Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Rights of the Child in Germany: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Its Implementation in National Law

  • Chapter
The Rights of the Child in a Changing World

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 13))

Abstract

After the Federal Government has withdrawn its previous reservations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 2010, the Convention and its protocols now fully apply in Germany. Since that time, a remarkable progress in legislation and jurisprudence toward a more child-friendly legal environment can be ascertained. This, of course, does not mean that the German legal order, by now, entirely complies or should even fully comply with all legally nonbinding recommendations of the CRC Committee. On the other hand, there is no doubt about the supplementary constitutional role which human rights instruments, including the CRC, increasingly play in Germany. In some cases they have already led to a shift of views by granting more liberties and more participation rights to children.

This report, which has been finalized in October 2013 and updated in January 2014, has first been published in Martin Schmidt-Kessel (ed.), German National Reports on the 19th International Congress of Comparative Law, Tübingen 2014, pp. 581–609, © Mohr Siebeck Tübingen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Law Gazette) BGBl. 1992 II, p. 121, and BGBl. 1992 II, p. 990 (proclamation).

  2. 2.

    The text of the Convention was adopted by General Assembly Resolution 44/25, of 20 November 1989 (UN Doc. A/RES/44/25), and opened to signature to all states. Today, the CRC counts 193 state parties.

  3. 3.

    See BGBl. 1992 II, p. 990. Specific declarations were made with respect to Article 18.1, Article 40.2 lit. b, and Article 38.2 CRC, and more general declarations were made with regard to foreign children and to the scope of (direct) applicability of the CRC in the German legal order.

  4. 4.

    Schmahl, Kinderrechtskonvention mit Zusatzprotokollen, Handkommentar, 2013, Einleitung, MN 23.

  5. 5.

    Cf., e.g., Ullmann, Verfassungs- und völkerrechtliche Widersprüche bei der Ratifikation der UNO-Kinderrechtskonvention, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 1991, 889 et seq.; Zimmermann, Neuere Entwicklungen zum Verhältnis zwischen dem UN-Abkommen über die Rechte des Kindes und nationalem Familienrecht, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 1996, 167, at 173; Cremer, Die UN-Kinderrechtskonvention: Geltung und Anwendbarkeit in Deutschland nach der Rücknahme der Vorbehalte, 2011, at 15. The CRC Committee equally criticized the extent of the German declarations, see CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.43, para. 13; and UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.226, para. 8.

  6. 6.

    Lorz/Sauer, Kinderrechte ohne Vorbehalt, MenschenRechtsMagazin 2011, 5 et seq.

  7. 7.

    See BGBl. 2004 II, p. 1355, and BGBl. 2006 II, p. 1015 (proclamation).

  8. 8.

    See BGBl. 2008 II, p. 1222, and BGBl. 2011 II, p. 1288 (proclamation).

  9. 9.

    More detailed Tomuschat, Mehr Schutz für die Schutzlosen: Die beiden Fakultativprotokolle zu dem Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes, Vereinte Nationen 2002, 89, at 91.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Löhr, Die Individualbeschwerde zur Kinderrechtskonvention, MenschenRechtsMagazin 2011, 115 et seq.; Lee, Communications procedure under the Convention on the Rights of the Child: 3rd Optional Protocol, International Journal of Children’s Rights 18 (2010), 567 et seq.

  11. 11.

    See Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (Entscheidungen des Bundesver-fassungsgerichts) BVerfGE 74, 358 (370); 111, 307 (317, 319 et seq.).

  12. 12.

    BVerfGE 74, 358 (370); 111, 307 (329); 128, 282 (306).

  13. 13.

    Cf. mutatis mutandis BVerfGE 111, 307 (329); 128, 326 (371 et seq.). Particularly with regard to the CRC see recently BVerfG, decision of 5 July 2013, 2 BvR 708/12, para. 21.

  14. 14.

