Show Less
Restricted access

Die Kontrolldichte der Normenkontrolle in Skandinavien aus deutscher Sicht

Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung der richterlichen Überprüfung der Verfassungsmäßigkeit von Gesetzen in Dänemark, Norwegen und Schweden


Robert Kessel

Diese Arbeit untersucht das Ausmaß der gerichtlichen Überprüfung der Verfassungsmäßigkeit von Gesetzen in Dänemark, Deutschland, Norwegen und Schweden. Es wird zunächst aufgezeigt, dass die Kontrollintensität des richterlichen Prüfungsrechts in Skandinavien deutlich geringer ist als in Deutschland. Anschließend werden die Ursachen dieses Unterschieds beleuchtet. Angesprochen werden hierbei unter anderem das spezifische skandinavische Demokratie- und Politikverständnis und der rechtskulturelle Hintergrund des nordischen Normenkontrollmodells. Ein Blick auf das richterliche Prüfungsrecht der Weimarer Republik verdeutlicht, dass das skandinavische und das deutsche Rechtsverständnis früher näher beieinander lagen.
Boken innehåller en svensk sammanfattning.
The book contains an English summary.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access



Judicial review is a common feature of many legal systems in the world. The Scandinavian states and Germany are amongst the countries where judges control whether acts of legislation harmonize with constitutional rules. In Scandinavia, every court is capable of exercising judicial review. Although this is also the case in Germany, only the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has been enabled to declare unconstitutional laws invalid. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden judges almost only control the constitutionality of laws within already pending trials, whereas the Bundesverfassungsgericht often conducts review without regard to a specific case, for example when performing abstract regulation control (abstrakte Normenkontrolle). Moreover, the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court have general effect, whereas decisions of Scandinavian courts apply only inter partes.

Both the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Supreme Courts of Scandinavia observe judicial self-restraint in relation to the legislator. However, an examination of the legal practice has shown, that Scandinavian judges are much more reluctant than the Bundesverfassungsgericht to test acts of the legislative.

This manifests not only in the comparatively small number of Scandinavian laws that were declared unconstitutional. The Swedish court’s application of the constitutional disclosure requirement (chapter 14, section eleven Regeringsform) resulted in a presumption of constitutionality of laws that could hardly be falsified. The so called safety doctrine of the Danish Supreme Court has the same consequences. Thus, Danish and Swedish courts mostly do not substantially examine a law’s constitutionality when exercising judicial review. The recent constitutional amendment in...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.