This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Politicians will sometimes complain that it decides too much in details, but it is generally acknowledged that this is rather a failure of politics to get these details straight on their own, than "judicial activism" in the US sense of the word. However, I hold some of its decisions which pass a long the line of a "religious neutrality", not demanded by the Basic Law or, as I perceive, a law on federal level, and directly contradicting some Länder constitutions, on a wrong way. Most notably the Crucifix decision. --
91.34.238.47 (
talk)
16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There are certainly decisions by this court that deserve criticism, I for instance think that the Incest-Decision or Osho&Glykol are wrong. And I also think that it's possible to find "valid" criticism of its decisions. However there isn't even a list or subsection of important decisions. And general criticism of the institution or its general behavior is very rare. So I'd agree with the User that answered before me. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.194.172.252 (
talk)
20:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)reply
There is a considerable amount of criticism, mostly about it being active as a substitute legislature (Ersatzgesetzgeber) as well as it overreaching in its protection.
I started to implement the landmark decisions of the court. Due to not beeing a native English speeker, I welcome any review of the section.
--
PaxTerra (
talk)
20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
To this: as a native german speaker, there is a fairly large list of landmark cases on the german Wikipedia article
de:Bundesverfassungsgericht, I think this should be outsourced into a separate article that could be translated, perhaps
Landmark cases of the Federal Constitutional Court or something along those lines. The german wiki page provides sources to each case and their implications.