Rechtsfolgenentscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts bei »Normenkontrollen« und effektiver Rechtsschutz

The (German) Grundgesetz (Basic Law) provides for judicial review of legal norms by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) in many situations. However, even if the Bundesverfassungsgericht holds legal norms unconstitutional, it often orders that they remain applicable for a transitional period. Usually, this also holds true for plaintiffs who initiated the judical review either directly by way of a Verfassungsbeschwerde (constitutional complaint) or indirectly if a (normal) court refers legal norms relevant to a case pending to the Bundesverfassungsgericht for a so-called konkrete Normenkontrolle (concrete judicial review). The Bundesverfassungsgericht's jurisdictional practice is problematic since the basic right to an effective remedy (see Art. 19 para. 4 sentence 1 of the Grundgesetz) does not only guarantee recourse to the courts, but also effectiveness of judicial remedies. In the author's view, the latter does not require the Bundesverfassungsgericht to grant a »reward for seizure« (»Fang‑« or »Ergreiferprämie«) to plaintiffs in every case since there may be valid reasons for applying unconstitutional law both in general and to plaintiffs during a transitional period (e. g., budgetary reasons). However, the Bundesverfassungsgericht should – unlike today – at least include the basic right to an effective remedy into the consideration designing the legal consequences of its decisions in the course of judicial review of legal norms. Therefore, if appropriate, plaintiffs should have a chance to win the case (i. e., be granted a »reward for seizure«) to comply with the basic right to an effective remedy even if the Bundesverfassungsgericht orders the application of unconstitutional legal norms for a transitional period.