    See, e.g., BVerfG, decision of 5 July 2013, 2 BvR 708/12, paras. 22–24 as well as Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), decision of 29 May 2013, XII ZB 530/11, paras. 20–22; Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), judgment of 29 November 2012, 10 C 4/12, paras. 9–10; and judgment of 21 February 2013, 5 C 9/12, paras. 22–23.

  15. 15.

    Bamberger in Bamberger/Roth (eds.), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 2013, § 2 MN 2.

  16. 16.

    Critical assessments to this clause can be found by Dorsch, Die Konvention der Vereinten Nationen über die Rechte des Kindes, 1994, at 304; Van Bueren, The International Law on the Rights of the Child, 1995, at 37 et seq.; and Detrick, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1999, at 60.

  17. 17.

    Heinhold in Kauffmann/Riedelsheimer (eds.), Kindeswohl oder Ausgrenzung? Flüchtlingskinder in Deutschland nach der Rücknahme der Vorbehalte, 2010, at 65; Krieger, Die UN Kinderrechtskonvention und die Handlungsfähigkeit unbegleiteter Minderjähriger im deutschen Asyl- und Ausländerrecht, Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens 2012, 206, at 210 et seq.; Schmahl (note 4), Art. 1 MN 12, and Art. 22 MN 20. Similarly District Court (Amtsgericht) of Gießen, decision of 16 July 2010, 244 F 1159/09 VM, paras. 10 et seq.

  18. 18.

    One exception to this rule is Section 36.1 of Book I the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch Nr. I), according to which, minors at the age of 15 years are capable of claiming social benefits. However, this provision applies irrespective of the juvenile’s nationality or origin.

  19. 19.

    Löhr, Gesetzliche Konsequenzen aus der Rücknahme des Vorbehalts zur Kinderrechtskonvention, Zeitschrift für Ausländerrecht und Ausländerpolitik 2010, 378, at 379; Schmahl (note 4), Art. 2 MN 37.

  20. 20.

    See Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) Nordrhein-Westfalen, decision of 22 May 2012, 5 A 609/11.A, paras. 14–23; as well as Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Karlsruhe, decision of 2 December 2010, 2 UF 172/10, paras. 18–27, and decision of 5 March 2012, 18 UF 274/11, paras. 42–46. Similar but not yet decided: Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), judgment of 29 November 2012, 10 C 4/12, para. 10.

  21. 21.

    General Assembly Resolution 44/33, of 29 November 1985, UN Doc. A/RES/40/33, para. 4.

  22. 22.

    CRC Committee, General Comment No. 10 (2007), UN-Doc. CRC/C/GC/10, paras. 16–18 and 32–35.

  23. 23.

    See CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.226, paras. 9 et seq.; UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.43, para. 14 et seq.; UN Doc. CRC/C/DEU/CO/3-4, paras. 9–10. Further see CRC Committee, General Comment No. 5 (2003), UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/5, para. 21.

  24. 24.

    Schmahl (note 4), Einleitung, MN 22.

  25. 25.

    This aspect, is, however, not undisputed; see, e.g., Cremer, Aufnahme von Kinderrechten ins Grundgesetz als Maßnahme zur Umsetzung der UN-Kinderrechtskonvention?, 2011, at 4; Lütkes/Sedlmayr, Auswirkungen einer Grundrechtsänderung auf den Schutz, die Teilhabe und die Förderung von Kindern und Jugendlichen, Familie Partnerschaft Recht 2012, 187 et seq.; Hohmann-Dennhart, Kinderrechte ins Grundgesetz – warum?, Familie Partnerschaft Recht 2012, 185 et seq.; and – more reluctantly – Schuler-Harms, Kinder in den Mittelpunkt – und ins Grundgesetz, Kritische Justiz 2009, Beiheft 1, 133, at 146 et seq.

  26. 26.

    See, in particular, BVerfGE 28, 104 (112) and formerly also Schmitt-Kammler in Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz, 4th ed. 2007, Art. 6 MN 54.

  27. 27.

    BVerfGE 121, 69 (92 et seq.); consenting: von Coelln in Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz, 6th ed. 2011, Art. 6 MN 54, 68.

  28. 28.

