Justice Senator Dirk Behrendt (Greens) has introduced a “law on the modernization and adjustment of judicial laws” in Berlin. Although it has been on the un-urgent list of the legal committee in the House of Representatives for months, the red-red-green coalition now wants to whip it through the legal committee at short notice.
But according to Tagesspiegel information, Behrendt, as head of a constitutional department primarily responsible for compliance with the law, may himself violate regulations with the draft. In fact against the “Joint Rules of Procedure for the Berlin Administration, Special Part (GGO II)”.
Behrendt listened to the professional associations of the judiciary for the draft law, but then forgot something. The GGO II, the legal, internal basis for the work of the Senate, stipulates that “the essential views of the expert groups and associations involved” are to be reflected in the legal justifications. But they are missing in the printed matter received by the House of Representatives after the Senate’s decision.
The CDU parliamentary group assumes that the draft law is “legally unlawful”. The Senate would therefore have to withdraw the draft and adopt a new resolution together with the results of the hearing.
Behrendt’s spokesman contradicts: The Senate does not have to pass the bill again. “The summary of the association hearing was drawn up and is available to the committee,” said the spokesman for the judiciary. In fact, Behrendt has now submitted the results of the hearing, but only at the request of the CDU parliamentary group.
[Wenn Sie alle aktuellen Nachrichten live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere runderneuerte App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]
However, the results are still not part of the printed matter, as prescribed in the rules of procedure. CDU legal expert Sven Rissmann is disillusioned. “I don’t know which is worse: A justice senator who does not follow the applicable law, the rules of procedure of the Senate, or a coalition that also participates in ignorance of the applicable law,” Rissmann told Tagesspiegel.
Opposition not fundamentally against the law
The law itself, however, does not meet with fundamental rejection by the opposition, local courts will in future be named according to district parts, the official costume of judges and internal matters will be regulated, for IT security, interpreters, bailiffs, and for the public prosecutor’s bias. Nothing that affects the average person in Berlin.
At most, there must be at least one digitally capable and negotiable courtroom per court in future, and that more word and image recordings should be used for negotiation.
Or regulations on the radio cell transparency system, which Berliners can use to check whether their mobile phone number has been recorded in the course of covert investigation.
–
