Treaty" would force all 27 member states by means of art. 14 TFEU, to commission their non-sovereign tasks ("services of general econo-mical interest") to private firms. And art. 2 of the protocol no. 26 would enforce even the commissioning of the sovereign tasks ("non-economical ser-vices of general interest") to private firms. Most parts of the state would be degraded to a facade. And art. 14 TFEU would, in addition to that, oblige the organs of the EU, to legislate in the secondary law the way of the commissioning,by means of regulations, so that the national parliaments even would not be able anymore to decide on the way of the commissioning - not to speak of the its scope and of the question whether to commission these tasks.
Only the areas mentioned in art. 4 TEU would be exempted from the obligation to commission - basical functions of the state (parliament, government, highest courts, etc., probably also the ministries), national security (military, secret service, diplomats, productions of money and passports) and public order (police, jails, authorities and courts working with the criminal law, etc.).
But the whole administration below the ministries and most courts would have to be commissioned to private companies.
But that is not all. By means of the economical anti-discrimination principle (art. 18 TFEU) even those areas, which are exempted by art. 4 TEU, could be forced into commissioning, by means of complaints at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), if a state deliberately functionally privatizes such services. At Baden-Württemberg and at Austria, e. g., the probation assistance, even though it is part of the public order in the meaning of art. 4 TEU, has been commissioned to private; by means of a complaint at the ECJ with regard to art. 18 TFEU after the change of the type of state towards the "guaranteeing state", all member states could be obliged to do the same. Even worse: Great Britain has even commissioned a part of its jails and of its fighting services at Afghanistan to private companies. Also with regard to these services, complaints at the ECJ are probable, which would put through this commissioning eu-wide. This way, soon all jails and large parts of the military all over Europe would be eroded towards the private economy. All over Europe, private safety firms would become staats in the state. Like the paramilitarians at Colombia. This would be the end of the rule of the law, of democracy, and of the free democratic constitutional structure(§4 Abs. 2 BVerfSchG) at Europe.
The loss of control over administration, safety, and most courts would be, for Germany, not only unconstitutional, because of incompatibility with rule of the law and democracy, but also anticonstitutional, because the "guaranteeing state" would collide with all features of the free democratic constitutional structure, which is defined in §4 par. 2 of the law on the authority for the protection of the German constitution.
After the change of the type of state towards the "guaranteeing state", the cheapest offers to run a public authority would, probably, come from firms, which do not want to be controlled, and which would at the same time want to hinder their competitors as much as possible, or which just want to undemocratically put through political objectives.
Then environmental authorities would be run by the industry, agricultural authorities by gene tech firms, social welfare authorities by mercenary firms, construction and land surveying authorities by constrution firms, and courts and the drafting of legislative initiatives by lawyer firms.
Even the pracitcal application of prescriptions like the solidarity clause (art. 222 TFEU), which would allow military interventions within the EU in cases of undefined "man-made disasters", would be in the hand of private firms. There is the urgent danger, that after the enactment of the "Lisbon Treaty", soon soldier firms would violently fight for political aims. Also at Colombia and Afghanistan, private safety firms have joined the organized crime because of a not functioning supervision.
The human rights acitivist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing has proven this in her constitutional complaints of the 18.09.2009 (file number 2 BvR 2167/09).
The ignoring of the Constitutional Court and of the President with regard of the unconstitutionality and anticonstitutionality of the "guranteeing state" of Lisbon, which have been proven to them, is the worst event for the rule of the law in Germany after the Second World War.
The 2nd Senate of the Constitutional Court and the President should, according to the legal point of view of the human rights activist, consider demand for his or herresigning - because of respect for the highest organs of our state, which they represent - und for the people, because, according to no. 216 to 218 of first Lisbon judgement, only the people is allowed to make any changes to the constitutional identity. The organs of the state are not allowed to let happen the levering out and the destruction of democracy and of the rule of the law - also not by looking away or even by actively ignoring.
This results, also according the explanations of the first Lisbon judgement of the 30.06.2009, in the "resistance situation" (aArt. 20 par. 4 Basic Law), which means the right of every German citizen to peaceful civil disobedience, in order to peacefully reject the "guaranteeing state", and to repair the free democratic basical order of the Basic Law.
The constitutional complaint is at the link
Please spread this press declaration further. Please put a link to the constitutional complaint.
V.i.S.d.P.
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal