If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email email@example.com
The legislator is not only allowed to continually develop university law. Due to changing social conditions, he is even obliged to do so. Though the legislator has to observe constitutional requirements deriving from the academic freedom and self-government guarantees, he enjoys a wide
margin of appreciation. Therefore, these constitutional guarantees do in principle not preclude a strengthening and professionalisation of university management structures. The institutionalization of an university council consisting of external experts and being equipped with decision-making
and electoral competences does not encounter fundamental constitutional concerns as well. The analysis of the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, however, has shown that the scientific staff must be able to sufficiently participate in science-related decisions. Where –
due to the new university management structures – scientists are missing proper indirect or direct decision-making, participation or veto rights, the university law has – as a minimum standard – to grant the opportunity of influencing and controlling the staffing of the governing
university bodies. These minimum rights must comprise self-determined electoral and deselectoral powers which generally have to be exercised by the collegial organs representing the personal scientific substrate of the university – the Senate and the Faculty Council. The so called Hamburg-decision
of the Federal Constitutional Court of 2010 revealed that the competences of these two collegial bodies have to be moved into the center of future legislative measures regarding the organization of universities. Their further disempowerment will therefore meet hard constitutional limits. However,
according to the here held view, this restriction was already laid down in the much-criticized Brandenburg-decision. Whether the legislation on state level currently meets this constitutional minimum requirement, asks for a detailed analysis of the respective university laws with their sometimes
complex interaction of various organs being involved in university management processes and decisions. However, the – only cursory – analysis based on the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court has revealed that at least the organizational provisions of North Rhine-Westphalia
encounter substantial constitutional concerns.
Founded in 1968. Wissenschaftsrecht (WissR) endeavors to help university administrators, lawyers, judges, legislators, scholars and the interested public in understanding the legal and administrative problems of modern research and teaching at the university level. WissR offers analyses and evaluations of existing legal norms and proposed reform bills as well as of court decisions. WissR presents relevant materials not published elsewhere and reports regularly on all decisions pertaining to the subject.
Seit 1968. Das Wissenschaftsrecht (WissR) möchte Praktikern der Universitätsverwaltung, Rechtsanwälten, Richtern, Parlamentariern und Wissenschaftlern helfen, die rechtlichen und organisatorischen Probleme moderner Forschung und Lehre imUniversitätsbereich besser zu verstehen. Das WissR bietet Analysen und Bewertungen von bestehenden Rechtsnormen, von Reformvorschlägen und von ausgewählten Gerichtsurteilen. Das WissR enthält wichtige Materialien, die sonst kaum zugänglich sind, und berichtet über die Rechtsprechung zu allen behandelten Themen. Das WissR erscheint vierteljährlich.