    See, for instance, Jestaedt in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 2011, Art. 6 MN 29 et seq.

  29. 29.

    See BVerfGE 61, 358 (371); 121, 69 (92 et seq.); further Brosius-Gersdorf in Dreier (ed.), Grundgesetz, Band I, 3rd ed. 2013, Art. 6 MN 152, with further references.

  30. 30.

    BVerfGE 103, 89 (107); 121, 69 (92). See also Jarass in Jarass/Pieroth, Grundgesetz, 12th ed. 2012, Art. 6 MN 48; Hohmann-Dennhart (note 25), at 186.

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., BVerfGE 47, 46 (74); 75, 201 (215), and Sachs, in Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz, 6th ed. 2011, Vor Art. 1 MN 75–76.

  32. 32.

    Peschel-Gutzeit, Zur Geschichte der Kinderrechte, Familie Partnerschaft Recht 2008, 471, at 472.

  33. 33.

    Liesching, in Erbs/Kohlhaas (eds.), Strafrechtliche Nebengesetze, Band I, 2013, Vorbemerkung, MN 2.

  34. 34.

    Section 4.1 of the Youth Protection Act.

  35. 35.

    See Section 9 of the Youth Protection Act. The rules for tobacco products are more strict as they encompass all children until the age of 18; see Section 10 of the Youth Protection Act.

  36. 36.

    Section 14 of the Youth Protection Act.

  37. 37.

    See, e.g., Section 8.1 of Book VIII of the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch VIII).

  38. 38.

    See CRC Committee, General Comment No 5 (2003), UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/5, para. 12.

  39. 39.

    No particular reference will be made to the prohibition of discrimination (Article 2 CRC), including the duty to take affirmative actions, for instance, regarding disabled children (see Article 23 CRC). The ambit of both provisions is too large to be discussed in this report. For further details cf. Schmahl (note 4), Art. 2 MN 1–31, and Art. 23 MN 1–13.

  40. 40.

    See BVerfGE 56, 363 (376); 59, 360 (376); 60, 79 (88); 103, 89 (107); 121, 69 (93).

  41. 41.

    BVerfGE 59, 360 (376); 72, 155 (172); 108, 52 (78); 121, 69 (94); Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 142; Peschel-Gutzeit (note 32), at 473; Schmahl (note 4) Art. 3 MN 18, and Art. 5 MN 11.

  42. 42.

    See BVerfGE 60, 79 (88); 72, 122 (137); 99, 145 (156). Also, according to the ECtHR’s case law, the interests of the child may override those of the parents, see, e.g., ECtHR, Elsholz v. Germany, judgment of 13 July 2000, no. 25735/94, § 50; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 May 2001, no. 28945/95, § 71; Sahin v. Germany, judgment of 8 July 2003, no. 30943/96, § 65; Pini and Other v. Romania, judgment of 22 June 2004, no. 78028/01, § 155.

  43. 43.

    Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 175.

  44. 44.

    BVerfGE 24, 119 (144); 60, 79 (88). Further see von Coelln (note 27), Art. 6 MN 76 et seq.; Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 176; Uhle in Epping/Hillgruber (eds.), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 2013, Art. 6 MN 59.

  45. 45.

    Veit in Bamberger/Roth (eds.), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 2013, § 1697a MN 1.

  46. 46.

    See Section 1632.4 of the Civil Code on foster families and Section 1671.2 of the Civil Code on the shared custody of separated parents.

  47. 47.

    Götz in Palandt (ed.), 72nd ed. 2013, § 1697a MN 2.

  48. 48.

    See CRC Committee, General Comment No. 5 (2003), UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/2003/, para. 12.

  49. 49.

    CRC Committee, General Comment No. 12 (2009), UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/12, 2009, para. 15. It is interesting to note that Article 24.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also grants children the right to express their view freely, was strongly inspired by Article 12 CRC.

  50. 50.

    Similarly Baer, Verabschiedung des UN-Übereinkommens über die Rechte des Kindes im November 1989 in New York, Familie und Recht 1990, 192, at 193.

  51. 51.

    Schulze-Fielitz in Dreier (ed.), Grundgesetz, Band 1, 3rd ed. 2013, Art. 5 MN 115.

  52. 52.

    Schmahl (note 4), Art. 5 MN 11.

  53. 53.

    Veit (note 45), § 1626 MN 32; Götz (note 47), § 1626 MN 22-–23. More restrictively von Coelln (note 27), Art. 6 MN 69 et seq.

  54. 54.

    See Section 60 of the Act on Proceedings in Family Cases and in Matters of Non-Contentious Litigation (Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit).

  55. 55.

    See CRC Committee, General Comment No. 2 (2002), UN Doc. CRC/GC/2002/2, para. 19. Similarly ECtHR, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy, judgment of 13 July 2000, nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138; Moser v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 2006, no. 12643/02, § 60.

  56. 56.

    See Section 158 of the Act on Proceedings in Family Cases and in Matters of Non-Contentious Litigation.

  57. 57.

    Schumann in Rauscher et al. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 4th ed. 2012, § 158 FamFG MN 27; Salgo, Mitwirkung am Zustandekommen einer einvernehmlichen Regelung: Aufgaben und Pflichten des Verfahrensbeistands, Familie Partnerschaft Recht 2010, 456, at 458.

  58. 58.

    Schumann (note 57), § 158 FamFG MN 30.

  59. 59.

    See Section 159.1 of the Act on Proceedings in Family Cases and in Matters of Non-Contentious Litigation; further cf. Schlünder in Hahne/Munzig (eds.), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum FamFG, 2013, § 159 MN 2.

  60. 60.

    See Section 159.2 of the Act on Proceedings in Family Cases and in Matters of Non-Contentious Litigation, as well as Schumann (note 57), § 159 FamFG MN 4. Cf. also BVerfG, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 2007, 1078.

  61. 61.

    Schmahl (note 4), Art. 9 MN 22.

  62. 62.

    CRC Committee, General Comment No. 12 (2009), UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/12, 2009, paras. 20–21. See also the UN Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving child victims and witnesses of crime, ECOSOC Resolution 2005/20, of 22 July 2005, para. 18.

  63. 63.

    ECtHR, Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, no. 19823/92, § 61.

  64. 64.

    ECtHR, Elsholz v. Germany, judgment of 13 July 2000, no. 25735/94, § 50; Sahin v. Germany, judgment of 8 July 2003, no. 30943/96, § 73.

  65. 65.

    Schmahl, Existing International and European standards: meeting the needs of children in Council of Europe (ed.), Compilation of texts related to child-friendly justice, 2009, 20, at 30.

  66. 66.

    See Sections 8, 9, and 11 of Book VIII of the Social Code. For more details cf. Periodic Report of Germany, 20 October 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/DEU/3-4, para. 90; Schmahl (note 4), Art. 12 MN 32.

  67. 67.

    Tillmanns in Säcker/Rixecker (eds.) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 8, 6th ed. 2012, § 8 SGB VIII MN 5.

  68. 68.

    Eisenberg, Jugendgerichtsgesetz, 16th ed. 2013, § 38 MN 20.

  69. 69.

    See Section 38.2 of the Youth Courts Act and Eisenberg (note 68), § 38 MN 19.

  70. 70.

    Further see BGBl. 2013 I, p. 935, at 936, with a new Section 58b having been introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to facilitate the hearing of witnesses by means of broadcasting.

  71. 71.

    Senge in Hannich (ed.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 7th ed. 2013, § 58a MN 6. Cf. also ECtHR, S.N. v. Sweden, judgment of 2 February 2002, no. 34209/96, § 44 et seq.; B. v. Finland, judgment of 24 April 2007, no. 17122/02, § 42.

  72. 72.

    See ECtHR, S.N. v. Sweden, judgment of 2 July 2002, no. 34209/96, § 53. Similarly with regard to family proceedings: Heilmann, Die Gesetzeslage zum Sorge- und Umgangsrecht, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2012, 16, at 17.

