Nature, Scope, and Growth of German Administrative Law

  • Mahendra P. Singh

Abstract

Nearly a century and three quarters ago the German jurist Friedrich Karl von Savigny propounded the thesis of the uniqueness of each legal system as a manifestation of the spirit or common consciousness of the people with whom it has naturally and spontaneously evolved.1 Any merits or demerits of this thesis apart, the ever increasing social intercourse among different peoples and their interdependence supported by spectacular scientific advancement since then have brought them so close to one another that the thesis has simply become untenable inasmuch as no legal system today can either claim complete uniqueness or maintain total exclusiveness uninfluenced by the ideas, notions, and practices originated in other legal systems. As late as 1885 the British constitutional lawyer A. V. Dicey concluded that administrative law was a peculiar feature of the continental countries unknown to common law.2 But soon thereafter, much to his disliking, he had to admit the emergence of droit administratif in England — the motherland of common law.3 Today administrative law is admittedly as much an academic discipline and a practical reality in the common-law world as in the continental. Of course, differences in the two systems may be traced with respect to the origin and growth of administrative law, instrumentalities of its manifestation, and many matters of detail. Such differences cannot be ruled out, rather do exist, even among the common-law or continental countries inter se.4 But the central theme that runs through administrative law is the same everywhere.

Keywords

Shipping Assure Sine Stein Monopoly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    von Savigny’s first utterance of his views appeared in 1814 in his famous vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft as a reaction to Thibaut’s proposal of codification of German law on the lines of Code Napolion in France although his refined and final version appeared in his System of Modern Roman Law (1840).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dicey AV: Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 330 (10th ed, 1959).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dicey AV: The Development of Administrative Law in England, 31 L Q Rev 148 (1915), reproduced in his above cited work at 493 ff.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See, for example, Schwartz B, Wade HWR: Legal Control of Government (1972) to note the difference between the US and British administrative law.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wade HWR: Administrative Law, 5 (5th ed, 1982).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    The Conseil d’Etat in France is a part of the executive branch of the state and in Germany the predecessors of the present administrative courts were administrative panels to supervise efficiency and efficacy of the administration and till its abolition during the World War II the Prussian Supreme Administrative Court and courts below it as well as courts in other parts of the country based on that model had the jurisdiction to examine not only the legality but also the suitability or expediency of an administrative act. For details see below, p 10f.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Wade, above, n 5 at 26 and Gellhorn W, Byse C, Strauss PL: Administrative Law, xx (7th ed, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolff HJ, Bachof O: Verwaltungsrecht 1, 97 (9th ed, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maurer H: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 20 (1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt-Assmann E: Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee und System, 7 (1982). Compare Professor Newman’s statement that “Administrative law is `Legal Civics’, no more, no less” cited in Gellhorn, Byse, Strauss, above, n 9 at xxi.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    In some recent writings international administrative law has been added as a third division to the existing two. See, for example, Achterberg N: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 19 (1982). But a famous work includes international administrative law in the category of particular administrative law: see von Minch I (ed): Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht, 781 ff. (5th ed, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See von Munch I, id.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A comprehensive federal legislation on state liability enacted in 1980 was invalidated by the Federal Constitutional Court for lack of competence of federal parliament: see below, p 140.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See Achterberg N, above, n 13 at 495 ff. Even in Wolff HJ, Bachof O: Verwaltungsrecht III (4th ed, 1978) the judicial control has been discussed only with respect to administrative legislation; at 455 ff.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See below, p 104ff.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See below, p 110ff. and Appendix III.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Appendix II.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See Verwaltungsvollstreckungsgesetz of 27 April 1953.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    With very minor exceptions (see below, p 55 ff.) the private law activities of the administration are treated at par with the activities of private individuals.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolff HJ, Bachoff O: above, n 10 at 99.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Above, n 13 at 9. Professor Achterberg puts forward his own theory - the trustee theory (Sachwaltertheorie) - according to which public law is the sum of legal norms which determine the legal relationship in which at least one of the participating subjects comes forward as a trustee of public welfare (p 11).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    See von Munch I: Verwaltung and Verwaltungsrecht in Erichsen H-U, Martens W (eds): Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 19 (4th ed, 1979).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Above, n 2 at 329 ff.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katz A: Grundkurs im Offentlichen Recht I, 74 (4th ed, 1980).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See Appendix I.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basic Law, art 28 (1).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See below, p 68 ff.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See below, p 22.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See below, p 88 ff.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Basic Law, art 19(4). See Appendix and also Schmidt-Assmann E: Art 19 IV GG als Teil des Rechtsstaatsprinzips, [1983] 2 NVwZ 1 ff.