Preclusion in German administrative proceedings

The subject. The article describes preclusion in German Administrative Law.

The purpose of the paper is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that the preclusion is an integral part of the administrative and judicial practice of Germany, despite its low efficiency.

The main results and scope of their application. There are relations of between the constitutional principle of legal protection (Art. 19 Abs. of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) and preclusion. It is shown that there are different types of preclusion in German Administrative Law, depending on the status of the administrative procedure. It can occur in the administrative process between citizen and the administrative authority and in the administrative court process. In both acts there is to differ between those who plea an infringement of their own rights and those who consider the rights of third parties.

Examples for preclusion from different areas of the law like tax or environmental law are given. Another aspect is the difference between formal and material preclusion. While formal preclusion is limited to the administrative process and does not affect the administrative court case, material preclusion effects both acts, the administrative process and the court case.

The next part concentrates on the limits set by the constitution and European law. A decision by the European Court of Justice and by the Federal constitutional court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) are presented to specify these limits. The ECJ has a stricter approach than the German constitutional court, which ruled, that preclusion does not violate the constitutional principles of legal protection and fair hearing. Nonetheless the ECJ also agreed laws that hinder abusive pleas.

Conclusions. The last part contemplates the practicability of preclusion and concludes, that the effects are relatively modest and the target of acceleration is often not attained. However, the German model of preclusion has a disciplining effect on participants in administrative procedures and the judicial process; has firmly entered German administrative and judicial practice and does not contradict the constitutional guarantee of legal protection.

Preclusion, administrative law, administrative law court cases, principle of legal protection, European Court of Justice, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

1. Musielak H.‐J., Voit W. (eds.). Grundkurs ZPO [Basic course of Civil Procedure]. Munich, C.H. Beck Publ., 2014. 563 p. (In German).

2. Musielak H.‐J., Voit W. (eds.). ZPO. Kommentar [Code of civil procedure. Commentary]. Verlag Franz Vahlen, 2017. 2993 p. (In German).

3. Brandt K. Präklusion im Verwaltungsverfahren [Preclusion in Administrative proceedings]. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwal‐tungsrecht = New Journal of administrative law, 1997, iss. 3, pp. 233–237. (In German).

4. Ehlers D., Pünder H. (eds.). Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht [General Administrative Law]. Berlin, Boston, 2016. 1003 p. (In German).

5. Guckelberger A., Geber F. Präklusion unter dem Einfluss der Aarhus‐Konvention [Preclusion under the influence of the Aarhus Convention]. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt‐ und Planungsrecht = Journal for European environmental and planning law, 2014, vol. 12, iss. 3, pp. 167–177. (In German).

6. Siegel T., Waldhoff C. (eds.). Öffentliches Recht in Berlin [Public law in Berlin]. C.H. Beck Publ., 2017. 352 p. (In German).

7. Hoffmann‐Riem W., Schmidt‐Assmann E., Vosskuhle A. Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts. Bd. III: Personal, Finanzen, Kontrolle, Sanktionen, Staatliche Einstandspflichten [Principles of administrative law. Vol. III: personnel, Finance, control, sanctions, state Responsibility]. Munich, C.H. Beck Publ., 2012. 1538 p. (In German).

8. Führ M., Schenten J., Schreiber M., Schulze F., Schütte S. Evaluation der Verbandsklagemöglichkeiten nach dem UmwRG [Evaluation of the possibilities of association settlements according to the Environmental Law], in: Environmental Research Plan of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, construction and nuclear safety. Dessau‐Rosslau, 2014. Available at: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/evaluationvon‐gebrauch‐wirkung‐der. (In German).

9. Siegel T. Die Präklusion im europäisierten Verwaltungsrecht [The preclusion in European administrative law]. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht = New Journal of administrative law, 2016, no. 6, pp. 337–341. (In German).

10. Ludwigs M. Bausteine des Verwaltungsrechts auf dem Prüfstand des EuGH, Die Revolution ist ausgeblieben [The cornerstones of administrative law tested by the EU Court: the revolution did not happen]. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift = New Journal of administrative law, 2015, iss. 48, pp. 3484–3487. (In German).

11. Durner W. Präklusion in Deutschland nach dem Urteil des EuGH in der Rs. C‐137/14 [Preclusion in Germany, according to the judgment of the ECJ in the Rs. C‐137/14], in: Hebeler T., Hofmann E., Proelss A., Reiff P. (eds.). Umwelt‐ und Technikrecht. Bd. 133: Planungsrecht im Umbruch: Europäische Herausforderungen [Environmental and technology law. Vol. 133: planning law in transition: European challenges]. Berlin, 2017, pp. 125–157. (In German).

12. Zeissler C., Schmitz V. Das Urteil des EuGH vom 15.10.2015 in der Rechtssache C‐137/14 als Ende der umweltrechtlichen Präklusion? [The judgment of the ECJ of 15.10.2015 in case C‐137/14 as the end of the environmental legal Statute of preclusion?]. Umwelt‐ und Planungsrecht = Environmental and planning law, 2016, iss. 1, pp. 1–7. (In German).

13. Kopp F.O., Ramsauer U. (eds.). Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz Kommentar [Commentary to Administrative Procedure Act]. Munich, 2017. 1868 p. (In German).