  73. 73.

    The Federal Ministry of Justice, since a couple of years, does further provide a child-friendly brochure on its web site named “Ich habe Rechte” (“I have rights”) which particularly addresses children’s rights in criminal proceedings.

  74. 74.

    BGBl. 2008 I, p. 441. See further Hahn in Bamberger/Roth (eds), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 2013, § 1598a MN 1.

  75. 75.

    BVerfGE 117, 202 (229 et seq.). See also BVerfGE 108, 82 (105).

  76. 76.

    See also the Periodic Report of Germany, 20 October 2010 (note 66), para. 108.

  77. 77.

    Wellenhofer in Säcker/Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 7, 6th ed. 2012, § 1598a MN 22.

  78. 78.

    Rauscher in v. Staudinger, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Buch 4: Familienrecht, 2012, § 1598a MN 9.

  79. 79.

    ECtHR, Ahrens v. Germany, judgment of 22 March 2012, no. 45071/09, § 70 et seq. See also ECtHR, Kautzor v. Germany, judgment of 22 March 2012, no. 23338/09, § 69 et seq.

  80. 80.

    Brudermüller in Palandt (ed.), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 72nd ed. 2013, § 1598a MN 1. Both claims, of course, do not confer the right to the biological father to have contact with his child. This question is regulated by the newly introduced Section 1686a of the Civil Code (for more details see note 104).

  81. 81.

    BVerfGE 79, 256 (268).

  82. 82.

    See Reinhardt, Adoptionsvermittlungsgesetz, 2012, § 9b MN 8 et seq.

  83. 83.

    Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Hamm, judgment of 6 February 2013, I-14 U 7/12, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 2013, 637 (639 et seq.). Critical Fink/Grün, Der Auskunftsanspruch über die Abstammung des durch heterologe Insemination gezeugten Kindes gegen den Arzt, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, 1913–1916.

  84. 84.

    See, with more details, Günther in Günther/Taupitz/Kaiser (eds.), Embryonenschutzgesetz, 2008, § 1 II, MN. 4.

  85. 85.

    Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of Berlin, judgment of 5 September 2012, VG 23 L 283.12, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 2013, 738–740. See also the concurrent view of the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Stuttgart, judgment of 7 February 2012, 8 W 46/12, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 2012, 1740 et seq., in a similar case concerning egg donation.

  86. 86.

    Brudermüller (note 80), § 1598a MN 6.

  87. 87.

    Van Bueren (note 16), at 117; Ziemele in Alen et al. (eds.), A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Volume 7, 2007, Art. 7, p. 11.

  88. 88.

    See BVerfGE 104, 373 (385 et seq.). Under certain circumstances, also the biological father has the right to naming with respect to the child’s surname even in cases where the mother does not give consent, see Superior Court of Justice (Kammergericht) of Berlin, decision of 23 September 2010, 1 W 70/08, paras. 34–44.

  89. 89.

    Section 1 of the Name Amendment Act.

  90. 90.

    See Section 11 of the Name Amendment Act.

  91. 91.

    Section 2 of the Name Amendment Act.

  92. 92.

    Section 3 of the Name Amendment Act.

  93. 93.

    See BVerfGE 60, 123 (131 et seq.).

  94. 94.

    Augstein, Transsexuellengesetz, 2012, § 1 MN 5.

  95. 95.

    BVerfGE 121, 69 (92); further see Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 190; Olzen in Säcker/Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 7, 6th ed. 2012, § 1666 MN 1.

  96. 96.

    von Coelln (note 27), Art. 6 MN 85 et seq.

  97. 97.

    BVerfGE 78, 51 (60).

  98. 98.

    See BVerfGE 107, 104 (118), and the examples given by Veit (note 45), § 1666 MN 14 et seq.; and Olzen (note 95), § 1666 MN 57.

  99. 99.

    Götz (note 47), § 1666 MN 30.

  100. 100.

    See Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 204, with further references.

  101. 101.

    BVerfGE 24, 119 (146–148).

