Comparative Section : Germany

Last year’s report (2023) on German public law by Philippe Cossalter and Maria Kordeva already emphasised the special importance of the right to a judicial remedy enshrined in Article 19(4) Basic Law, which also plays a role in German administrative law.1 Compared to other administrative law systems, the norm has led to a considerable judicialisation of German public law. The intensity of review by the Federal Constitutional Court and the German administrative courts is comparatively high. The legal concept of acts of government (actes de gouvernement), which are in principle exempt from review, plays almost no role (see B. I.); the interpretation and application of undefined legal concepts by the administration are fully reviewed by the administrative courts (see B. II. and III.). The constitutionalisation of German administrative law is closely linked to the right to a judicial remedy and judicialisation. Even if the famous quote of the third president of the Federal Administrative Court, according to which administrative law is the concretisation of constitutional law, is certainly exaggerated from today’s perspective, it cannot be denied that constitutional law influences many administrative court decisions. This is also reflected in the following decisions, which are presented below: these pertain to the right to strike and the duty of neutrality of civil servants (C.), as a method of policing and related issues of administrative procedural law (D.), as well as the question of whether terminally ill persons have a constitutional right to assisted suicide (E.).