Norbert towing is a judge on Finanzgericht Lower Saxony and has a major concern: to restore the independence of the judiciary. This is the dedicated lawyer is no longer guaranteed, and recognizes it as a threat to one of the fundamental pillars of our Constitution. In particular, access to the executive on the judiciary and the consequent erosion of the separation of powers in our country has crisis proportions. Is particularly clear example of this development on the handling of the politically persecuted in the context of "land and industrial reform 1945-1949 in the SBZ after reunification, when the executive power from the political calculus, the rule of law in this page, and even pushed the assistance of the judiciary . Thus, in Germany, legal and political conditions brought about that would

otherwise banana republics are characterized as towing. Read below his remarkable essay: Under Article 20 of our Constitution is the Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state. It has 3 state powers, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. The division of the State authorities, is required to ensure an overwhelming power of the state against individuals to prevent. The judiciary is given the additional task of the individual against abuses of power of the state to preserve. That is why our constitution guaranteed in Article 19 paragraph 4, "someone is by the public authorities violated his rights, he go to court." This protection, in particular children, the infirm, the minorities. The powerful in this state understand it thanks to their power, their interests, even without outside help enforce. The judges can protect this task, however, only meet if they are supported by the other state authorities are independent (so explicitly Article 97 GG). That was in the past and even today is unfortunately not always the case. A very gloomy indeed scandalous example from the 90s shows that the state authorities do not always have the necessary separation from each other evidence that the executive branch - ie the government and administration - the other state powers in the background to succeed and that justice in individual cases on the wayside . It seems more urgent than ever, the Machtauswuchsen the government to halt. For the record Between 1945 and 1949 took place in the territory of the later GDR under the name of "democratic agrarian reform" an extensive expropriation of land instead of . Those affected were without any compensation deprived of their land, in full with all the assets it is, they were distributed within a few hours they had to leave house and yard were referred from the community and could not be closer than 50 km to the place of purchase converge. Those who resisted were arrested, many were in the prison were killed. A rule of law procedures did not exist. The reason for the expropriation was not about to former Nazis and their sympathizers to pursue much more should a new socialist society be created in the private land was no more space. Until the year 1948 were approximately 40% of all industrial establishments and 20% of craft businesses expropriated without compensation . Among them was also the well-known pharmaceutical company Madaus in Radebeul near Dresden, in 1947 with the reasoning of the insane has been confiscated, with the production of herbal pharmaceuticals was one kriegsverbrecherisch acted . Moreover, were among the few not expropriated, the resistance of the 20th District And July were the first under the Nazis, fearing for their lives and soon had the successors of the Nazis to their assets have been brought. Were not expropriated by the Soviet occupying power, but by German authorities, but under the eyes and with the approval of the Soviet military administration. The expropriated land was entirely in government hands. The expropriated land will still belong to the state property of the GDR than in 1990, came to the reunification. Reunification I do not need to explain that the expropriation in accordance with the standards of our understanding of law were arbitrary injustice. Under Article 14 of our Constitution, the state is obligated to the property of its citizens to respect and protect. Expropriation only in narrow limits, and even then only if there are any compensation is paid, which is the value of the property-oriented. Article 14 GG is one of the fundamental rights of our Constitution and is a fundamental pillar of our government. One should therefore think that the German federal state in the wake of the reunification of all efforts would have happened to the wrongly lost to the expropriated their land again to obtain them or at least provide adequate compensation to you. Far from it! The expropriated land, once owned by the East German state, was reunited with the seamlessly integrated into the state ownership of the Federal Republic! In return for this asset growth to pay the state the former Federal Republic later a severance between 1-3% of the market value of the land . This was the state of the land almost for free. And this was so: After the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 approached, the two German states quickly with the goal of reunification of each other. In this approach raised the last two governments of the GDR under the Prime Minister Modrow and de Maiziere the claim that the land expropriations between 1945 - 1949 not be undone. The reasons, they referred to possible social unrest among those who use rights of the GDR  to the expropriated land was acquired. That the governments of the GDR in the negotiations on the approximation, and later on the reunion is still a claim, was in itself remarkable. The political and economic situation in the GDR was desolate. The people went en masse to the West through , the political pressure for an immediate unconditional connection to the Federal Republic has been growing, the economy was without the help of the West not survive. The decline and collapse of the regime were not stopping. Against this background, the GDR had a real negotiating position from which it would have been demands, not more. Nevertheless met the requirement of the GDR's negotiating partners at little resistance when the negotiators of the Federal Republic. A restitution, a restitution of land to former owners, whether - as the then West German sentiment - due to the large number of cases impossible . In a first "Joint Declaration" of both German states, 15 June 1990, the Federal Republic that they are dealing with the GDR was agreed that the expropriation from 1945 to 1949 no longer had to undo. You - the Federal Republic - take in the view of the historical development of knowledge. A decision on a state compensation but remains a future pan-German parliament reserved . In the further course of negotiations, the GDR sought to make the results of land expropriation for a reunification through an amendment of the Basic insurance. The fundamental right to property under Article 14 of the Constitution should be restricted. This should prevent the former owners after unification in an action brought before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) their former lands with the indication that the expropriations were unconstitutional, the government returned ownership . Also stated that the negotiating partners of the Federal Republic, some of the former owners for the expropriation - as in Article 14 of our Constitution - initially wanted to pay. Solo - the former Interior Minister Schauble emphasized the word "compensation" from the prepared text of the contract and replaced it with the word "compensation". Later, he boasted in a book he wrote that the Federal Republic so many billions of German marks in compensation have spared . When the CDU / CSU-led federal government's negotiation result presented in Parliament, was incredible. Already in his own faction of the CDU / CSU opposition arose. Many parliamentarians wanted the stipulation does not endorse the expropriation, they saw it as a breach of property rights in Article 14 of the Basic Law. They demanded a return of confiscated property, but at least an adequate compensation. Schauble then calmed the outraged, he said, even for him was the outcome unsatisfactory, but it was not off, because the Soviet Union had insisted. Chancellor Kohl intervened and confirmed that the Soviet Union, the continued existence of the compulsory purchase of land to a condition for reunification have made. In response the parliament on their reservations. They agreed with the negotiated contract work. 112 MPs were brave, but a protest statement on record in which they expressed that they fixed the expropriations between 1945 - 1949 as a measure wrongly rejected. They contradict the Basic Law, which is guided by the principle can never again right before the power could go. On old injustice should not a new follow. If they nevertheless agreed to the contract agreement, then the only reason for the German reunification, not to endanger . Then came the contract agreement with the GDR and its endorsement of the results of land reform came into force. The Basic Law was amended. In Article 143, paragraph 3, the fundamental right to property under Article 14 for the intervention by the land reform between 1945 - 1949 expressly limited. Upon completion of the legislative process joined Chancellor Kohl on 30 January 1991 before the Bundestag and the ongoing television cameras and said he regretted that what the victims of land expropriation befall it. The federal government did not prevent it. Kohl literally: "I know - I think everyone of us knows that the final loss of property many people take hard, because it is about more than a mere asset. This is especially true for those who from 1945 to 1949 on besatzungshoheitlicher crew or legal basis have been expropriated. For those affected, a different solution in the difficult negotiations of the past year do not reach. The continued existence of the measures from 1945 to 1949 was from the Soviet Union as a condition for reunification made. Make no mistake about it: The unit was allowed to fail in this matter ". The Federal Constitutional Court Some of the original owners were therefore not satisfied. They raised constitutional complaints . The hearing was held before the Constitutional Court in January 1991 under the leadership of Roman Herzog, and Herzog led the negotiations expeditiously and quickly. While you would otherwise have been for several years on a decision of the Constitutional Court has to wait, Duke brought the proceedings on constitutional complaints in just 4 months to an end. He settled by the Secretaries of State and Kinkel Kastrup  the conduct of the negotiations of the so-called 2 + 4 reunification talks on the story, with both expressed, both the GDR and the Soviet Union had the survival of land expropriation as a condition. For the Federal Government is not the demand of the GDR, but the USSR was the decisive factor . A review of the veracity of these statements did not take place. Consequently, the appeals dismissed on the grounds that a breach of their fundamental right to property under Article 14 is not satisfied, because this law through the constitutional amendment in Article 143 is limited. The constitutional amendment itself was lawful, because the Soviet Union on a continuation of the agrarian reform existed, and without them the reunification would not have been possible . The truth After the initial joy wobble on reunification was verklungen and after the noise again einkehrte disillusionment began some critical minds upon. They wondered why the Soviet Union probably could have had it, the land expropriations between 1945 - 1949 to be added. Did the Soviet Union is not much more to be completely no matter what the total re-united with the German government expropriated property made, whether he returns or whether he reimbursed the affected owners? And why should be between 1945 - 1949 expropriated land be affected, which was later carried out after 1949 but no further expropriation? It was to these questions no answer! Later came a few journalists with these questions to Mikhail Gorbachev, the then President of the Soviet Union approached. The answer was like a shock: At no time - as Gorbachev - the Soviet Union was the continuation of the compulsory purchase of land to conditions for the reunification made. We have at the talks on the reunification of all not about the land purchase deal. As the reunited Germany with the proceeds confiscated lands, either alone an inner-German affair, attended by the Soviet Union had no interest in . Gorbachev, the statement later repeated several times . Even his former Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze has expressed in the reunification talks never on land expropriated by the agrarian reform have spoken to . A unification condition did not. Meanwhile, also Guenther Krause , then Leister delegation of the GDR in the talks on 'open property questions, "affidavit asserts that the Soviet Union at no time the continued existence of land expropriations have requested . Like the German Federal Government in view of these statements was the assertion that the Soviet Union had the keeping of expropriation as a condition for reunification made remains a mystery. Helmut Kohl has interviews on this issue is rejected. It is now certain that the statements of the Federal Government on the alleged precondition for reunification was false that the 112 Bundestag deputies, their assent to the contract agreement and to amend the Basic Law initially wanted to refuse, by a deception leads to consent and that a part of our present Basic Law is based on this deception. The role of Roman Herzog But not only the federal government is a shameful light. The Constitutional Court as a really independent third state authority has the task of the constitutional order and to protect the citizens against unlawful interference by the other state authorities to protect it. In this task, the Court refused. One has the impression that the then Court President Herzog's role as the representative of an independent abandoned violence and voluntarily in the interest of the Federal Government has subordinated. That is the impression one gets not only from the fact that at the hearing the statements of the State Secretaries Kastrup Kinkel and uncritically accepted by the court and the basis of the decision has been made, but also and primarily from the fact that Roman Herzog on complaints about the Constitution choice. As, unfortunately, only later became known, Duke has the GDR in the talks on German reunification, legal advice. The advice was held on 4 July 1990 before members of parliament rather than . Evidence suggests that the Duke GDR politicians take this advice had recommended a change to the Basic Law in order to secure final expropriation. This at any rate by participants of a colloquium in Speyer reported that faced Duke in 1993, a lecture on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court had held. He even had not even known to the public advice and also mentioned the concern of some MPs for a legal protection of land reform. He, Duke, had subsequently advised that land reform in the Basic Law hedge . This was Duke in the complaints about a constitutional amendment to Basic Law decided that he referred to the contents of his presentation in Speyer himself had recommended! Any other judge would have been in this situation as an uneasy or would be rejected by the litigants have been rejected as biased if the Volkskammer his advice would have been known. This would make it of a decision on the constitutional complaints have been excluded. Duke has its advisory role was not disclosed. Maybe Duke has also yet to advise the federal government. In any event, on 31July 1990, a few weeks after the advice of the GDR's parliament, a meeting with Duke the German negotiators Schauble and Kinkel, where . About the content of this conversation, however, is not known. Is known, however, that Schauble at the machinations of the concern was the continued existence of the results of land reform could be a flood of complaints jeopardized. It requires little imagination to assume that Kinkel and Schäuble in this conversation, together with Duke is a constitutional protection of land reform have tried. To think is also the way in which the Constitutional Court and the State Secretaries Kastrup Kinkel before a criminal prosecution has protected. After asserting that the Soviet Union had the continuation of the compulsory purchase of land to a condition for reunification made it no longer had to hold, the land reform of the criminal charges concerned uneidlicher because of false statement before the Constitutional Court asked. The competent public prosecutor, the procedure but with the grounds, the prosecution had only false statements of a witness, Kastrup and by Kinkel had BVerfG but not as witnesses but as official persons were consulted . Pikanterweise the Constitutional Court, the lawyers involved in the subsequent fixing of costs, however, a proof procedure for a fee allowed to witnesses. This decision was surprising, however late, until 15 July 1997 - more than 5 years after the statements - made . At the time, the offense of false statement uneidlichen just barred, so that a new prosecution is no longer in question came from. The motif While the assertion that the Soviet Union had the continuation of the compulsory purchase of land to a condition for reunification made today is rebutted, the motive for the Federal Government alleged untruths remain in the dark. Paffrath Constanze, with her dissertation  the scandal scientifically refurbished, has a presumption. She sees the false claims in connection with the Bundestag election campaign in 1990. Unlike Kohl did Oskar Lafontaine as chancellor candidate of the opposition was skeptical about reunification confessed. He had on the cost of a possible reunion, and that the view that tax increases for the German citizens were inevitable. This assessment was contradicted by Chancellor Kohl, he had the reunion at zero cost and thus has propagated - as we know - in the sequence actually won the election. Now the cost of reunification without raising taxes to cover it suspects Paffrath, whether the federal government expropriated the land was quite straight. The sale of these assets have a cash source to finance the reunification serve. One feels bound to the theory of the party's critic recalls von Arnim, who we know has expressed a political party was not a group of people who have the welfare of the people wished to promote. Your ultimate goal consists rather in the power to enter or to remain in power. Depending on how you think this goal can behave as you make a mistake or otherwise. Conclusion The events surrounding the land expropriations are so shameful that for me the words out. Do we find: As be unlawfully expropriated German state and the Federal Republic does nothing against it, he gives the expropriated property is not returned, although the injustice of the expropriation acknowledges that he retains the expropriated lot more for themselves and verscherbelt it to rebuild the state treasury. Just so does a fence and so did the Court in Berlin in 2000, consistently recognized that the federal government with impunity as it may designate Hehlerstaat . There is a federal government, the parliament and the population is deceptive - not to say lying - just to be reelected. Part of our current constitution is based on the same deception and which it is. And then, finally, even the highest court of this state, the principle of separation of powers voluntarily abandon themselves to an alliance with the Federal Government zusammenfindet and its protective role against the citizens will not fulfill. Whether Roman Herzog elected as Federal President in 1994, on proposal of the Federal Chancellor Kohl held a thank you blame in connection with the litigation over the land expropriation is, like every man for himself answered. As far as can occur if the separation of powers no longer takes place. We therefore urgently need a truly independent judiciary, the cutting has its government and administration boundaries. I have a colleague just by events on land expropriation reported that they did not know yet. His conclusion: If this is true, then we are actually a banana republic! I did not resist him speak.

Tags: Constitutional 1990/Das German Watergate break, Political persecution 1945-49, separation of powers, the Basic Law

Posted on: May 8, 2009

Filed under: Articles