Interpreting the Right to a Dignified Minimum Existence

A New Era in German Socio-Economic Rights Jurisprudence

Bibliographic Data

ID6068588
AuthorsInga T Winkler (0000-0001-5878-4387, German Institute of Development and Sustainability, corresponding author), Claudia Mähler (Deutsches Historisches Institut Washington)
Year2013
Volume13
Issue2
Pages388-401
Publication date2013-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHuman Rights Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1461-7781 • E-ISSN: 1744-1021
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/hrlr/ngt013
OpenAlexW2167037885
LanguageEN
Citations received7

Many countries are well known for their progressive case law on economic, social and cultural rights. German courts would not usually be among the first to name,1 but the decisions of the German Constitutional Court in two recent cases2 are noteworthy and have already garnered some international attention.3 These judgments move away from the general trend of German courts being rather restrictive in interpreting economic, social and cultural rights as justiciable human rights towards providing a progressive interpretation of the human right to social security. The first judgment from February 2010 on ‘Hartz IV’ benefits4 concerns unemployment benefits, while the second judgment from July 2012 relates to the statutory scheme for benefits for asylum seekers. It is the latter that will be the focus of this note.5 However, the judgment on asylum seekers benefits cannot be properly analysed without understanding the implications of the ‘Hartz IV’ decision.6 In ‘Hartz IV’, the Constitutional Court relied on the human right to a dignified minimum existence, derived from Article 1(1) of the German Basic Law in conjunction with the Article 20(1) of the German Basic Law on the Social State principle, to assess the constitutionality of the provisions governing ‘Hartz IV’ benefits. The Court primarily stipulated procedural requirements for the legislature to determine these benefits, namely a procedure that is needs-oriented and realistic, based on reliable data, and transparent. It found that the ‘Hartz IV’ legislation did not meet these procedural requirements and was therefore unconstitutional.

Constitution · Constitutional court · Context (archaeology) · Dignity · Fundamental rights · German · Human rights · International human rights law · Jurisprudence · Law and economics · Political science · Social rights · Social security · Sociology · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Human Rights and Immigration · Law · Social Policy and Reform Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access