share Recommend this site to a friend
deutsch deutsch
bombLetter to the IMF relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 05/12/16
bombLetter to the CDU Youth Union - 14/11/16 bombLetter to the IDW regarding
Headbombthe EFSF’s Financial
HeadbombStatements – 19/10/16
Headbomb+ Correspondence IDW -> MFD 15/11/16
Headbomband MFD -> IDW 16/11/16
bombLetter to the european Financial
HeadbombSupervision relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 03/10/16
bomb14th Letter to the Parliament for Judicial
HeadbombReview of the Free-Trade
HeadbombAgreements - 27/05/2016
bombApplication to the Constitutional
HeadbombCourt for Judicial Review of the
HeadbombFree-Trade Agreements - 27/05/2016
bombBILD - Pillory of Shame - 21/12/15 bombCriminal charge of making a false
Headbomballegation against - 17/09/2015
Headbomb+ response of Public Prosecutor in
HeadbombBerlin - 20/05/2016
bombLetter to the Ifo President - 05/11/14 bombComplaint to the German
HeadbombPress Council - 21/11/13
bombLetter to the IMF - 17/10/13
Headbomb+ Supplementary letter 22/11/13
bombLetter to the EU Commission - 17/10/13 bombLetter to the Presidium of the ECB - 17/10/13 bombAgainst the dismissal of
HeadbombFederal President Wulff - 13/06/13
Headbomb+ Response from the Hannover
HeadbombPublic Prosecutor's Office 25/07/13
Headbomb+ Opinion of the Alliance for
HeadbombDemocracy 21/08/13
Headbomb+ Letter to Celle General State Prosecutor’s
HeadbombOffice 10/10/13
bombPetition for the independence of the
HeadbombJudiciary and State Prosecutor - 06/05/13
Headbomb+ response by the Petitions Committee of
Headbombthe German Bundestag - 08/06/16
bombPetition for the introduction of genuine, direct
Headbombdemocracy - 25/04/13
Headbomb+ reply of the Bundestag - 14/11/16
bombPetition against corruption - 25/03/2013 bombCriminal complaint re. Target 2 10/11/2012 bomb1st Constitutional Complaint - against the
HeadbombFederal Government - 21/03/12
bomb2nd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 12/06/12
bomb3rd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 18/09/12
bomb4th Constitutional Complaint - Federal
HeadbombGouvernment against the ECB (by CJEU)
Headbomb+ response of Federal
HeadbombConstitutional Court - 06/06/16
bombPress reports 27/6/12 + 24/10/12 bombSpringer complaint 28/09/11 bombDelayed insolvency bombPetition to the German Parliament 31/05/11 bombPetition to the European Parliament 21/06/11 bomb1st Letter to Members of Parliament 23/06/11 bomb2nd Letter to Members of Parliament
bomb3rd Letter to Members of Parliament 19/05/12 bomb4th Letter to Members of Parliament 23/05/12 bomb5th Letter to Members of Parliament 20/06/12 bomb6th Letter to Members of Parliament 27/06/12 bomb7th Letter to the Parliament 27/9/12 bomb8th Letter to the Parliament 15/10/12 -
Headbombagainst Corruption 15/10/12 in addition to
HeadbombPetition 25/03/13
bomb9th Letter to the Parliament 24/10/12 bomb10th Letter to the Parliament 05/12/12 bomb11th Letter to the Parliament - 20/05/13 bomb12th Letter to the Parliament - 16/10/13 bomb13th Letter to the Parliament - 10/12/15 bombQuestions to the Bundestag 27/28/06/12 bombTo the members of the Bundesrat 14/06/12 bombTo the minister of finance 12/06/12 bombSecond Letter to the Finance
HeadbombMinister - 27/02/15
bombObjection to Hartz IV - Judicial Review
HeadbombComplaint BVerfG
bomb1st Lawsuit against Federal government
bomb2nd Lawsuit against Federal government
bombOpen letter 16/18/02/11

HeadbombObjection to Hartz IV - Judicial
HeadbombReview Complaint BVerfG

At the beginning of 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court called on the government to reappraise the benefits paid to the unemployed by 1st January 2011. The >regulations were also to address the needs of children and young people. All payments were to be verifiable, and should be reviewed and adjusted regularly. The national and state governments agreed on 23rd February 2011 on the basic rate increase. Alliance for Democracy does not believe that this increase fulfils the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court. There can be no talk of a reform, since it became clear with the announcement of the >8th subsistence level report: With the payment of the increased amounts, the government has not only failed to fulfil the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court, but has also omitted payments. The government must have known about the trend of the 8th subsistence level report while the Hartz-IV reform was still being negotiated; even if the final figures had not yet been released by the Federal Finance Ministry, it must have been clear that only an increase in the rates could come into question. Read also our "bombshell of the week" on this matter (The government cheated over the Hartz-IV reform and The government cheated again over the Hartz-IV reform).

Since a direct complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court was impossible, we have asked the unemployed for help. Because we hardly expected that any Job Centre accede to our request for higher provision rates, we will now attempt to get the social courts to raise the matter in the course of the so-called judicial review before the Federal Constitutional Court.
This gives rise to two possibilities:
  1. If the corresponding social court submits the current regulations of the provision rates for judicial review by the Federal Constitutional Court, this court must then decide on the constitutionality, and without having to go through all the courts.
  2. If the social court makes no submission, the matter will have to go through all the courts, and a constitutional complaint may have to be submitted.
The unconstitutionality of the previous decisions made is set out in our complaint. All plaintiffs who appeared in this matter for the Alliance for Democracy initially received the same answer: The Federal Social Court would first decide in the proceedings on the constitutionality of the new provision rates.
This decision has in the meantime become available, although it is completely meaningless, because it deals with purely formal aspects, but not the matter in question. In the meantime, the Social Court of Berlin has submitted the new provision rates to the Federal Constitutional Court for constitutional review.
The Social Court of Berlin is for good reasons of the opinion that the Constitution has been infringed. The Federal Constitutional Court will have to decide on this issue. This may take some time however (perhaps years). Until then, the proceedings requested by the Alliance for Democracy are suspended.
We will inform you as soon as the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court is available.

The unconstitutionality of the previous regulations is described in our >complaint.