“Atomic energy moratorium” contrary to the constitution?

The decision to decommission the oldest German nuclear power plants for a period of three months has provoked constitutional law criticism. Some people even claim that the moratorium is contrary to the constitution. Is this true? Guber │ PUBLIC LAW says: No. In fact, the decision of the parliament to extend the operating lifetime of nuclear power plants can only be canceled by the parliament. But this does not apply to a mere moratorium.

Guber │Public Law is seeking Referendars

Guber │Public  Law is constantly seeking Referendars (legal trainees) for legal assistance in our law firm. Applications should be submitted before completing the first state examination. University students are also welcome to apply if they are able to demonstrate a particular aptitude for the job.

Resumption of German court proceedings in case of breaches of the ECHR is facilitated

According to a statutory amendment which came into force on 31th December 2006, there is now the possibility of reopening the proceedings even in case of non-appealable civil-, labor-, administrative-, financial- and social security law court proceedings– provided that the ECtHR found a violation of the ECHR. Before that date, this was in Germany only in criminal proceedings a reason for reopening.

More protection against aircraft noise?

On 7th June 2007, the “Act to improve the protection against aircraft noise around airports” came into force (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 986). For the first time, values for aircraft noise which have also to be considered in proceedings for official approval of a plan for a public works project were legally binding limited. But there is a question mark whether the law really protects the affected population more against the noise than before.

Remonstration in addition to the challenge of the violation of the right to a hearing in court?

After the Act to challenge the violation of the right to a hearing in court came into force on 9th December 09 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3220 et seq.) the legal situation seems clear: There is no unwritten informal legal remedy of remonstration against court decisions at final instance any more. The challenge of the violation of the right to a hearing in court gives you only the basic right to a fair hearing (Article 103 paragraph 1 GG).