Federal statehood of Russia and Germany in the mirror of constitutional and judicial law enforcement: the importance of German experience for Russian practice

The subject of the article is the application of the constitutional foundations of federalism by the constitutional courts of Germany and Russia. The contribution of the highest courts of Russia and Germany to the development of the constitutional concept of the Federal system through judicial interpretation of the basic principles of Federal statehood directly enshrined in the Constitution and the discovery of unwritten principles is studied.

The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that German federalism reflects mostly competition model with specific elements of cooperation of federative entities, while the Russian federalism demonstrates the increasing vertical cooperative principles.

The methodology of the study includes analysis, synthesis, description as well as particular academic legal methods (comparative analysis of legislation and judicial decisions, formal‐legal method, interpretation of legal acts).

The main results and scope of their application. Competitive and cooperative principles exist in any system of federal relations. Their ratio, as well as the actual status of the Federation and its constituent entities  reflect the features of a particular model of federal structure. Federal reform in Germany 2006-2009 was aimed to return competitive origins in the German federalism and was opposed to unitarist trends. The origins of significant differences in approaches to the interpretation of the nature of the Union state in Germany and the Federation in Russia are rooted in various historical and political prerequisites for the formation and development of both federal States as well as in national traditions. This is reflected in the varying degrees of doctrinal elaboration of the theory of the federal state in Russia and Germany. The unwritten principle of fidelity to Federal relations is very important for the understanding of the peculiarities of German federalism. It is based on the provisions of the Basic law and disclosed in the decisions of the Federal constitutional court. This principle presupposes a friendly attitude of the central state and the federal lands to each other and to the Federation, cooperation, mutual respect and mutual assistance. It seems that this principle can serve as a basis for the disclosure of relations between the constituent entities and central state in Russia. The functional model of the Federal organization is implemented in Germany, unlike Russia. First of all, the Basic Law for Germany focuses on the horizontal separation of powers and uses the functional principle of the separation of state powers between the Bund and the Federal lands making a distinction, respectively, primarily in the areas of legislation, execution of laws (management) and justice. The Russian concept of vertical separation of powers is characterized by a different approach: horizontal separation of powers does not precede vertical separation of powers. Competence between the Federation and it’s constituent entities is differentiated not by functional, but by subject matter (by subjects of competence).Federal constitutional courts play special role in the interpretation of the constitutional principles of the Federal system and their development. This is confirmed both by the practice of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (FCC) and by the decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court (CC RF). Revealing the nature of the German Union state on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Law, the FCC relies on the existing doctrine on this issue. The FCC's legal positions on federal relations are also important for Russian doctrine and practice. It concerns the principles of inviolability of the constitutional basis of federal statehood, fidelity to the Federation and friendly attitude to the principles of federal structure, including horizontal and vertical interaction in the system of federal relations, mutual assistance, mutual nature of the rights and obligations of the Federation and its constituent entities.

Conclusions. Unlike Germany, the Russian federalism is increasingly strengthening vertical cooperative basics, which hides the model of a highly centralized Federation. This conclusion is confirmed by the non-recognition of their own source of statehood of the subjects of the Russian Federation, in fact, their lack of quality of constitutional autonomy.

Federal statehood, Union state, status of constituent entities of the Federation, Federation, cooperative federalism, competitive federalism, models of delimitation of powers, Constitutional Court, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany

1. Kahl W., Waldhoff C., Walter C. (eds.). Bonner Kommentar Grundgesetz, 193. Aktualisierung Oktober 2018, Rn. 1. C.F. Müller, 2018. 29244 p. (In German).

2. Kabyshev S.V., Leksin I. V., Elder D. et al. Federalism in Russia and Canada. Moscow, Formula prava Publ., 2009. 308 p. (In Russ.).

3. Sommermann K.-P. Artikel 20 Abs.1, in: Mangoldt H. v., Klein F., Starck C. (eds.) GG: Kommentar, Vol. II, Rn. 24. Munchen, C.H. Beck Publ., 2018, pp. 5–64. (In German).

4. Quaritsch H. Staat und Souveränität, Bd.1: Die Grundlagen. Frankfurt a.M., Athenäum Publ., 1970. 499 p. (In German).

5. Haenel A. Studien zum Deutschen Staatsrechte. I. Die vertragsmäßigen Elemente der Deutschen Reichsverfassung. Leipzig, H. Haessel Publ., 1873. VIII + 283 p. (In German).

6. Montesquieu. OEuvres complètes, Tome II. Paris, Gallimard Publ., 1951. 1824 p. (In French).

7. Tocqueville A. de. Democracy in America. Moscow, Knizhnoe delo Publ., 1897. XVI + 620 p. (In Russ.).

8. Waitz G. Grundzüge der Politik nebst einzelnen Ausführungen. Kiel, Homann Publ., 1862. 247 p. (In German).

9. Mohl R. v. Das deutsche Reichsstaatsrecht: rechtliche und politische Erörterungen. Tübingen, H. Laupp Publ., 1873. XIV + 408 p. (In German).

10. Rüttimann J.J. Das nordamerikanische Bundesstaatsrecht verglichen mit den politischen Einrichtungen der Schweiz. Zürich, Orell Publ., Füßli Publ., 1872. 406 p. (In German).

11. Pauly W. Anfechtbarkeit und Verbindlichkeit von Weisungen in der Bundesauftragsverwaltung. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot Publ., 1989. 261 p. (In German).

12. Gierke O. v. Labands Staatsrecht und die deutsche Staatsrechtswissenschaft, in: Schmoller G. (ed.). Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot Publ., 1883, pp. 1097–1196. (In German).

13. Bornhak C. Allgemeine Staatslehre I. Berlin, Heymann Publ., 1896. XII + 271 p. (In German).

14. Mayer O. Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht II. München, Duncker & Humblot Publ., 1917. 736 p. (In German).

15. Laband P. Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches, Bd. I. Tübingen, H. Laupp’schen Buchhandlung Publ., 1876. 619 p. (In German).

16. Gerber C.F. v. Grundzüge eines Systems des Deutschen Staatsrechts. Leipzig, Tauchnitz Publ., 1869. XII + 208 p. (In German).

17. Meyer G. Staatsrechtliche Erörterungen über die Deutsche Reichsverfassung. Leipzig, Serig Publ., 1872. 82 p. (In German).

18. Schulze H. Einleitung in das deutsche Staatsrecht. Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel Publ., 1867. XII + 368 p. (In German).

19. Jellinek G. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Publ., 1960. 837 p. (In German).

20. Seydel M. v. Staatsrechtliche und politische Abhandlungen. Freiburg, Mohr Publ., 1893. 247 p. (In German).

21. Haenel A. Deutsches Staatsrecht I. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot Publ., 1892. 856 p. (In German).

22. Mayer O. Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Sachsen. Tübingen, Mohr Publ., 1909. VI + 328 p. (In German).

23. Jhering R. v. Zweck im Recht I. Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel Publ., 1877. 557 p. (In German).

24. Kelsen H. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin, Springer Publ., 1925. XVI + 433 p. (In German).

25. Heller H. Die Souveränität: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des Staats- und Völkerrechts. Berlin u.a.: de Gruyter Publ., 1927. 177 p. (In German).

26. Schmitt C. Verfassungslehre. München u.a.: Duncker & Humblot Publ., 1928. XVIII + 404 p. (In German).

27. Schmitt C. Der Hüter der Verfassung. Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Publ., 1931. VI + 159 p. (In German).

28. Möllers C. Staat als Argument. Tübingen, Mohr Siebek Publ., 2011. LXVIII + 488 p. (In German).

29. Barschel U. Die Staatsqualität der deutschen Länder: ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Praxis des Föderalismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Heidelberg u.a.: Decker Publ., 1982. XII + 360 p. (In German).

30. Bartlsperger R. Das Verfassungsrecht der Länder in der gesamtstaatlichen Verfassungsordnung, in: Isensee J., Kirchhof P. (eds.). Handbuch des Staatsrechts der BRD (HStR), Bd. IV. Heidelberg, C.H. Müller Publ., 1990, pp. 457–478. (In German).

31. Kimminich O. Der Bundesstaat, in: Isensee J., Kirchhof P. (eds.). Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bd. I. Heidelberg, C.H. Müller Publ., 1987, pp. 1113–1150. (In German).

32. Maunz T. Staatlichkeit und Verfassungshoheit der Länder, in: Isensee J., Kirchhof P. (eds.). Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bd. IV. Heidelberg, C.H. Müller Publ., 1990, pp. 427–441. (In German).

33. Isensee J. Idee und Gestalt des Föderalismus im GG, in: Isensee J., Kirchhof P. (eds.). Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. VI, 3rd ed. Heidelberg, C.H. Müller Publ., 2008, pp. 3–80. (In German).

34. Gritsenko E., Will R. Access to constitutional justice in Russia and Germany. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2019, no. 2 (129), pp. 51–78. DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2019-2-51-78. (In Russ.).

35. Gritsenko E.V. Organization of public power in Federal cities: searching for the optimal model. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo = Constitutional and Municipal Law, 2007, no. 15, pp. 28–35. (In Russ.).

36. Gritsenko E.V. Federal coercion in accordance with the Basic law of Germany: the significance of the German experience for the development of the Russian doctrine, in: Babeliuk E.G., Belov S.A., Gritsenko E.V., Sheveleva N. A. (eds.). Federal'noe prinuzhdenie: voprosy teorii i praktiki, collection of articles on the results of the conference (July 1-2, 2005, St. Petersburg). St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg University Publ., 2006, pp. 33–45. (In Russ.).

37. Blankenagel A. In search for disappearedexclusiv powers of the subject of the Russian Federation. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2007, no. 1, pp. 153-162. (In Russ.).

38. Umnova I.A. Constitutional foundations of modern Russian federalism. Moscow, Delo Publ., 1998. 279 p. (In Russ.).

39. Cherepanov V.A. Federal reform in Russia. Moscow, Sotsial’no-politicheskaya mysl’ Publ., 2007. 320 p. (In Russ.).

40. Gritsenko E. Division and Delegation of Powers in the System of Public Authority. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2009, no. 2, pp. 72–91. (In Russ.).

41. Korioth S. Artikel 50, in: Mangoldt H., Klein F., Starck C. (eds.). Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Vol. II, Rn. 24. Munich, C.H. BECK Publ., 2010, pp. 1377–1401. (In German).

42. Herzog R. Stellung des Bundesrates im demokratischen Bundesstaat, § 57, in: Isensee J., Kirchhof P. (eds.). Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. III, 3rd ed. Heidelberg, C.F. Müller Publ., 2005, pp. 943–964. (In German).

43. Masing J., Risse H. Artikel 77, in: Mangoldt H., Klein F., Starck C. (eds.). Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Vol. II, Rn. 50. Munich, C.H. BECK Publ., 2010, pp. 2171–2204. (In German).