¹ Thomas Jefferson, First Draft of the Inaugural Address (4 March 1801), in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. VIII, 1, 3 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1897).Google Scholar

² Official English translation available at http://www.bundesregierung.de/static/pdf/GG_engl_Stand_26_07_02.pdf.Google Scholar

³ For a classical statement, see, Hans Kelsen, Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie 98-104 (2nd ed. 1929).Google Scholar

⁴ See, in particular, Article 79 para. 3 GG.Google Scholar

⁵ Article 1 para. 3, 19 para. 2, 79 para. 3 GG.Google Scholar

⁶ Article 21 para. 2 GG.Google Scholar

⁷ Article 9 para. 2 GG.Google Scholar

⁸ Article 18 GG.Google Scholar

⁹ See, Article 18, 21 para. 2 GG.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Loewenstein, Karl, Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, 31 American Political Science Review 417, 638 (1937).Google Scholar

¹¹ Id., at 644-656 (with reference to legislation in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, England, the Irish Free State, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and Czechoslowakia).Google Scholar

¹² As to the evolution of the idea of “militant democracy” under the Grundgesetz, see, Hans-Jürgen Papier/Wolfgang Durner, Streitbare Demokratie, 128 Archiv für Öffentliches Recht 340 (2003).Google Scholar

¹³ See, in particular, the discussions on subsequent drafts of Article 18 clause 2 GG and Article 21 para. 2 GG in the committees of the Parlamentarischer Rat (Parliamentary Council or Constitutional Convention), summarized in 1 Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart (Neue Folge) 174 et seq., 207-210 (1951).Google Scholar

¹⁴ On the process of Gleichschaltung of political parties during the Nazi dictatorship, see, Hans H. Klein, Article 21, in Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, para. 78 et seq. (Theodor Maunz/Günter Dürig, eds., 38th instalment 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, supra, note 13.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Article 18 clause 2, 21 para. 2 GG.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Section 36 and 43 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (BVerfGG – Federal Constitutional Court Act), English translation available at http://www.goethe.de/in/d/presse/e/gesetze-e-f.html.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For earlier attempts to outlaw political parties, see, 2 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE, Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court) 1 (SRP), 5 BVerfGE 85 (KPD), 91 BVerfGE 262 (NL), 91 BVerfGE 276 (FAP). Cf. also Martin Morlok, Parteiverbot als Verfassungsschutz – Ein unauflösbarer Widerspruch?, 2001 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2931, 2933-2935; Thilo Rensmann, Die Demokratie zeigt sich wehrhaft – Parteiverbotsverfahren von dem BVerfG, in Verfassungsrechtsprechung 56 (Jörg Menzel, ed., 2000).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), decision of 18 March 2003, 2 BVB1/01, 2/01, 3/01, available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/bs20030318_2bvb000101.html.Google Scholar

²⁰ For previous coverage of the proceedings in the German Law Journal, see, Government Commits to Seeking a Ban of the Extreme Right-Wing National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), 1 German Law Journal No. 2 (1 November 2000) www.germanlawjournal.com; Federal Constitutional Court Issues Temporary Injunction in the NPD Party Ban Case, 2 German Law Journal No. 13 (1 August 2001) www.germanlawjournal.com; Felix Hanschmann, Federal Constitutional Court to Review NPD Party Ban Motion, 2 German Law Journal No. 17 (1 November 2001) www.germanlawjournal.com; Alexander Hanebeck, FCC Suspends Hearing in NPD Party Ban Case, 3 German Law Journal No. 2 (1 February 2002) www.germanlawjournal.com; Felix Hanschmann, Another Test in Proceduralizing Democracy: The Oral Proceedings in the NPD Party Ban Case Before the Federal Constitutional Court, 3 German Law Journal No. 11 (1 November 2002) www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

²¹ As to the facts, see, BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 2-51. See, also, Ingo v. Münch, Der “Aufstand der Anständigen,” 2001 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 728.Google Scholar

²² BBC News, Germany moves to ban far-right party, 26 October 2000, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/992558.stm.Google Scholar

²³ BBC News, German Senate backs neo-Nazi ban, 10 November 2000, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1016364.stm.Google Scholar

²⁴ The expression was first couched by Heribert Prantl, political journalist of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and was later adopted by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, see, v. Münch (note 20), at 731.Google Scholar

²⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 8 et seq.Google Scholar

²⁶ BVerfGE 104, 63. As to the significance of this procedural step, see, infra, text accompanying notes 37-39.Google Scholar

²⁷ See, BVerfGE 104, 370, 372.Google Scholar

²⁸ Id.Google Scholar

²⁹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 33.Google Scholar

³⁰ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 39, 41.Google Scholar

³¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 52, 64-116, 117-154.Google Scholar

³² Section 15 (4) Clause 1 BVerfGG.Google Scholar

³³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 52-63.Google Scholar

³⁴ In the case at issue the Second Senate was reduced to seven judges because the term of office of Jutta Limbach, the former President of the Court, had ended during the proceedings.Google Scholar

³⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 52.Google Scholar

³⁶ In a similar vein, Jörn Ipsen, Das Ende des NPD –Verbotsverfahrens, 2003 Juristenzeitung 485, 486 et seq.; Uwe Volkmann, Case Note, 2003 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 605, 606 et seq.Google Scholar

³⁷ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 54.Google Scholar

³⁸ Section 45 BVerfGG.Google Scholar

³⁹ Id.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See, e.g., Ipsen, supra note 35, at 486.Google Scholar

⁴¹ BVerfGE 104, 63–65.Google Scholar

⁴² Ipsen, supra note 35, at 486; Volkmann, supra note 35, at 606.Google Scholar

⁴³ Section 15 (4) clause 2 BVerfGG.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ipsen, supra note 35, at 487.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 62.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For a slightly different line of reasoning, see, Ipsen, supra note 35, at 487.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See, Volkmann, supra note 35, at 606.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 73-76, 119 et seq., 123.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 64-116.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 83-86.Google Scholar

⁵¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 83.Google Scholar

⁵² BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 84.Google Scholar

⁵³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 86.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 86.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 83-88.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 81, 84.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 90.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 87, 91, 113.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 87.Google Scholar

⁶¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 91, 113.Google Scholar

⁶² BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 113.Google Scholar

⁶³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 115.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 111.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 115.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 115.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 94.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See, BVerfGE 54, 324, 343 et seq.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 95.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 94.Google Scholar

⁷¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 116.Google Scholar

⁷² BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 117-154.Google Scholar

⁷³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 125.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 126.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 126.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ A general right to procedural fairness is not explicitly laid down in the German constitution but is read into the Rechtsstaat principle (Article 20 para. 1 GG) and Article 2 para. 1 GG.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 131.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 133.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 134.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 127 et seq.Google Scholar

⁸¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 136 et seq.Google Scholar

⁸² BVerfG, supra note 19, at §§ 121, 137.Google Scholar

⁸³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 140.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 145.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 153.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 153.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 136.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 137.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See, Article 1 para. 1 clause 2 GG.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ On the protective dimension of the fundamental rights of the Basic Law, see, K. Graßhof, The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights Under the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, in The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights 33 (Eckart Klein, ed. 2000).Google Scholar

⁹¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 142.Google Scholar

⁹² BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 141.Google Scholar

⁹³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 141.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 141. Note that the NPD had only 6500 members in 2001 and received only 0.4 percent of the ballot in the elections to the Federal Parliament in 2002, cf. BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 3.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 154.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 143.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Note, for example, that the NPD received 800,000 DM in government funds in 2000, see, Münch, supra note 20, at 729.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The European Commission's proposal for a regulation on “the statute and financing of European political parties”, COM (2003) 77 final, 19 February 2003, would, however, allow the European Parliament to qualify a European political party as ineligible for financial support from the community budget if the party's statute and activities failed to respect “the basic purposes of the Union with regard to freedom, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law”, see Article 3 para. 2 and Article 4 of the proposed regulation. From the perspective of German constitutional law this poses a fundamental challenge to the Parteienprivileg (the privileged status of political parties) which makes any interference with a political party's legal status based on the political contents of its program or activities contingent on a prior decision by the Federal Constitutional Court. On the notion of the Parteienprivileg, see, BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 69.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 146 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Article 73 No. 10 lit. b; Article 87 para. 1 clause 2 GG. See, BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 146.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 148, 151.Google Scholar

¹⁰² BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 151.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 147.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ BVerfG, supra note 19, at § 147.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See, e.g., the references in Münch (note 20), at 728.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ As to this word pun, see, Lars Oliver Michaelis, Einstellung des NPD-Verbotsverfahrens, 2003 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 943.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ In a similar vein, Volkmann (note 35), 609.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Contra Michaelis, supra note 105, at 947.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ipsen, supra note 35, at 489, Volkmann, supra note 35, at 608.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ European Court of Human Rights, Case of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) v. Turkey, judgement of 13 February 2003, available at www.echr.coe.int.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See, the reference to this judgement in the majority opinion of the Court, BVerfG (note 19), at § 154. See, also, Thorsten Koch, Parteiverbote, Verhältnismäβigkeitsprinzip und EMRK, 2002 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1388.Google Scholar

¹¹² European Court of Human Rights, supra note 109, at para. 103.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See, however, the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 22 November 2001, BVerfGE 104, 214, denying the application of the NPD to refer the case at issue to the European Court of Justice. The Court held that the member States of the European Union had the power to extend the effect of a national party ban to the elections to the European Parliament so long as the electoral procedure was still governed by member States’ national laws, see, BVerfGE 104, 214, 219–220. This view was recently confirmed by the European Court of First Instance in Case T-353/00, Le Pen v. European Parliament, judgement of 10 April 2003, available at http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm. Cf. also Franz C. Mayer, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Verpflichtung zur Vorlage an den Europäischen Gerichtshof, 2002 Europarecht 239; Papier/Durner, supra note 12, at 369.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Treaty of European Union, 7 February 1992, as amended by the Treaty of Nice, O. J. 2002 C 325/5. See, also, Art. I-58 Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, adopted by the European Convention on 13 June and 10 July 2003, O. J. 2003 C 169/1. On the principle of “militant democracy” in the European Union's draft constitution, see, Thilo Rensmann, Grundwerte im Prozeß der europäischen Konstitutionalisierung, in Die Europäische Union als Wertegemeinschaft (Dieter Blumenwitz, Gilbert H. Gornig, Dietrich Murswiek, eds. forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See, the detailed analysis in Frank Schorkopf, Die Maßnahmen der XIV EU-Mitgliedstaaten gegen Österreich 119 et seq. (2002).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ See, also, the European Commission's proposal for a regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties, supra note 97.Google Scholar