  102. 102.

    Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 148. See also ECtHR, Y.C. v. United Kingdom, judgment of 13 March 2012, no. 4547/10, § 134 et seq.

  103. 103.

    Veit (note 45), § 1684 MN 9. See also BVerfGE 121, 69 (97).

  104. 104.

    Götz (note 47), § 1684 MN 5. It is not without problems for the child’s well-being that the newly introduced Section 1686a of the Civil Code confers the right to have contact to the biological father even in cases where the child has a legal father and lives with him; see Peschel-Gutzeit, Der doppelte Vater – Kritische Überlegungen zum Gesetz zur Stärkung der Rechte des leiblichen, nicht rechtlichen Vaters, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, 2465 (2466 et seq.). See also the skeptical opinion expressed by ECtHR, Kautzor v. Germany, judgment of 22 March 2013, no. 23338/09, § 72.

  105. 105.

    BVerfGE 121, 69 (98 et seq.); Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art 6 MN 191.

  106. 106.

    Periodic Report of Germany, 20 October 2010 (note 66), para. 113.

  107. 107.

    As to the scope of this provision, see Schmahl in Sodan (ed.), Grundgesetz, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 141 MN 2, with further references.

  108. 108.

    BVerfGE 70, 224 (251); 123, 49 (52 et seq.); Uhle (note 44), Art. 7 MN 48; Robbers in v. Mangoldt/Klein/Starck (eds.), Grundgesetz, Band 1, 6th ed. 2010, Art. 7 MN 131 et seq.

  109. 109.

    Schmitt-Kammler/Thiel in Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz, 6th ed. 2011, Art. 7 MN 52; Uhle (note 44), Art. 7 MN 64.

  110. 110.

    See Germann in Epping/Hillgruber (eds.), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 2013, Art. 4 MN 27, with further references.

  111. 111.

    Cf. Uhle (note 44), Art. 7 MN 57; Sodan in Sodan (ed.), Grundgesetz, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 7 MN 7.

  112. 112.

    Uhle (note 44), Art. 7 MN 59. Similarly Kotzur in Stern/Becker (eds.), Grundrechte-Kommentar, 2010, Art. 7 MN 37.

  113. 113.

    BVerfGE 74, 244 (252).

  114. 114.

    Badura in Maunz/Dürig (eds.), Grundgesetz, Kommentar, 2012, Art. 7 MN 70 et seq.

  115. 115.

    Hofmann in Schmidt-Bleibtreu et al. (eds.), Grundgesetz, 12th ed., 2011, Art. 7 MN 32.

  116. 116.

    CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.266, para. 31.

  117. 117.

    BVerfGE 108, 282 (299 et seq.).

  118. 118.

    This topic is, of course, very complex and still not undisputed; see, e.g., Kokott in Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz, 6th ed. 2011, Art. 4 MN 66–67, with further references as to legislative acts, case law, and legal literature.

  119. 119.

    ECtHR, Tyrer v. United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 1979, 162–168. In Castello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, the ECtHR considered further that corporal punishment might also violate the respect for private and family life as established by Article 8 ECHR; see ECtHR, judgment of 25 March 1993, no. 13134/87, § 33 et seq.

  120. 120.

    See CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.43, para. 30.

  121. 121.

    Kellner, Die Ächtung der Gewalt in der Erziehung nach neuem Recht, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, 796, at 797. Further see Brosius-Gersdorf (note 29), Art. 6 MN 163.

  122. 122.

    Kellner (note 121), at 797.

  123. 123.

    Veit (note 45), § 1631 MN 24.

  124. 124.

    Kellner (note 121), at 797.

  125. 125.

    See Periodic of Germany, 20 October 2010 (note 66), para. 164, and Peschel-Gutzeit, Das Recht auf gewaltfreie Erziehung – Was hat sich seit seiner Einführung im Jahre 2000 geändert? – Familie Partnerschaft Recht 2012, 195, at 197.

  126. 126.

