Administrative law lawyer and the exhausted German administrative law.
Narrative zur CO2-Verursachung der Kernenergie. Im Zuge des Kuhhandels AKW-Abschaltung gegen Sektorziele.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics
Über 40 % der energiebedingten Kohlendioxid (CO2)-Emissionen sind auf die Verbrennung fossiler Brennstoffe zur Stromerzeugung zurückzuführen. Alle Stromerzeugungstechnologien stoßen zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt ihres Lebenszyklus Treibhausgase aus. Bei der Kernspaltung entsteht kein CO2. Sowohl bei der nuklearen als auch bei der erneuerbaren Stromerzeugung entstehen die Emissionen indirekt, zum Beispiel beim Bau der Anlage. Während ihres Lebenszyklus erzeugt die Kernenergie etwa die gleiche Menge an CO2-Äquivalenten pro Stromeinheit wie die Windenergie und etwa ein Drittel der Emissionen der Solarenergie.
https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-and-climate-change
Die Kernenergie ist eine kohlenstoffarme Energiequelle. Im Jahr 2018 produzierte die Kernenergie etwa 10 Prozent des weltweiten Stroms. Zusammen mit dem Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energiequellen und der Umstellung von Kohle auf Gas trug die höhere Kernenergieproduktion dazu bei, dass die globalen CO2-Emissionen im Jahr 2019 auf 33 Gigatonnen gesenkt werden konnten.1 Es liegt auf der Hand, dass die Kernenergie als einsatzbereite kohlenstoffarme Stromquelle eine Schlüsselrolle beim Übergang zu einer sauberen Energiezukunft spielen kann.
https://verfassungsblog.de/schon-wieder-ein-beschleunigungsgesetz/
Hier gab es eine Nachbearbeitung der Autorin (Verwaltungsrechtlerin) und nachfolgende Aussage wurde entschärft, was nicht bedeutet, dass sie nicht zutreffend wäre.
Ursprungstext:
"Im Verwaltungsprozess ist nichts mehr zu holen. Wieder einmal also ein Gesetz, bei dem die angekündigte Beschleunigung wohl ein Papiertiger bleiben wird. Und das ist auch kein Wunder, setzt die Bundesregierung doch schon wieder da an, wo es am wenigsten zu holen gibt: Im Verwaltungsprozess. Die Großverfahren, für die die neuen Regelungen geschaffen wurden, dauern bei erstinstanzlicher Zuständigkeit des BVerwG bereits jetzt kaum länger als ein Jahr. Das behördliche Planungsverfahren von der Bundesbedarfsplanung bis zur Projektzulassung hingegen kann sich gut und gerne über ein Jahrzehnt erstrecken. Ganz zu schweigen vom materiellen Umwelt- und Naturschutzrecht, in das die europäischen Anforderungen oft mehr schlecht als recht integriert sind und das Vorhabenträger und Behörden daher regelmäßig zur Verzweiflung bringt. Bundesregierung und Gesetzgeber basteln derweil weiter an ihrem beschleunigungsrechtlichen Flickenteppich und verpassen die Chance, die Energie-Polykrise zum Anlass für wirklich mutige Neuerungen zu nehmen".
English.
"There is nothing more to be gained in the administrative process. Once again, a law in which the announced acceleration will probably remain a paper tiger. And that's no wonder, since the federal government is once again starting where there is least to be gained: In the administrative process. The large-scale proceedings for which the new regulations were created already take hardly more than a year if the Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction in the first instance. The official planning process from federal requirements planning to project approval, on the other hand, can easily take more than a decade. Not to mention the substantive environmental and nature conservation law, into which the European requirements are often integrated more badly than well and which therefore regularly drives project developers and authorities to despair. Meanwhile, the German government and legislators continue to tinker with their patchwork of acceleration law and miss the opportunity to use the energy polycrisis as an opportunity for truly courageous innovations."
Registered mail with return receipt
Haiger, the 06.03.2023
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Council of Europe
67075 Strasbourg-Cedex
Sender
Michael Rother
Subject: Complaint against the non-appealable decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 02.02.2023 (2 BvR 2216/22), the non-execution and obviously technically and practically impossible
decision of the EU petition with ( D-501196, 14.11.2022) and the formal rejection of the complaint by the secretariat of the ECJ (without assignment of a file number).
Dear Sir or Madam,
I hereby file a lawsuit against the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by its institutions acting here, primarily the Parliament, the Government and the Constitutional Court, the European
Union, represented by its institutions acting here, primarily the Parliament and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The causes of action arise in particular from the "timely requirements in the
climate change process" and here represent the dysfunctional petition law of the Federal Republic of Germany and that of the European Union. There is uncertainty or even impossibility of obtaining
timely decisions on petitions or the necessary hearing of petitions by the competent courts. Both constitutions do not know any time limit for the decision on petitions and the competent courts
cannot rectify this situation for different legal reasons. It will be shown below that the resulting convention-relevant disadvantages of natural persons of the European Union in general and those of
the plaintiff in particular, even outside "timely requirements in climate change events, are of constitutional significance and, in my opinion, require clarification via the Human Rights Court. The
relevant briefs on the petitions and court proceedings are attached.
The complaint refers to Articles 6, 13 and 34 of the Charter of the European Convention on Human Rights.
1. the procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court, which is not in conformity with human rights, according to Section 93 (1) sentence 3 of the Federal Constitutional
Court Act, for me the case "2 BvR 2216/22".
The seemingly arbitrary rejection of lawsuits without giving reasons and not granting a plea already led to a legislative initiative of a right-wing nationalist party of the German Bundestag,
which is under constitutional observation. What I mean by this is that democracy opens a flank to the far right through this practice. As I could gather from the press, this procedural practice has
often caused "frowning" in circles of your Court. The bias application against a judge of the absolutely non-transparent "3-judge-procedure" could of course no longer be considered in this
practice.
https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/bundesverfassungsgericht-verfassungsbeschwerde-nichtannahme-ohne-begruendung-pflicht/
"Since 2012, the number of non-accepted constitutional complaints has ranged between 5,000 and 6,000 per year. Of the non-acceptance decisions, about 200 to 300 are accompanied by a statement of
reasons." The 6000 proceedings are also named by the court in the accompanying note to the decision refusing acceptance.
The court could not put a decision of its own dating from 1953 in contradiction to the currently grown practical relevance of considering a time limit of petition decisions as necessary:
"The fundamental right of Article 17 of the Basic Law confers on the person who submits an admissible petition the right to have the body addressed not only accept the petition but also examine it objectively and at least inform the petitioner in writing of the manner in which it has been dealt with. In line with the prevailing opinion in the literature (Bonner Komm. zum GG, loc. cit. and the literature cited therein), the Federal Constitutional Court is of the opinion that every proper petition must be answered and that this answer must not be limited to a mere acknowledgement of receipt, but must at least indicate that the petitioner has been informed of the content of the petition and the manner in which it has been dealt with. If the opposite view were taken, as advocated by Mangoldt, loc. cit., the right of petition would be deprived of its practical value. The inclusion of such an "illusory right" in the catalog of fundamental rights would then hardly be understandable.
2 The non-human rights compliant Article 263 TFEU of the European Union, called "Plaumann paradox". Action EugH and decision of the Secretariat of this Court as per
annex.
The complaint was rejected on formal grounds and behind it, in my opinion, is the following problem:
"The so-called plaumann paradox prescribes that the plaintiff must be directly and individually concerned. This criterion of individual concern was spelled out in more detail at the very beginning of
the development of European law in the Plaumann decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ): The case is clear if someone is the addressee of a decision. Otherwise, he must be singled out by the
decision because of certain personal characteristics or special circumstances. This requires that the plaintiff is distinguished from all other persons. This leads to paradoxical results in the case
of climate relevance. For example, in a climate lawsuit with the following facts: farmers and tourism workers from different countries in the EU, Kenya and Fiji had sued against the EU's climate
policy. A family from the North Sea island of Langeoog was also involved. The plaintiffs criticized the following in particular about the legal acts challenged by the lawsuit, including the directive
amending the emissions trading system for the 4th trading period: The reduction of greenhouse gases by 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 was insufficient to meet the obligations under the Paris Agreement
and to stop climate change. Therefore, the legal acts should be annulled by the court and the climate targets should be sharpened."
The competent court of the European Union (EuG) has now ruled that the action is inadmissible. After all, not only the complaining families, but all people - at least potentially - are affected by
climate change. It is paradoxical when only against
legal acts that affect a few can be sued. After all, it would be much more necessary to have legal acts that affect everyone reviewed by the courts."
1 Germany's right to petition and the specific facts of the case.
The facts of the case
I am petitioner of a collective petition of 70000 signers and single petitioner of a petition to the EU Parliament. Both petitions have not been decided. The German facts I would like to take from
the meeting of the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag from more than two years ago. The required time limit of the feedbacks, analogous to Scotland, comes from me. The implementation in
Scotland results from the 2nd link of the NGO "Mehr Demokratie e.V." inserted below. It is about a climate citizens' council, the Aarhus Convention (evidence base of a climate citizens' council
direction of administrative law or legal planning) and the emergency regulation of the EU Commission in this regard. I have attached documents.
Regarding this, a reply towards the "Construction Staff for Citizens' Councils" of the German Bundestag dated 04.03.2023:
"The Climate Citizens' Council has not yet been decided and if it has been decided, the question arises whether it could operate as an additional recommending element of representative democracy
neutral decision-making and has not been steered in the wrong direction by party-affiliated scientific "expertise"?". In the complex climate citizens' council, the participation of the citizen by
means of representation by lot only works by means of an awarded and lobby-free "evidence base" for those drawn by lot in the run-up to the discourse process. During the discourse, lobby-free table
evidence at the discourse tables must underpin the discussants with expertise. Who gets party-affiliated NGOs and think tanks "in `s boat" here, which missed the failure, also regarding a
democracy-promoting positive public effect. The office of a high official of the state chancellery in Wuerttemberg, which spoke in the family subcommittee of the Bundestag to the citizen councils,
communicates that also a climatic citizen council should concern itself only with low-threshold topics, like a speed limit. That would be in the presented exclusivity the absolutely wrong
way.
First of all, a climate law would have to be initiated that sets binding feedback deadlines between the Council and Parliament, analogous to the Council in Scotland. Otherwise, it can easily happen
that the parliament delays its action in case of disagreeable findings of the Climate Citizens Council, which do not comply with the requirements of § 20 a GG. In a climate citizens' council, the
"evidence base" should also allow a
discourse on the advantages and, if necessary, disadvantages of https://danskelove.dk/planloven can take place. Denmark has succeeded in spite of the Aarhus Convention and they have a clear
advantage, among other things, in the approval and handling of projects in the renewable energy segments. Subject: 2 BvR 2216/22. bill 20/5156 (just passed in the Bundestag) and the related hearing
of Prof. Dr. Ines Zenke of 23.01.2023 in the Legal Committee of the German Bundestag, here specifically around the effect of the indeterminate legal term: "With paramount public interest".
"Based on the outlined hierarchy of norms, the merely "unilateral" determination in the EEG cannot, in KNE's opinion, conclusively influence the weighing decisions in other specialized laws. However,
the weight of the argument to be weighed would change. Ultimately, from a legal point of view, it remains to be seen how the courts interpret the regulation. In addition, the decisions of the
European Court of Justice remain authoritative for those weighing regulations that are based on European law."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHEHOAGBwY
https://www.buergerrat.de/aktuelles/buergerrat-kinder-reden-beim-klima-mit/klima-buergerrat-schottland-die-empfehlungen/
Background from a letter to the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany.
"So far, two years have passed without concrete approaches to implementation or rejection by the parliament and the government, in the current climate change events a long time. The petition right of
the Basic Law is still in the original version without decision period and causes that, depending on the significance of the topic for the current legislative action, a procrastinating tactic of the
parliament and in case of referral , the government, results. As a member of the party of "Bündnis90/Die Grünen" at that time, I have long, also in the context of the draft to the new basic program
of the party, to establish here a climate citizens' council , appropriately argued. The will of the party leadership after genuine constitution-conformal participation of the citizen over drawn
representation, functions only with awarded "evidence base" in the apron and not the "advisory everyday expert's assessment" contained in the principle program draft, was extremely small. There were
bitter arguments within the party about the degree of participation (purely advisory with everyday expertise or recommendation according to the Scottish model), as if democracy depended on it. The
attempt to involve party members in Phase 3 failed, in my opinion, in the direction of party law. I then resigned after an out-of-court arbitration process initiated by me in accordance with the
Political Parties Act."
I request that my request be considered.
Respectfully
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2023 12:07 PM
From: "michael.rother@online.de" <michael.rother@online.de>
To: melina.niebur@bundestag.de
Cc: buergerraete@bundestag.de
Re: the legal requirements for a sustainable climate citizens council and organizing a lobby-free "evidence base"
Dear Ms. Niebur,
yesterday the decision of the Secretariat of the ECJ regarding the non-acceptance of my complaint to the ECJ, was received here. I was frustrated at first, but then realized that the two procedures and paths still to be opened within the EU, could lead to a positive overall result.
The Climate Citizens Council has not yet been decided, and if it has been decided, the question arises whether it, as an additional recommending element of representative democracy, could conduct neutral decision-making and not be steered in the wrong direction by party-affiliated scientific "expertise"?
In the complex climate citizens' council, the participation of the citizen by means of representation by lot only works by means of an awarded and lobby-free "evidence base" for those drawn by lot in the run-up to the discourse process. During the discourse, lobby-free table evidence at the discourse tables must underpin the discourse participants with expert knowledge. Whoever brings party-affiliated NGOs and think tanks on board here has missed the boat, also in terms of a democracy-promoting positive publicity effect. A high official of the state chancellery in Wuerttemberg, which spoke in the family subcommittee of the Bundestag to the citizen councils, communicates that also a climatic citizen council should concern itself only with low-threshold topics, like a speed limit. That would be in the presented exclusivity the absolutely wrong way.
First of all, a climate law would have to be initiated that sets binding feedback periods between the Council and Parliament, analogous to the Council in Scotland. Otherwise, it can easily happen that the parliament delays its action in case of disagreeable findings of the Climate Citizens Council, which do not correspond to the requirements of § 20 a GG.
In a climate citizens' council, the "evidence base" should also allow a discourse to take place on the advantages and, if necessary, disadvantages of https://danskelove.dk/planloven . Denmark has done it with the Aarhus Convention and they have a clear advantage in the approval and handling of projects in the renewable energy segments, among others. I am now trying to address a sectoral (onshore wind energy) suspension of the right of associations to sue the Aarhus Convention and a related amendment of the EU Emergency Regulation via the open channel of the EU Commission. Germany has a real problem with the abuse of the right to bring collective actions and this can only be addressed via the EU Commission and then in Germany and the other EU states.
Subject: 2 BvR 2216/22. bill 20/5156 (just passed in the Bundestag) and the related hearing of Prof. Dr. Ines Zenke of 23.01.2023 in the Legal Committee of the German Bundestag, here specifically around the effect of the indeterminate legal term: "With paramount public interest".
"Based on the outlined hierarchy of norms, the merely "unilateral" determination in the EEG cannot, in KNE's opinion, conclusively influence the weighing decisions in other specialized laws. However, the weight of the argument to be weighed would change. Ultimately, from a legal point of view, it remains to be seen how the courts interpret the regulation. In addition, the decisions of the European Court of Justice remain authoritative for those weighing regulations that are based on European law."
https://www.naturschutz-energiewende.de/aktuelles/zum-grundsatz-des-ueberragenden-oeffentlichen-interesses-und-der-oeffentlichen-sicherhe
Michael Rother
FromSent: Saturday, 04 March 2023 02:26: "michael.rother@online.de" <michael.rother@online.de>
To: melina.niebur@bundestag.de
Subject: Climate Citizen Council. Constitutional complaint and action at the ECJ.
https://recht-energisch.de/2019/05/23/das-plaumann-paradox/
Dear Ms. Niebur,
thank you very much for the info.
I have filed a constitutional complaint with the ECJ because of the missing deadline of the decision of petitions in the Basic Law and the Charter of the EU. The EU also has a petition procedure and in the meantime an ombudsman procedure.
The secretariat of the ECJ does not want to accept the case because of the "Plaumann regulation" and refers to the ECtHR and to the Commission of the EU (special channel).
The realities of the highest courts in Germany and the EU mean that the individual citizen is cut off from the enforceability of his fundamental rights, which also affect other individuals. This is more diffuse in the case of the Federal Constitutional Court. Since 1963, the "judgments of empty leaves" have allowed unfounded and non-appealable judgments in over 90% of the negative decisions. I will submit both cases to the ECtHR.
Is the handling of a petition accepted by the committee, which concerns climate change, with a more than two-year decision reality, still constitutional in the sense of paragraph 20 a GG? The constitutional court has evaded this decision in a non-transparent "3-judge-chamber-procedure".
At the moment, the federal government and the EU are arguing about ineffective e-fuels. The parties operate with vague legal terms (outstanding public interest) and argue about the achievement of sector targets. Very close to the "timely implementation of climate targets " was yesterday Mr. Duerr (FDP) with the announced breakthrough of a German startup in the core discussion. What I want to say, what does politics want with a climate council that still talks in here?
Greetings
Michael Rother
Registered mail with advice of receipt
Haiger, the 01.03.2023
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer Kirchberg
2925 Luxembourg
Sender
Michael Rother
Subject: Action against the issued and not appealable decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 02.02.2023 (2 BvR 2216/22) and the in this context not issued EU petition decision with the
reference: D-501196, 14.11.2022.
Dear Sir or Madam,
The right of petition of the EU Parliament also does not correspond to the requirements or the sense of the Charter with regard to the decision and the sustainability in this respect.
From an unanswered message to the Peti Secretariat and the Ombudsman:
"Can it be that you only perform a recording, approval and transmission function for Parliament? The petition was already done in the system without a decision being made? Has Parliament set up a
separate sustainability function with regard to the decision on a petition, or does it, as in the German Parliament, rather follow the coincidence of the petition in Parliament, based on the
political will of the parliamentary majority? Then there would be no constitutional right of petition in the EU Parliament, analogous to the rules in Germany.
Attached you will find mail correspondence with the Peti-Secretariat. The ombudsman procedure and the petition procedure were closed without being dealt with. Since the Parliament does not follow the
required sustainability approach, it must be assumed that the right of petition has become meaningless with regard to the "timely requirements in the climate change process".
Thank you for considering my comments in your decision.
Yours sincerely
Registered mail with advice of receipt
Haiger, the16.02.2023
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer Kirchberg
2925 Luxembourg
Sender
Michael Rother
Subject: Action against the issued and not appealable decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 02.02.2023 (2 BvR 2216/22) and the in this context not issued EU petition decision with the reference: D-501196, 14.11.2022.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am an individual petitioner of a collective petition of 70000 people accepted by the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag and initiator of an individual petition towards the EU
Parliament.
The acceptance of my constitutional complaint was refused without justification and appeal.
The paragraph § 93 Abs. 1 S. 3 of the Federal Constitutional Court Law (BVerfGG) does not provide a reasoning of the judicial decision and this decision is not appealable. The decisions are called
"judgments of blank sheets".
1. the right of petition of the German state according to the constitution and the EU do not know a period of the decision of a petition.
The law on the procedures of the German Constitutional Court is unsatisfactory with regard to the decisions within the framework of the "3-judge chamber" (without reasons for judgment and possibility
of appeal), which meets in camera, was used by right-wing populists in Germany for a bill "rejected" by the Bundestag and is viewed very critically by the "European Council for Human Rights". In this
regard, the following figures from the link below: "Since 2012, the number of non-accepted constitutional complaints has ranged between 5,000 and 6,000 per year. Of the non-acceptance decisions,
about 200 to 300 are accompanied by a statement of reasons."
https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/bundesverfassungsgericht-verfassungsbeschwerde-nichtannahme-ohne-begruendung-pflicht/
Specifically, on the German side, this is about the petition on the Climate Citizens Council, which after 2 years has still not been decided. I refer to the attached letters to the German
Constitutional Court, correspondence on the EU petition and the legally binding and non-appealable decision of the German Constitutional Court of 02.02.2023. Also the objection because of bias of a
judge, will not generate a renewed start of the proceedings and thus the petition right of Germany, even in the context of the protection of fundamental rights of the EU, has not developed the
sufficient and by the constitutions desired legal effect, especially in this important case. My letter to the Constitutional Court of 14.02.2023 deals with this in detail. At that time, I was not
aware of the possibility of bringing an action against the ECJ.
Since the German procedure at the German Constitutional Court is closed and there is no possibility of appeal, I ask for an appropriate decision as to whether there is a need for a decision period,
especially with the Climate Citizens Council in Germany, where 70000 people had signed the petition and the petition was admitted by the relevant Bundestag committee.
2nd My EU individual petition to the Parliament inquired whether it can not come to an agreement with the Council, according to which the Aarhaus Convention in the onshore winter energy plants
together with networks and storage, can not receive a streamlining of the right of association action, since this special right in Germany, especially in the expansion onshore, is subject to a not
insignificant abuse. Articles 3, 6, 37 of the "Charter of Fundamental Rights" of the EU and Article 1 of the Aarhus Convention of the EU are not implemented in the most important part, the
preservation of natural resources, here in a specific sector, the renewable energy production and grid stability in the field of "Onshore", not purposefully. The causative factors of the Aarhus
Convention are founded in the articles 4 - 9, especially 7. I therefore see as a citizen of the EU, also on behalf of future generations (Article 1 of the Convention and in Germany the decision of
the Federal Constitutional Court of March 24, 2021, Az. - 1 BvR 2656/18), a violation of fundamental rights as an EU citizen by the Aarhus Convention.
I had asked for an examination of my request by the Parliament, the Council and/or the Commission.
There nothing happened, because the EU Emergency Regulation (EU) 2022/1369 does not change the right of association to sue to the timely needs in climate change events, it is confirmed again that the
Aarhus Convention must continue to be fully incorporated into national law in all areas.
I thank you for a review of the facts.
Yours sincerely
Michael Rother
Einschreiben mit Rückschein Haiger, 20.11.2022
BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT Absender
Individualverfassungsbeschwerde
Michael Rother
Schlossbezirk 3
76131 Karlsruhe
Betreff: Dysfunktionalität des Artikel 17 Grundgesetz in der fehlenden Frist der Bescheidung, hier beispielhaft die Petition mit dem Aktenzeichen Pet-2--20-18-2704-002056. Verletzung der Artikel 3 (1) (nur der Hauptpetent hat ein Informationsrecht). Die nicht zeitnahe Einrichtung des Klimabürgerrates stellt eine Missachtung des Artikel 20a dar.
Dear ladys and gentleman,
for which of the two separate sets of complaints was the refused acceptance pronounced? I think it was the 2nd part.
The 1st part was exclusively about the refused acceptance of a petition in the direction of the Climate Citizens' Council.
I have integrated the text of the mail sent to the lawyers of the "BUND" for the refused acceptance to 1. into this letter.
I refer to the separation of topics, which was not carried out by me unfortunately, which was juridically naturally wrong, concerning the "evidence base" of a climatic citizen advice however extraordinarily important is.
So far, two years have passed without any concrete approaches to implementation or rejection by the legislature, a long time in current climate change events. The petition right of the Basic Law is still in the original version without decision period and causes that, depending on the importance of the topic for the current legislative action, a dragging tactic of the parliament and with referral , the government, results and has resulted here concretely.
As a member of the party of "Bündnis90/Die Grünen" at that time I have long, also in the context of the draft to the new basic program of the party, here a climatic citizen council , appropriately argued. The will of the party leadership after genuine constitution-conformal participation of the citizen over ausgeloste representation, functions only with awarded "evidence base" in the apron and not the "advisory everyday expertise" contained in the principle program draft, was extremely small. Government participation was in sight and one probably did not want to complain with subaltern recommendations. There were bitter arguments within the party about the level of participation (purely advisory with everyday expertise or Scottish-style recommendation), as if democracy depended on it. The attempt to involve party members in Phase 3 failed, in my opinion, in the direction of party law. I then resigned after an out-of-court arbitration proceeding initiated by me in accordance with the Political Parties Act.
Aforementioned remarks take place to the examination of the partiality of the participating judge... , which was suggested... judgeship. From a TAZ article:
......for the opposition parties SPD and Greens.......
Problem, a climate citizen's council could recognize and pronounce as a recommendation that the nuclear power plants, almost climate-neutral, beyond the spring of 2023, would have to be operated, at least for the bridge. Such a recommendation would not be binding for the parliament, but would create pressure to justify. I say this as a nuclear power generator; the Greens are pursuing an ideological approach here that cannot be justified in terms of climate technology. I have attached the short version of the complaint filed by ................ The long version shows all the more that .... must stand behind the ideological approach of the Greens, otherwise the presentation could not be made in such a committed way. The approach of............. in your appointment, that the political choice of constitutional judges in no way affects their own neutrality in the highest judicial office, I think is daring.
Paragraph 4 page 2 of your letter of 02.12.2022 would mean that a time limit of the decision cannot be required constitutionally, since the fathers of the Basic Law in "good faith" did not consider such a time limit necessary. The legal commentaries here advocate the principle: "It cannot be what must not be." Again and again it is emphasized that misconduct by the legislature will not occur out of self-interest, otherwise the right of petition becomes completely nonsensical. I have explained the necessity of a climate citizens' council also direction of the fortunately introduced paragraph 20 a several times and see also here the admissibility of the constitutional complaint.
From the provision change:
"I delimit the complaint from the administrative law of the implementing regulations for the Bundestag and refer explicitly only to the unconstitutional act of the Bundestag and the Federal Government (occurred referral unexplained) direction of the articles 17 and 20a of the Basic Law, here non-judgment of an admissible petition and procrastination of "timely requirements" in climate change events.
Statement by a circle of legal experts: (grundrechte-faq.de/petitionsrecht-art-17-gg/) "There is no explicit time limit for dealing with and responding to a petition. However, so that the
fundamental right does not run empty, one will be able to assume that the petition will in any case be dealt with within a "reasonable" time. How long this is in individual cases depends on the scope
of the petition, the amount of research required and the other circumstances." The assumption in legal circles that the right of petition works in Germany is incorrect, at least in the case of the
Climate Citizens Council. If the president of the Bundestag still kindly reported here (Az. PräsB 2/V+4 - 348/2664), the further petitioning committee is characterized by persistent silence towards
the individual petitioner. Also the last reply of the main petitioner to the petitioners was rather cryptic. That the collective petition of
70000 humans, after acceptance of the Petition by the responsible committee, only the main petitioner information access in the Bescheidung grants, does not correspond to from the Basic Law to the
individual granted rights ".
Text of one of your decisions in the 1st decade after the end of the war.
"The fundamental right of Article 17 of the Basic Law gives the person who submits an admissible petition a right to the fact that the body approached not only receives the petition, but also
examines it objectively and at least informs the petitioner in writing of the manner in which it has been dealt with. First Senate of 22 April 1953 in accordance with § 24 BVerfGG, - 1 BvR 162/51.
The observance of a court of appeal is nowhere prescribed. In line with the prevailing opinion in the literature (Bonner Komm. zum GG loc. cit. and the literature cited therein), the Federal
Constitutional Court is of the opinion that every proper petition must be answered and that this answer must not be limited to a mere acknowledgement of receipt, but must at least indicate that the
petitioner is aware of the contents of the petition and the manner in which it has been dealt with. If the opposite view were taken, as advocated by Mangoldt, loc. cit., the right of petition would
be deprived of its practical value. The inclusion of such a "sham right" in the catalog of fundamental rights would then be hardly understandable."
In order to make the unconstitutional conduct of the Bundestag in this case clearer, the Article 20a of the Basic Law already referred to in the original text of the complaint must be given weight.
It reads:
"The state shall protect, also in responsibility for future generations, the natural foundations of life and animals within the framework of the constitutional order by legislation and in accordance
with law and justice by executive power and jurisdiction."
The Climate Citizens Council will make an important contribution to Germany in the direction of the "timely requirements (20a)" and contribute to the stabilization of representative democracy, if the
administrative acceleration (at best middle distance) or measure laws (at best short distance) take effect and the reasonable core competence is fully established in advance. This requires a
statutory basis, see Scotland.
The manual for a Climate Citizens Council is attached and is also available to the Petitions Committee. The practicability of the technical framework was tested with "Germany's role in the world".
Why a staff without a time limit has to evaluate the basic application of citizens' councils again here is incomprehensible to me with regard to the decision on the climate citizens' council and I
see this delaying tactic as an unconstitutional act of the
Bundestag within the meaning of Articles 17 and 20a (timely requirements) of the Basic Law. Whether the federal government was involved in the context of a referral is unclear. The Scottish model
has worked well and can be the basis.
https://knoca.eu/
Regarding the 2nd part of the refusal to initiate proceedings, this case is about the legislative action of the government and only an indirect legal violation of the Basic Law.
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 01:59 AM.
From: "michael.rother@online.de" <michael.rother@online.de>
To: hess@baumann-rechtsanwaelte.de
Subject: decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 02.02.2023 and a possible administrative court action extension and / or ECJ submission.
Hello,
I would like to inquire if you are interested in the 2nd procedure, possibly extension of the administrative court action already filed on the unachieved sector targets or ECJ submission on a
separate action. Yes, the energy sector was narrowly missed, but that will most likely change, because the enormous electricity demand for the transformation was not priced correctly. I can provide
documents on this. This also applies to all the points raised in the following comments. We are close to the "Green Goals", but there should be no party conformity on climate change. Please submit
the matter to your office for consideration.
The 3rd Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court today announced, "The constitutional complaint is not accepted for decision." According to the BVerfGG, a statement of reasons is not required. Two
prevented supreme court decisions result.
2.
The accompanying note of the Federal Constitutional Court speaks of 6000 proceedings per year and the personnel challenge in coping with this task. In this context, I refer to the statement made by
Prof. Dr. Ines Zenke in the Legal Committee of the Bundestag on the Act on the Acceleration of Administrative Proceedings in the Infrastructure Sector (BT-Drs. 20/5156) currently passed by the
Bundestag: "There is agreement on the absolute urgency of accelerating planning and approval processes. It can only be met if all possibilities are examined and exhausted that contribute to an
acceleration, even if only selectively, and this is the context in which draft law 20/5156 fits in. As in the case of the statement of defence by public authorities (see below the commentary on § 6
UmwRG), the speedy scheduling is also mainly a resource problem and of the usually very extensive procedural material to be sifted through before the deadline. An acceleration effect will therefore
only occur here in conjunction with the expansion of the senates responsible for planning and infrastructure matters."
The paragraph 20 a of the Basic Law was not fulfilled direction of the "timely requirements" against the climate change and thus a basic right injury, also for future generations, is present. This
can now be seen in the failure of individual sectors to meet their targets and the pre-programmed failure to meet the target in the largest sector, the energy sector. The EEG and other laws work with
the vague addition of "overriding public interest and public safety."
"Based on the outlined hierarchy of norms, the merely "unilateral" determination in the EEG cannot, in KNE's view, conclusively influence the balancing decisions in other specialized laws. However,
the weight of the argument to be weighed would change. Ultimately, from a legal point of view, it remains to be seen how the courts interpret the regulation. In addition, the decisions of the
European Court of Justice remain authoritative for those weighing regulations that are based on European law."
The legal opportunity of the Federal Constitutional Court to obtain a clearer statement from the ECJ via the "preliminary ruling procedure" on a legal planning of "renewable energy generation"
possible under German law, especially with regard to the limits of the "Aarhus Convention", was missed. It is concretely about the streamlining of the right of association to sue on a uniform
European level and thus timely and legally secure expansion of wind energy and grids onshore. The ECJ is ambivalent in its interpretation of this right with regard to national implementation, but
Denmark is obviously "aarhus compliant". However, I have not yet located the national implementation law in Denmark.
Danish planning law can be completely translated with DeepL.
https://danskelove.dk/planloven
Planning Act
Chapter 1 Purpose
§ Section 1 of the Act is intended to ensure coherent planning that balances societal interests in land use, contributes to the protection of nature and the environment, and creates a good framework
for growth and development nationwide so that societal development can be sustainable, taking into account people's living conditions, the preservation of fauna and flora, and the increase of
economic prosperity.
Paragraph 2. In particular, the law aims to,
1) that, based on overall planning and socioeconomic assessment, appropriate development takes place throughout the country and in individual municipalities and local communities,
2) the creation and preservation of valuable settlements, urban environments and landscapes,
3) Creating a good framework for business development and growth,
4) that open shorelines continue to provide important natural and scenic value.
5) Promote biodiversity and avoid air, water, land and noise pollution,
6) Involve the public as much as possible in the planning process; and
7) Promote diversity in the housing mix by allowing the planning of public housing in cities.
Chapter 2 Land Use Planning.
§ Sec. 2. The Secretary of Commerce shall be responsible for the overall land use planning of the state and for conducting the studies necessary for that purpose.
Paragraph 2. After new parliamentary elections, the Minister of Economy shall issue a report on the national planning work, which shall be incorporated into municipal planning. The Minister may also,
if necessary, issue a statement of regional planning interests in specific areas for the purposes of municipal planning.
Subsection (3) The report on national planning activities referred to in subsection (2) shall include the specific issues relevant to planning in the metropolitan area.
§ Section 2a Every four years, the Secretary of Commerce shall publish a survey of national interests in municipal planning, including interests identified pursuant to this Act and other legislation.
The publication may be in digital form only.
§ Sec. 3. In order to safeguard national planning interests, including ensuring the quality of planning, the Minister for Enterprise may make rules for the application of the powers of the Act and
for the content of planning under this Act.
Paragraph 2. The Minister for Enterprise may give regulations under paragraph 1 the legal effect of municipal plans. The Minister may also determine in special cases that construction work provided
for in a regulation under paragraph 1 may be carried out without a municipal or local plan and without a permit under Section 35(1).
Subsection (3) In order to implement the directives and decisions of the European Community in the field of nature conservation, the Minister of Economic Affairs shall issue regulations on the cases
in which and the conditions under which permits may be issued under sections 5u and 35 and exemptions from provisions of a local plan, cf. sections 5u and 19, as well as regulations on the content of
plans under this Act.
Paragraph 4. in special cases, the Minister of Economy may direct local governments to apply the provisions of the Act, including the preparation of a plan with a specific content.
Paragraph 5 The Minister of Enterprise may, in special cases, decide to assume the powers of local authorities under the Act in matters that affect the statutory duties of other authorities or are of
great importance.
§ Sec. 3. The Minister of Enterprise may, in order to safeguard national planning interests, including ensuring the quality of planning, make rules for the application of the powers of the Act and
for the content of planning under the Act.
Paragraph 2. The Minister for Enterprise may give regulations under paragraph 1 the legal effect of municipal plans. The Minister may also determine in special cases that construction work provided
for in a regulation under paragraph 1 may be carried out without a municipal or local plan and without a permit under Section 35(1).
Subsection (3) In order to implement the directives and decisions of the European Community in the field of nature conservation, the Federal Minister of Economic Affairs shall issue regulations on
the cases in which and the conditions under which permits may be issued under sections 5u and 35 and exemptions from provisions of a local plan, cf. sections 5u and 19, and regulations on the content
of planning under this Act.
Paragraph 4. in special cases, the Minister of Enterprise may direct local governments to apply the provisions of the Act, including the preparation of a plan with a specific content.
Paragraph 5. the Minister of Enterprise may, in special cases, decide to assume the powers of local authorities under the Act in matters that affect the statutory duties of other authorities or are
of great importance.
There is nationally the Environmental Appeals Act (UmwRG) in Germany and the question of why Danish planning law has been able to implement the "Aarhus Convention" so successfully in the development
of "renewable energy" (see Fehmarn Belt Tunnel)?
It is positive that I could bring in, from given cause, a correction of the inflationary but partly technically wrongly used term of the "legal planning" with Anne Will. The editors got in touch
with me and I was pleased about that.
As far as the message to the lawyer of the "BUND" to the 2nd part.
I would be very happy if the proceedings to 1. can be taken up.
Respectfully
Michael Rother
PS. The bias application is depersonalized to the outside.
Druckversion 