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See below, p 106f.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See below, p 6 f.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See Davis KC: 1 Administrative Law Treatise, 64 (1958). In Australia the doctrine still plays an important role in the matter of delegation of judicial power to the executive. See Benjafield DG, Whitmore H: Principles of Australian Administrative Law, 24ff. (3d ed, 1966); Wynes WA: Legislative, Executive and Judicial Power in Australia, 388 ff. (4th ed, 1970).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See In re the Delhi Laws Act, AIR 1951 SC 332. Also Smt Indira Nehru Gandhi y Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See below, p 10f.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    See below, p 19Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    See decision of 28 Nov 1957, 7 BVerfGE 183, 188.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Basic Law, arts 54, 61, 63, 67 and 68.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Id, arts 43, 44 and 53.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Id, arts 110, 114 and 115.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Id, art 95(2).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Id, arts 76 and 80. Also below, p 20ff.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Id, art 82.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Id, arts 43 and 53.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Id, art 113.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Id, arts 60(1) and 95(2).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Id, arts 93 and 100.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Id, art 19(4).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Id, arts 97 and 98.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Decision of 17 Nov 1959, 10 BVerfGE 200, 217; of 9 May 1962, 14 BVerfGE 56, 68; of 27 Oct 1964, 18 BVerfGE 172, 183; and of 3 June 1980 [ 1981 ] NJW, 912 (BVerfG).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    See decision of 27 April 1959, 9 BVerfGE 268, 279.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Decision of 15 Dec 1970, 30 BVerfGE 1, 28.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Katz A, above, n 26 at 81; also Stein E: Staatsrecht, 65 (7th ed, 1980) who, on the basis of some court observations, tries to establish that the separation of powers is above the positive law and therefore any violation of the principle even by a constitutional provision is challengeable.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    von Munch I (ed): I Grundgesetz - Kommentar, 736 (2d ed, 1981).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    von Munch, above, n 24 at 5.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Basic Law, art 20(1) read with art 79(3).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Id, art 28(1).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Id, art 109(2).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Id, art 74 Nos 6, 7, 9 and 10.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Katz A, above n 26 at 97 ff.; also Wolff and Bachof, above, n 10 at 54 ff.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Decision of 16 Jan 1957, 6 BVerfGE 33, 41.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Decision of 21 May 1957, 7 BVerfGE 1.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    von Munch, above, n 24 at 41.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Decision of 18 July 1967, 22 BVerfGE 180, 204.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Decision of 26 Sep 1957 [ 1957 ] NJW, 1873, 1874 (BGH).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Decision of 5 April 1965 [ 1965 ] NJW, 1226–27 (BGH).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    von Munch, above, n 24 at 42–43.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Katz A, above, n 26 at 105; also generally Conrad D, Grundbedürfnisse als Gegenstand der Entwicklungspolitik in Wagner N, Rieger HC (eds): Interdisziplinare Aspekte der Grundbedarfsstrategie, 93 ff. (1982).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    See below, p 149 ff.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Decision of 14 June 1882, 9 PrOVGE 353.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    See Jellinek W: Verwaltungsrecht, 91 (3d ed, 1931).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    This is evident from the constitution of the administrative courts in Prussia. The county committees consisted of civil servants and six lay judges. The regional committees consisted of the president of the regional government or his representative and six other members two of whom were legally qualified civil servants. The Prussian Supreme Administrative Court consisted of a president, presidents of the senates and councillors. Half of the councillors were from the higher administration and rest were persons competent to be appointed as judges. All the members of the court, however, enjoyed a life tenure and full independence from the executive which was not available to the members of the committees. Also Ule CH: German Administrative Jurisdiction, 25 Revue Internationale des Sciences Administrativ 173, 175 (1959). The Weimar Constitution of 1919 did not go beyond enjoining the Reich and the Laender to create specialized administrative courts (art 107).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    von Gerber CF: Über Öffentliche Rechte (1852).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mayer FF: Grundsätze des Verwaltungsrechts mit besonderer Rücksicht auf gemeinsames deutsches Recht (1862).Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    von Sarwey O: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (1884).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mayer O: Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht (1895–96).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Forsthoff E: Die Verwaltung als Leistungsträger (1938); Lehrbuch des Verwaltungsrechts, vol 1 (10th ed, 1973).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wolff HJ, Bachof O: Verwaltungsrecht I (9th ed, 1974 first published in 1956); Verwaltungsrecht II (4th ed, 1976); and Verwaltungsrecht III (4th ed, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Basic Law, art 20(1) read with art 79(3).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Id, art 28(2).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Id, art 83.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Id, arts 87(1), 87 a, 87 b.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Id, art 87(3).Google Scholar
  86. 86.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahendra P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations