In their applications, the applicants seek the issue of a temporary injunction, the essential effect of which would be to prohibit the Federal President until the decision in the principal proceedings in each case from signing the statutes passed by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat on 29 June 2012 as measures to deal with the sovereign debt crisis in the euro currency area and from ratifying the agreements under international law approved therein.

The constitutional complaint relates to the question of whether the fact that the Hamburg Act on the Protection from Passive Smoking allows, by way of exception to the general ban on smoking in eating and drinking establishments, separate smoking rooms in drinking establishments, but excludes eating establishments from this privilege is compatible with Article 12.1 in conjunction with Article 3.1 GG.

The essential subject matter of the constitutional complaint is the constitutionality of §§ 111 to 113 of the Telecommunications Act.

The constitutional complaints challenge German and European legal instruments and further measures which are related to attempts to solve the current financial and sovereign debt crisis in the area of the European monetary union.

The constitutional complaint gives rise to the question of whether legal entities domiciled outside of Germany, but in a Member State of the European Union, may invoke fundamental rights of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG). Moreover, it relates to compliance with the fundamental right of property in the interpretation and application of national law based on Union law.

The complainant’s constitutional complaint is directed at the judgments of the civil courts affirming a ban on the stock corporation that operates Frankfurt airport and in which the majority of shares are publicly owned; such ban permanently prohibits the complainant from using the airport for expressions of opinion and demonstrations without the stock corporation’s permission.

The application for judicial review concerns the compatibility of provisions of the Act on the Regulation of Genetic Engineering (Gesetz zur Regelung der Gentechnik, Gentechnikgesetz — Genetic Engineering Act — GenTG —in the version promulgated on 16 December 1993, BGBl I p. 2066; most recently amended by Article 12 of the Act on the Reform of the Law of the Protection of Nature and Landscape Conservation (Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Rechts des Naturschutzes und der Landschaftspflege) of 29 July 2009, BGBl I p.2542) with the Basic Law. The challenge concerns provisions on the definitions of “genetically modified organism” and “placing on the market” (§ 3 nos. 3 and 6 GenTG), on the location register (§ 16a.1, 16a.3, 16a.4, 16a.5 and § 16b.1a GenTG), on the treatment of products placed on the market (§ 16b.1, 16b.2, 16b.3 and 16b.4 GenTG) and on claims in the case of interference with use (§ 36a GenTG) which are based on the Act on the Reform of the Law of Genetic Engineering (Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Gentechnikrechts (hereinafter: Genetic Engineering Reform Act 2004 (Gentechnikneuordnungsgesetz 2004 — GenTNeuOG 2004) of 21 December 2004 (BGBl I 2005 p.186) and the Act to Amend the Genetic Engineering Act, to Amend the Genetic Engineering Implementation Act and to Amend the Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Ordinance (hereinafter: Genetic Engineering Amendment Act 2008 (Gentechnikänderungsgesetz 2008 - GenTÄndG 2008) of 1 April 2008 (BGBl I p. 499).

In essence, the constitutional complaint relates to the question as to whether the Federal Court of Justice, in rejecting a payment obligation (reprographic levy) for printers and plotters on the basis of § 54a of the Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz - UrhG) in the version applicable until 31 December 2007 on the basis of the Act for the Reform of the Patent Fee Act and Other Acts (Gesetz zur Änderung des Patentgebührengesetzes und anderer Gesetze) of 25 July 1994, Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt - BGBl) I p. 1739 (hereinafter UrhG old), violates constitutional rights of copyright holders or of the complainant as a copyright collecting society.
see also english press release of 09/21/2010

A.

The constitutional complaints relate to the unequal treatment of registered civil partners and spouses under the Gift and Inheritance Tax Act in the version according to the 1997 Annual Tax Reform Act of 20 December 1996 (Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt – BGBl) I p. 2049).

The complainant is an enterprise involved in automotive supplies. It employs more than 1,200 employees at its production site in Schleswig-Holstein. It concluded a fixed-term employment contract with the plaintiff of the original proceedings on 18 February 2003 for the period from 19 February 2003 to 31 March 2004 without having objective reasons for the fixed term of employment. The plaintiff was deployed as a helper in the production of brake pads. All in all, the complainant concluded 56 fixed-term employment contracts with previously unemployed persons at that time in order to cover production peaks. Of these 56 new staff members, 13 employees – including the plaintiff of the original proceedings – had already reached the age of 52. According to the information provided by the complainant, the additional employees were deliberately appointed on the basis of the Law on Part-Time Working and Fixed-Term Contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge – Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz – TzBfG) in order to obtain legal security vis-à-vis actions against fixed-term employment contracts. It was said that such actions against fixed-term employment contracts had been lodged against the complainant in the past and, had they been successful, would have led to disruptions in personnel planning.

The proceedings on the concrete review of the constitutionality of a statute, which have been consolidated for joint adjudication, relate to the question of whether the amount of the standard benefit paid to secure the livelihood of adults and children until completing the age of 14 in the period from 1 January 2005 to 30 June 2005 according to § 20.1 to § 20.3 and according to § 28.1 sentence 3 no. 1 of the Second Book of the Code of Social Law in the version of Article 1 of the Fourth Act for Modern Services on the Labour Market of 24 December 2003 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 2954) is compatible with the Basic Law.

The constitutional complaint relates to the unequal treatment of marriage and registered civil partnerships with regard to survivors’ pensions under an occupational pension scheme for employees in the civil service according to the Rules of the Supplementary Pensions Agency for Federal and Länder Employees (Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder – VBL).

The subject of the Organstreit proceedings and constitutional complaints, which have been consolidated for joint adjudication, is the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 (OJ no. C 306/1). The proceedings relate to the German Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon and - partly - the accompanying laws to the Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon: The Act Amending the Basic Law (Articles 23, 45 and 93), which has already been promulgated, but not yet entered into force, and the Act Extending and Strengthening the Rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union Matters, which has been adopted, but not yet signed and promulgated.
see also english press release of 06/30/2009

The complaints requesting the scrutiny of an election relate to the permissibility of the deployment of computer-controlled voting machines, which are also referred to as electronic voting machines or “election computers”, in the elections to the 16th German Bundestag.