Constitutional Law

Constitutional issues arise in all areas of law. We cover the full spectrum of constitutional law – be it draft bills or constitutional court proceedings.

We boast an excellent reputation due to decades of successful constitutional law practice. We have a deep understanding of the different perspectives of the stakeholders involved. Our clients are constitutional bodies, ministries and authorities as well as associations, companies and private individuals who all place their trust in our expertise. We represent our clients’ interests before the Federal Constitutional Court and the constitutional courts of the federal German states. With our equally broad experience in landmark proceedings before other courts in which constitutional issues play an important role we are often asked to provide expert opinions on issues of constitutional law and are invited to provide advice in legislative procedures.

Many of our cases are at the interface of various areas of the law, including European and international law, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the fundamental freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights. Our ability to cover all relevant areas at the highest level frequently determines the successful outcome of proceedings.

Our practice areas (selection):

Areas of application

• Constitutional complaints and opinions in appeal proceedings
• Institutional disputes and disputes between the federal government and the states
• Judicial reviews
• Legal opinions and advice on planned legislation

Subject areas

• Principle of equality
• Freedom of expression, of the press, and broadcasting
• Artistic freedom, academic freedom
• Freedom of association and trade union freedom
• Mail, postal and telecommunications secrecy
• Freedom to exercise a profession
• Fundamental right to property
• Political parties
• European and international integration
• Parliamentary law
• Division of powers
• Public finance

Credentials¹

Representation before the Federal Constitutional Court and state constitutional courts

• International publishers of scholarly and scientific works involving the protection of intellectual property on the Internet (1 BvR 762/23)
• Senate of Berlin et al. involving the so‑​called “Berlin Election Chaos” (Constitutional Court (VerfGH) 156/21 et al.; Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) 2 BvF 2/21 et al.)
• University on the Berlin Higher Education Act (Berliner Hochschulgesetz) (1 BvR 368/22)
• German Federal government on the possibility of “triage” during a pandemic (1 BvR 1541/20)
• Family business owners involving legal protection in tax law (1 BvR 1359/20)
• Housing companies involving the “Berlin rent cap” (1 BvR 1290/20)
• Multinational enterprises in the entertainment industry involving the blockage of websites violating copyright (1 BvR 2660/19)
• Axel Springer SE involving “adblockers” on the Internet (1 BvR 921/19)
• Hogrefe‑​Verlag involving copyright in science and education (1 BvR 553/19)
• Acting as counsel for the Berlin Senate involving three constitutional complaint proceedings before the Berlin Constitutional Court contesting provisions of the Daycare Promotion Act (KitaFÖG) limiting parental co‑​payments for special services provided by daycare centres for children (Constitutional Court 182/18, Constitutional Court 183/18 and Constitutional Court 184/18)
• ZPÜ, VG Wort, VG Bild‑​Kunst (copyright collection societies) involving copyright remuneration claims (1 BvR 2342/17)
• German Federal government involving the “ban on strikebreaking” laid down in the Temporary Employment Act (1 BvR 842/17)
• Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten (a copyright collection society – GVL) involving an general copyright agreement (1 BvR 2508/16)
• Deutschlandradio involving the broadcasting fee (1 BvR 1675/16)
• German Savings Banks Association (Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband) involving the EU Banking Union (2 BvR 1685/14)
• Federal Government on legal reductions for social benefits under the “SGB II” (1 BvL 7/16)
• Landtag of Thuringia on the scope of legal rights for Members of Parliament with small children (ThürVerfGH 24/18)
• Publishing house C. H. Beck on publisher’s shares in dividend payments of collecting societies (BVerfG NJW 2018, 2036)
• Publishing house Alfred Kröner Verlag GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart of 11 February 2015 and the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of 28 November 2013 ( 1 BvR 338/16)
• Eugen Ulmer KG against the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of 16 April 2016 (1 BvR 273/16)
• Landeszentrale für Medien und Kommunikation (National Office for Media and Communications) against the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 23 July 2014 (1 BvR 2722/14)
• Allianz life insurances on constitutional issues of the insurance act (1 BvR 1674/14).
• Representation of a physician against the anonymized publication of a professional tribunal decision (1 BvR 1128/13).
• Federal Government on the admissibility of testing long vehicles (“Gigaliners”) (BVerfGE 136, 69‑119).
• ZDF on the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (1 BvF 1/11, 1 BvR 4/11)
• German Federal Film Board on financial constitutional and competency issues of film funding (NVwZ 2014, 646‐658).
• European Stability Mechanism (ESM)in the Federal Constitutional Court proceedings on the “rescue package” and the “OMT programme” (BVerfGE 135, 317‑433 and 134, 366‑438).
• Vattenfall on the constitutionality of the 2011 nuclear phase‐out (1 BvR 1456/12).
• RWE Power in the Federal Constitutional Court proceedings “Garzweiler” on the scope of property rights and effective legal protection (BVerfGE 134, 242‑357).
• Representation of a publishing house on a judicial review of contracts on fees for translators (BVerfGE 134, 204‑239).
• Landtag of Saarland in proceedings between governmental bodies and election verification processes before the Saarland Constitutional Court (NVwZ‐RR 2012, 169; NVwZ‐RR 2013, 537).
• Representation of a corporation on the collection of charges for insolvency insurance according to the Company Pensions Act (NVwZ 2012, 1535).
• Government of North Rhine‐Westphalia on the compatibility of supplementary budgets with the State constitution and public debt limits (NVwZ 2011, 805‐811).
• Biogas plants in the “Penkun proceedings” on constitutionality of EEG 2009 (BVerfGE 122, 374‐397).
• VG Wort (and others) on the scope of intellectual property in the digital era (among others GRUR 2010, 999‐1002; GRUR 2011, 223‐225; GRUR 2011, 225‐227; GRUR 2011, 225‐227).
• Company benefitting from investment allowances because of insufficient fiscal control of the tax authority’s classification of the business as an undertaking of the manufacturing industry (BVerfGE 129, 1).
• Berlin Senate in several proceedings on the admissibility of referenda (among others LVerfGE 20, 23‐45; LVerfGE 20, 45‐70 ).
• Federal Government in a legal review of the agriculture “Absatzfonds” regarding extra charges (BVerfGE 122, 316‐341).
• Federal Council in the 2001 proceedings to ban the NPD (BVerfGE 107, 339‐395).
• Federal Government in several Constitutional Court and Federal Administrative Court proceedings on federal/​Land compensations for breaches of European, international, or federal law duties (BVerfGE 109, 1‐13; BVerfGE 116, 271‐327; BVerwGE 128, 342‐350; BVerwGE 128, 99‐118).
• Federal Government in constitutional complaints on market regulations (among others BVerfGK 17, 273‐297).
• Federal Government in various Constitutional Court proceedings on waste law (among others NVwZ 2003, 725‐726; NJW 2003, 418‐419; NVwZ 2007, 1172‐1175).
• Representation of the complainant on equal treatment of income tax deductability of occupational provisions (BVerfGE 120, 169‐180).
• Deutschlandradio on the breach of freedom of broadcasting by too low radio licence fees (BVerfGE 119, 181).
• Representation of a complainant against the enforcement of a prison sentence imposed against the complainant in France (BVerfGK 15, 24).
• State Treaty on Gambling. Representation of a company on the ban on Internet brokering (NVwZ 2008, 1338).
• Representation of a complainant on the right to use protected job titles for advertisements within the scope of the freedom to pursue a professional activity (NJW‐RR 2008, 909).
• Oddset sport bets. Representation of a sports betting shop in Munich because of infringement of the fundamental right to pursue a professional activity by the State monopoly on sports betting (BVerfGE 115, 276‐320).
• Representation of a former Brandenburg prime minister against being called a Stasi collaborator (BVerfGE 114, 339‑356).
• Deutscher Herold on the requirement of an authorization under insurance supervision law for the portfolio transfers of life insurance contracts; disqualification of a Constitutional Court judge on the grounds of former activities as representative in court proceedings (BVerfGE 114, 1‐72).
• Sports bets. Representation of a private individual on the granting of effective legal protection against the immediate execution of the ban on sports betting arrangements (NVwZ 2005, 439‐440 and BVerfGK 4, 36‐42).
• The Free State of Saxony, inter alia, on the requirements of democracy and the rule of law in respect of the transfer of legislative power to notaries’ funds (BVerfGE 111, 191‐225).
• Members of Schleswig‐Holstein parliament in proceedings against the Land government on the question whether the government is obliged to grant members of parliament access to files (BVerfGE 110, 199‐226).
• Deutsche Telekom in injunctive legal proceedings to protect trade and business secrets in the administrative court proceedings on the charging system under telecommunications law (BVerfGE 115, 205‐259).
• Competition complaint. Representation of a hospital association seeking effective legal protection when taking a competing candidate into the hospital plan (NVwZ 2004, 718‐71).
• Compulsory primary education. Representation of the complainants regarding the rejection of a permission for home education by the parents of children subject to compulsory primary education (NVwZ 2003, 1113‐1114).
• RTL and ZDF against the anonymization of TV footage of the accused person in the proceedings on the homicide of Jakob v. Metzler (NJW 2003, 2523‐2524).
• ZDF and others against the surrender of communication data of journalistic phone calls for purposes of criminal prosecution (BVerfGE 107, 299‐339).
• Various radio and TV institutions on reporters’ attendance at oral proceedings against presumed al‐Qaeda terrorists (NJW 2002, 2021‐2022; NJW 2003, 500‐501).
• Representation of complainants regarding the requirements for the inspection of files by allegedly infringed persons in preliminary criminal proceedings (NJW 2003, 501‐503 and BVerfGE 91, 328‐334).
• Love Parade. Representation of the events company on the question of the nature of the Love Parade as an assembly (NJW 2001, 2459‐2461).
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on questions regarding the protection of privacy against photographic reports by the press (NJW 2001, 1921‐1926).
• Representation of the complainant on questions of the admissibility of appeals in administrative court proceedings on policy law responsibilities for so‐called military waste (NVwZ 2001, 552‐553).
• The State Government of Hesse in an abstract review of the legislative provision relating to election verification regulations of Hesse’s state constitution (BVerfGE 103, 111‐142).
• Representation of the complainants on the unconstitutionality of the separate registration of appellate attorneys (BVerfGE 103, 1‐20).
• Representation of opticians on the scope of permitted professional practice (GewArch 2000, 418‐420).
• Federal Government in Federation‐State disputes on directives under Article 85 (3) of the Basic Law (BVerfGE 102, 167‐175).
• Representation of a press company on the works council’s involvement in the co‐determination of daily working hours of editors (AfP 2000, 82‐84).
• Representation of complainants seeking remuneration for the procedural support provided by a social worker to impoverished persons under his employment contract concluded with a care centre (FamRZ 2000, 414‐415).
• Representation of a complainant in restitution proceedings under the Property Act (WM 1999, 2030‐2032).
• Representation of a company because of the interdiction to publish anonymous letters composed by employees criticizing the works council in a company magazine (BVerfGE 95, 28).
• METRO chain because of an imposition of various restraints for reasons of competition (WM 1998, 1554‐1558).
• Representation of a company on municipal packaging tax (BVerfGE 98, 83‐105).
• Representation in professional law issues of the lawyer‐notary and prohibition of partnership (BVerfGE 98, 49‐70).
• Representation of a newspaper publisher because of changes to the right to reply under Saarland press law (BVerfGE 97, 157‐168).
  With regard to our commitment to professional discretion, the list of references is restricted to representation cases published by the courts/​that are public knowledge (section 43a (2) BRAO)

¹ With regard to our commitment to professional discretion, the list of credentials is restricted to representation cases published by the courts/that are public knowledge (section 43a (2) of BRAO

lawyers in Constitutional Law