Previous 7 / 49 Next

bb. Auslegung: Unzulässigkeit eines nichtparitätischen Listenendes cc. Auslegungsbedürftigkeit: Neubildung der Liste dd. Auslegung: Neubildung der Liste ee. keine Unklarheit bzgl. ursprünglicher Listenbildung ﬀ. Auslegungsergebnis (3) Beschränkungen von Wahlrechts- und Parteienfreiheit d. Legitimation (1) Keine Legitimation mittels Art. 22 Abs. 5 LV aa. Keine hinreichend konkrete Grundlage bb. Demokratieprinzip erlaubt die Regelungen nicht aaa. Prüfungsumfang des Verfassungsgerichts nicht beschränkt bbb. Ausgestaltungsspielraum überschritten (i) Keine Konkretisierung der Wahlrechtsgleichheit (ii) Grundsatz der Gesamtrepräsentation (iii) Integrationsfunktion von Wahlen (2) Kein Kernbestand demokratischer Grundsätze, Art. 20 Abs. 3 Satz 1 LV, Art. 21 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GG (3) Kollidierendes Verfassungsrecht aa. Strenger Prüfungsmaßstab im Wahlrecht bb. Geltung für die Wahlfreiheit cc. Geltung für die Parteienfreiheit dd. Gleichstellungsgebot, Art. 12 Abs. 3 Satz 2 LV aaa. Inhalt und Reichweite der Norm bbb. Staatszielqualität ccc. Keine Rechtfertigung möglich (i) Anwendbarkeit auf Parteienfreiheit und Wahlfreiheit (ii) Legitimes Ziel 98 101 105 106 107 108 109 117 118 119 120 122 123 124 130 138 142 146 147 149 150 151 152 155 159 161

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

VerfGBbg, judgment of 23 October 2020 - VfGBbg 9/19

Judgment

Question Presented: Are gender quotas constitutional?

Alleged Acts: They concern the so-called Parity Act (Second Law amending the Brandenburg State Election Act - Parité Act (GVBl.I/19, [No. 1]), which obliges the political parties to take women and men into account alternately when drawing up their state lists for the elections to the Brandenburg state parliament.

Summary: The Constitutional Court sees the NPD as violated in its freedom of organization and program, the freedom of election proposal of the party and equal opportunities for the parties (VfGBbg 9/19). The principle of freedom of choice also applies to parties in the run-up to the election. It is their fundamental task, inter alia, by drawing up candidates and candidate lists for the state elections, to ensure the openness of the decision-making process from the people to the state organs. This process must remain free of state influence in terms of content. Through the parity law, the legislator deprives the democratic decision-making process of a significant part by influencing the composition of the lists. The requirement of equal list composition could in fact lead to the exclusion of the list of certain candidates. For parties that have a very unbalanced gender relationship, it could also lead to considerable difficulties in drawing up alternately occupied lists. This has an influence on the chances of the parties in the election. In addition, the obligation to draw up alternately occupied lists blurs the differences in party programs. The parties are free to more or less commit themselves to the goal of promoting equality within the framework of their program.

Conclusion: As a result, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the constitutional rights of the NPD and the individual complainants and annulled the rules. They will therefore not apply in the next state election

Legal Issue(s)

Gender
Quotas

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Germany

Language of Decision

German

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Oct 23, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 52.52

Longitude: 13.405

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

VfGBbg 9:19 | Verfassungsgericht des Landes Brandenburg.pdf
German
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

VerfGBbg, judgment of 23 October 2020 - VfGBbg 9/19

Primary Documents

Notifications