    Cf. http://www.eltern.de/kleinkind/erziehung/ohrfeigen-klaps.html and http://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/studie-zu-gewalt-an-kindern-viele-eltern-schlagen-immer-noch-zu-1.1306909. Further see Schmahl (note 4), Art. 19 MN 7, and recently CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Germany, UN Doc. CRC/C/DEU/CO/3–4, paras. 32–33.

  127. 127.

    See Section 16 of Book VIII of the Social Code, and Schmahl (note 4), Art. 19 MN 8.

  128. 128.

    See the tasks and competences stipulated in Section 8a of Book VIII of the Social Code.

  129. 129.

    Heuchemer in v. Heintschel-Heinegg (ed.), Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 2013, § 171 MN 5.

  130. 130.

    Kühl in Lackner/Kühl, Strafgesetzbuch, 27th ed. 2011, § 171 MN 8.

  131. 131.

    Maurer in Säcker/Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 7, 6th ed. 2012, § 1746 MN 4.

  132. 132.

    Maurer (note 131), § 1746 MN 15.

  133. 133.

    BGBl. 2001 II, p. 1034.

  134. 134.

    See, in particular, the Adoption Agency Act (Adoptionsvermittlungsgesetz, BGBl. 2002 I, p. 354) and the Effects of Adoption Act (Adoptionswirkungsgesetz, BGBl. 2001 I, p. 2950).

  135. 135.

    Schmahl (note 4), Art. 20/21 MN 33. As to the ambit and scope of the German public order in intercountry adoptions, cf. Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Cologne, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – Rechtsprechungsreport 2009, 1374.

  136. 136.

    See Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2011, 1199, at 1200 et seq.; and Schmahl (note 4), Art. 20/21 MN 34.

  137. 137.

    See, e.g., Paeffgen in Kindhäuser/Neumann/Paeffgen (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch, 4th ed. 2013, § 228 MN 56; Kühl (note 130), § 223 MN 8.

  138. 138.

    Paeffgen (note 137), § 228 MN 63.

  139. 139.

    Rightly Schelling/Gaibler, Aufklärungspflicht und Einwilligungsfähigkeit, Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2012, 109, at 110.

  140. 140.

    Schlehofer in Joecks/Miebach (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 2nd ed. 2011, Vorbem. zu §§ 32 ff. MN 141. See also Schwarz, Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte der religiösen Beschneidung, JuristenZeitung 2008, 1125, at 1128; Weilert, Das Kindeswohl und die Knochenmarkspende Minderjähriger aus verfassungsrechtlicher Perspektive, Rechtswissenschaft 2012, 292, at 324, 329.

  141. 141.

    Schlehofer (note 140), Vorbem. zu §§ 32 ff. MN 142.

  142. 142.

    Regional Court (Landgericht) of Cologne, judgment of 7 May 2012, JuristenZeitung 2012, 805et seq.

  143. 143.

    See, besides the Regional Court of Cologne (note 142), e.g., Herzberg, Rechtliche Probleme der rituellen Beschneidung, JuristenZeitung 2009, 332, at 334; Putzke, Recht und Ritual – ein großes Urteil einer kleinen Strafkammer, Medizinrecht 2012, 621, at 623; Walter, Der Gesetzentwurf zur Beschneidung – Kritik und strafrechtliche Alternative, JuristenZeitung 2012, 1110, at 1116 et seq. With convincing arguments dissenting Rox, Annotation to the judgment of the Regional Court of Cologne of 7 May 2012, JuristenZeitung 2012, 806, at 807; Wiater, Rechtspluralismus und Grundrechtsschutz: Das Kölner Beschneidungsurteil, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2012, 1379, at 1380.

  144. 144.

    Periodic Report of Germany, 20 October 2010 (note 66), para. 214.

  145. 145.

    Opinion expressed by, e.g., Rupprecht et al. in Parliamentary Publication (Bundestagsdrucksache) 17/11430, p. 8; and Putzke (note 143), at 623.

  146. 146.

    Cf., e.g., CRC Committee, Concluding Observations: Lesotho, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.147, para. 44; Concluding Observations: South Africa, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.122, para. 33. See also Tobin, The Right to Health in International Law, 2011, at 312 et seq.; Schmahl (note 4) Art. 24 MN 20. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the CRC Committee does neither mention the practice of male circumcision in its recent General Comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/15 of 17 April 2013) nor in its Concluding Observations regarding Germany, of 31 January 2014 (UN Doc. CRC/C/DEU/CO/3–4, paras. 38–39).

  147. 147.

    BGBl. 2012 I, p. 2749.

  148. 148.

    Rixen, Das Gesetz über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, 257 et seq.; Schmahl (note 4), Art. 3 MN 19, Art. 19 MN 7.

  149. 149.

    Huber in Säcker/Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 7, 6th ed. 2012, § 1631d MN 4.

  150. 150.

    See Section 2.1 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  151. 151.

    More detailed Weyand, Jugendarbeitsschutzgesetz, 2012, § 1 MN 3 et seq.

  152. 152.

    Weyand (note 151), § 22 MN 7.

  153. 153.

    Weyand (note 151), § 22 MN 15.

  154. 154.

    Exceptions can be made for employees over the age of 16 years; see Section 24.2 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  155. 155.

    As to this question, see with more details, also with respect to the legal basis necessary for the evidence, Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), judgment of 16 October 2013, 8 CN 1.12, paras. 12 et seq.; Bavarian Constitutional Tribunal (Bayerischer Verfassungsgerichtshof), Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter 2012, 234, at 235, with annotation of Lorenzmeier, Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter 2012, 236 (237). Further see Kaltenborn/Reit, Das Verbot der Aufstellung von Grabsteinen aus Kinderarbeit, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2012, 925, at 927.

  156. 156.

    See Section 23 of the Youth Employment Protection Act. Further see Weyand (note 151), § 23 MN 1.

  157. 157.

    See Section 25 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  158. 158.

    Veit (note 45), § 1631a MN 3.

  159. 159.

    See Sections 8, 14, and 15 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  160. 160.

    See Section 11 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  161. 161.

    See Section 13 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  162. 162.

    Adolescents are admitted an annual paid leave of at least 30 days if they are below the age of 16, of at least 27 days if they are below the age of 17, and of at least 25 days if they are below the age of 18 years; see Sections 19.1 and 19.2 of the Youth Employment Protection Act.

  163. 163.

    Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht), judgment of 20 March 2012, 9 ARZ 529/10, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2012, 3465.

  164. 164.

    Enders in Bamberger/Roth, Beck’scher Online Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, 2013, § 1618a MN 2.

  165. 165.

    Peschel-Gutzeit (note 32), at 476.

  166. 166.

    See, e.g., Section 1649.2 and Section 1601 of the Civil Code.

  167. 167.

    CRC Committee, UN Doc. CRC/C/20, Annex V, p. 51; Schmahl (note 4), Art. 32–36 MN 7.

  168. 168.

    Van Bueren (note 16), at 267; Detrick (note 16), at 563.

  169. 169.

    v. Sachsen Gessaphe in Säcker/Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 7, 6th ed. 2012, § 1619 MN 3.

  170. 170.

    Already in 1977, Christian Tomuschat rightly described international instruments for human rights protection as the principal example of supplementary constitution for the Federal Republic of Germany; see Tomuschat, Der Verfassungsstaat im Geflecht der internationalen Beziehungen, Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 36 (1978), 51 et seq.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German and Foreign Public Law, Public International Law and European Law, Julius Maximilians University of Würzburg, Domerschulstr. 16, Würzburg, D-97070, Germany

    Stefanie Schmahl (Chair)

Authors
  1. Stefanie Schmahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Schmahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of European Legal and Political Studies – Novi Sad, University Educons – Sremska Kamenica, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Olga Cvejić Jančić

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmahl, S. (2016). The Rights of the Child in Germany: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Its Implementation in National Law. In: Cvejić Jančić, O. (eds) The Rights of the Child in a Changing World. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23189-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation