Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interaction and basic rights in an international perspective: an introduction

  • Article
  • Published:
China-EU Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effective enjoyment of basic rights largely depends on communicative processes and other forms of social interaction. Traditional conceptions of basic rights do not explicitly address this relevance of social interaction, though. Legal conceptions of basic rights rather focus on the right to a particular discretionary, but isolated and individual behaviour. This article points out the different established dimensions of basic rights protection and points out the relevance of social interaction for the enjoyment of basic rights as well as the legal consequences in different jurisdictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Broemel 2019, passim.

  2. For an analysis of the consequences for the protection of the internal market cf. Utrilla 2017 in this issue.

  3. Concerning automated forms of communication Schröder 2017 in this issue; analysis of the implications for the right to access to state-held information Plicht 2017 in this issue.

  4. Herzmann 2017 in this issue.

  5. Piątek 2017 in this issue.

  6. Broemel 2019.

  7. For an overview see Broemel 2019.

  8. German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), dec. of 15.1.1958, 1 BvR 400/51—“Lüth”, para. 25: basic rights are „first and foremost“ defensive rights; FCC, dec. of 24.1.1962, 1 BvR 232/60—“Ehegatten Arbeitsverhältnis II”, para. 22; among the recent jurisprudence cf. Higher Administrative Court Baden-Württemberg, dec. of 16.5.2017, 10 S 1478/16, para. 39; Administrative Court Berlin, dec. of 10.1.2017, 4 K 214.14, para. 28.

  9. For a historic analysis cf. Grimm 1987, p. 149 (153 et seqq.), for a critical examination Poscher 2003, pp. 99 et. seq., pp. 122 et seq.

  10. Schmitt 1928, pp. 126 et seq.

  11. Broemel 2019, § 1 A.I.

  12. For an analysis of the historic context of liberal theories of basic rights Grimm 1987, pp. 149 (150 et seq.); Grimm 1988, pp. 67 (72): theoretical focus on equality and individual autonomy understood as absence of heteronomy.

  13. Grimm 1987, pp. 149 (154 et seqq.); Grimm 1988, pp. 67 (99); for a summary Broemel 2019, § 1 B.I.

  14. Concerning already the period of the emergence of liberal theories of law Grimm 1988, pp. 67 (99).

  15. FCC, dec. of 15.1.1958, 1 BvR 400/51—“Lüth”, para. 47: basic rights as objective system of values; FCC, dec. of 7.3.1968, 2 BvR 354/66 et al.—“Dienstflucht”, para. 30.

  16. For an in-depth comparative analysis Gerbig 2014, pp. 33 et seqq; for a summary Höfling 2014, Art. 1 paras 48 et seqq.; Herdegen 2016, Art. 1 paras 34 et seq.; concerning basic rights provided by the European Union Calliess 2016, Art. 1 GRC para. 5; Suerbaum 2003, pp. 390 et seqq.

  17. FCC, dec. of 8.5.2013, 1 BvL 1/08—“tuition fee”, para. 40; FCC, dec. of 21.7.2005, 1 BvR 584/05, para. 20, concerning access to academic studies.

  18. Cf. minimum living wages and other forms of social coverage FCC, dec. of 23.7.2014, 1 BvL 10/12, paras 74 et seqq.

  19. Cf. concerning questions of insurance and healthcare German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ), dec. of 26.4.2017, IV ZR 126/16, para. 28; FCJ, dec. of 22.2.2017, IV ZR 289/14, para. 23; FCJ, dec. of 13.7.2016, IV ZR 292/14, para. 29.

  20. For an analysis on the European Level Jarass 2017, 310 et seqq.

  21. Concerning pledges FCJ, dec. of 25.4.2006, XI ZR 330/05, para. 13 with further references.

  22. For instance when it comes to the protection of personal rights against intrusions caused by the press, FCJ, dec. of 2.5.2017, VI ZR 262/16, para. 19 with further references.

  23. For an early, far-reaching and theoretic analysis see Müller 1994, pp. 168 et seqq., Müller 1966, pp. 147 et seqq., Müller and Christensen 2013, Pt. I, pp. 235 et seqq.

  24. Broemel 2019, I B.-D.

  25. Von Hayek 1968; von Hayek 1964; and earlier von Hayek 1937.

  26. Achatz 2011, pp. 97 et seqq.; Knebel and Schoss 2016, pp. 105 et seqq.; with focus on the European perspective Herzmann 2015, pp. 33 et seqq.

  27. FCC, dec. of 26.6.2002, 1 BvR 558/91, 1 BvR 1428/91—“Glykol”, para. 60.

  28. FCC, dec. of 26.6.2002, 1 BvR 558/91, 1 BvR 1428/91—“Glykol”, paras 48 et seqq.

  29. FCC, dec. of 14.3.2006, 1 BvR 2087/03, para. 82; FCC, dec. of 26.6.2002, 1 BvR 558/91, 1 BvR 1428/91—“Glykol”, para. 43; for a further elaboration Bäcker 2007, pp. 124 et seqq; for a critical assessment Achatz 2011, pp. 114 et seqq.

  30. Cf. the contributions in Broemel and Xie (eds.) 2015; for a more detailed analysis Broemel 2019.

  31. Utrilla 2017 in this issue.

  32. Utrilla 2017 in this issue.

  33. Utrilla 2017 in this issue.

  34. Utrilla 2017 in this issue.

  35. Trute 1994, pp. 64 et seqq.; Gläser 2006, pp. 73 et seqq.

  36. Trute 1994, pp. 88 et seqq., pp. 110 et seqq.; Gläser 2006, pp. 100 et seqq., 120 et seqq., 132 et seqq.

  37. FCC, dec. of 24.11.2010, 1 BvF 2/05—“biogenetics act”, para. 143; FCC, dec. of 26.10.2004, 1 BvR 911/00, para. 136.

  38. FCC, dec. of 24.6.2014, 1 BvR 3217/07, para. 56: protection against inadequate decisions within the scientific organization; also FCC, dec. of 26.10.2004, 1 BvR 911/00, para. 137.

  39. Cf. Payandeh 2016, pp. 97 et seqq.; Gärditz 2009, pp. 274 et seqq.; Gärditz 2014, pp. 1133 et seqq.; Seckelmann 2012, 200 et seqq.; Krausnick 2012, pp. 102 et seqq.

  40. Trute 1994, pp. 245 et seqq.; Schmidt-Aßmann 1993; with a different emphasis Gärditz 2009, pp. 274 et seqq., pp. 439 et seqq.

  41. Gärditz 2009, pp. 439 et seqq.; Geis 2004, pp. 16 et seq.; Geis 2010, p. 394; von Coelln, DVBl. 2009, 1090 (1093).

  42. FCC, dec. of 26.10.2005, 1 BvR 396/98—“Kabelgroschen”, para. 61; FCC, dec. of 22.2.1994, 1 BvL 30/88—8. “Rundfunkurteil”, para. 140; FCC, dec. of 5.2.1991, 1 BvF 1/85 and1 BvF 1/88—“WDR”, para. 401; FCC, dec. of 24.3.1987, 1 BvR 147/86 and 1 BvR 478/86—“LMG BW”, para. 73; FCC, dec. of 16.6.1981, 1 BvL 89/78—“FRAG”, para. 85; FCC, dec. of 15.12.1999, 1 BVR 653/96—“Caroline von Monaco II”, para. 95.

  43. FCC, dec. of 24.3.1998, 1 BvR 131/96, para. 30.

  44. FCC, dec. of 15.12.1999, 1 BVR 653/96—“Caroline von Monaco II”, para. 95; FCC, dec. of 8.9.2014, 1 BvR 23/14, para. 29.

  45. FCC, dec. of 25.3.2014, 1 BvF 1/11, 1 BvF 4/11—“ZDF-Aufsichtsgremien“, para. 34; FCC, dec. of 11.9.2007, 1 BvR 2270/05 et al.—“Rundfunkgebühren”, “KEF”, para. 122.

  46. Vesting 1997, pp. 227 et seqq.; Schulz et al. 2008, pp. 6 et seqq.; Schulz 1998, pp. 168 et seqq.: principle of equal opportunities in communicative processes; Rossen 1998, pp. 33 et seqq.

  47. Concerning public fora Krisor-Wietfeld 2016, pp. 69 et seqq.; Siehr 2016, pp. 474 et seqq.; for a comprehensive perspective Gaßner 2012.

  48. Cf. Flitsch 1998; Frenzel 2014.

  49. FCC, dec. of 8.12.2010, 1 BvR 1106/08, para. 24; FCC, dec. of 12.12.2000, 1 BvR 1762/95, 1 BvR 1787/95, para. 53; FCC, dec. of 10.10.1995, 1 BvR 1476/91 et al., para. 193; for a comparison Frenzel 2014, p. 395 et seq.

  50. Broemel 2019, § 3.

  51. Deliberate lies are excluded, FCC, dec. of 25.10.2012, 1 BvR 901/11, para. 19; FCC, dec. of 10.11.1998, 1 BvR 1531/96, para. 52; FCC, dec. of 13.4.1994, 1 BvR 23/94—“Auschwitzlüge”, para. 28.

  52. Starck 2010, Art. 5 paras 28 et seqq.

  53. Starck 2010, Art. 5 paras 306 et seqq.; concerning the ECHR Hoppe 2011, pp. 35 et seq.,

  54. Starck 2010, Art. 5 paras 32 et seqq.

  55. FCC, dec. of 11.9.2007, 1 BvR 2270/05—KEF, para. 122; FCC, dec. of 17.2.1998, 1 BvF 1/91—“Kurzberichterstattung“, para. 141.

  56. FCC, dec. of 25.3.2014, 1 BvF 1/11, 1 BvF 4/11—“ZDF-Aufsichtsgremien“, para. 36; FCC, dec. of 11.9.2007, 1 BvR 2270/05 and others—“Rundfunkgebühren”, paras 124 et seqq.; concerning in particular the economic particuliarities Heinrich 2010, pp. 120 et seqq.; Schulz et al. 2002, pp. 107 et seqq.

  57. Broemel 2017; differently Dörr et al. 2016, pp. 920 (936 et seq.); FCC, dec. of 11.9.2007, 1 BvR 2270/05—“KEF”, para. 122; FCC, dec. of 25.3.2014, 1 BvF 1/11, 1 BvF 4/11—“ZDF-Aufsichtsgremien”, para. 34.

  58. Suhr 1976; Franck 1998, 75 et seqq.

  59. Albers 2005, pp. 87 et seqq.; Britz 2010, pp. 561 et seqq.; Eifert 2017, pp. 265 (266 et seqq.).

  60. Rössler 2001, pp. 83 et seqq.; for an overview Eifert 2017, pp. 265 (266).

  61. Cf. Art. 8 CFR; in Germany Art. 2 para. 1 and Art. 1 para. 1 GBL.

  62. Cf. Federal Constitutional Court, dec. of 15.12.1983, 1 BvR 209/83 and others—“Volkszählung”, para. 149; FCC, dec. of 24.1.2012, 1 BvR 1299/05—“Bestandsdatenspeicherung”, para. 122 with further references; for a critical assessment Albers 1996, pp. 113 (119 et seq.); Ladeur 2000, pp. 12 (13 et seqq.); Trute 2003, para. 9, esp. fn. 40; Britz 2010, pp. 561 (563).

  63. Broemel 2019, § 2 B.

  64. Albers 2005, pp. 487 et seqq.

  65. Trute 2003, para. 6.

  66. Herzmann 2017 in this issue.

  67. For an analysis of the historic development Herzmann 2017 in this issue.

  68. The jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court excludes same-sex relationships from the scope of the protection of marriage according to Art. 6 para. 1 GBL, but grants far-reaching rights of non-discrimination, cf. FCC, dec. of 7.5.2013, 2 BvR 909/06 and others—“Lebenspartnerschaft”, paras 73 et seqq., para. 84, with further references.

  69. In more detail Broemel 2019, § 7.

  70. Ehlers 2014, § 2 mn. 41.

  71. ECHR, dec. of 16.4.2002, 36677/97—“Dangeville”, para. 47; ECHR, dec. of 12.7.2001, 44759/98—“Ferrazzini”, para. 26.

  72. Broemel 2019, § 7 B.

  73. Cf. Wunderlich 2000, p. 66; Broemel 2015, pp. 11 (23).

  74. Wunderlich 2000, pp. 63 et seqq.

  75. ECHR, dec. of 24.2.1994, Nr. 15450/89—“Casado Coca”, para. 36; ECHR, dec. of 17.10.2002, No. 37928/97—“Stambuk”, para. 23; for a summary of the earlier jurisprudence Hatje 1993, p. 55.

  76. ECHR, dec. of 26.9.1995, No. 17851/91—“Vogt”, para. 43 et seqq.; in more detail Broemel 2019, § 7 A.II.2.b.

  77. ECHR, dec. of 19.10.2010, No. 20999/04—“Özpinar”, para. 48; ECHR, dec. of 16.10.2008, No. 39627/05 and 39631/05—“Talidorou and Stylianou”, para. 54; ECHR, dec. of 27.9.1999, No. 33985/96 and 33986/96—“Smith and Grady”, para. 71; see Broemel 2019, § 7 A.II.2.a.

  78. In more detail Broemel 2019, § 7 A.II.2.c.; ECHR, dec. of 6.4.2000, No. 34369/97—“Thlimmenos”, paras 42 et seqq.; the jurisprudence combines this protection with the prohibition of discrimination according to Art. 14 ECHR, cf. ECHR, dec. of 15.1.2013, No. 48420/10 et al.—“Eweida”, para. 86.

  79. ECHR, dec. of 15.1.2013, No. 48420/10 et al.—“Eweida”, para. 87: “Generally, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (…). However, this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States, without an objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (…).“.

  80. ECHR, dec. of 26.6.1986, No. 8543/79—“van Marle”, para. 41: “The Court agrees with the Commission that the right relied upon by the applicants may be likened to the right of property embodied in Article 1 (P1-1): by dint of their own work, the applicants had built up a clientèle; this had in many respects the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and, hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 (P1-1).“; ECHR, dec. of 6.2.2003, No. 71630/01—“Wendenburg”, p. 23; ECHR, dec. of 24.5.2005, No. 61302/00—“Buzescu”, para. 82; ECHR, dec. of 13.3.2012, No. 23780/08—“Malik”, para. 89.

  81. ECHR, dec. of 24.5.2005, No. 61302/00—“Buzescu”, para. 81: “The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 however extends to law practices and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (…)“; earlier ECHR, dec. of 9.11.1999, No. 37595/97—“Döring”, p. 6.

  82. ECHR, dec. of 8.3.1988, No. 11540/85—“Karni”, p. 13: “The Commission considers that the vested interests in the applicant's medical practice may be regarded as ‚possessions’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)“.

  83. ECHR, dec of 6.2.2003, No. 71630/01—“Wendenburg u.a.”, p. 23; ECHR, dec. of 25.5.1999, No. 37592/97—“Olbertz”, p. 8.

  84. Wunderlich 2000, p. 66.

  85. Broemel 2019, § 7 A.I.

  86. Broemel 2019, § 7 B.II.1.

  87. ECHR, dec. of 27.7.2004, 55480/00 and 59330/00—“Sidabras und Džiautas”, paras 42 et seqq.; ECHR, dec. of 7.4.2005, 70665/01 and 74345/01—“Rainys and Gasparavičius”, paras 31 et seqq.

  88. Broemel 2019, § 7 A.I.3.

References

  • Achatz A (2011) Grundrechtliche Freiheit im Wettbewerb. Eine grundrechtsdogmatische Studie zur Verarbeitung von staatlichen Einflüssen auf das Umfeld wirtschaftlicher Betätigung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Albers M (1996) Zur Neukonzeption des grundrechtlichen „Daten“ schutzes. In: Haratsch A, Kugelmann D, Repkewitz U (eds) Herausforderungen an das Recht der Informationsgesellschaft. Boorberg, Stuttgart, pp 113–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäcker M (2007) Wettbewerbsfreiheit als normgeprägtes Grundrecht. Eine dogmatische Neubestimmung am Beispiel des Abwehrrechts des Konkurrenten gegen eine Subvention. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Britz G (2010) Informationelle Selbstbestimmung zwischen rechtswissenschaftlicher Grundsatzkritik und Beharren des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. In: Hoffmann-Riem W (ed) Offene Rechtswissenschaft. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 561–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Broemel R (2015) Fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms framing market activities. China-EU Law J 11–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Broemel R (2017) Plattformregulierung im Schnittfeld zwischen Rundfunk- und Kartellrecht. In: Eifert M, Gostomzyk T (eds) Medienföderalismus. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 149–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Broemel R (2019) Interaktionen. Grundrechstheorie—Binnenmarkt—Methodik. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess GP (2016) Commentary on Art. 1 GRC. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EGV/AEUV, 5th edn. C. H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörr D, Holznagel B, Picot A (2016) Legitimation und Auftrag des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens in Zeiten der Cloud. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 920–947

  • Ehlers D (2014) Allgemeine Lehren der EMRK. In: Ehlers D (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 4th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 25–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2017) Autonomie und Sozialität: Schwierigkeiten rechtlicher Konzeptionalisierung ihres Wechselspiels am Beispiel der informationellen Selbstbestimmung. In: Bumke C, Röthel A (eds) Autonomie und Recht. Gegenwartsdebatten über einen rechtlichen Grundbegriff. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 365–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Flitsch M (1998) Die Funktionalisierung der Kommunikationsgrundrechte. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck G (1998) Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit. Ein Entwurf. Hanser, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel EM (2014) „Schlechthin konstituierend“—zur Gewichtung der Kommunikationsgrundrechte. Archiv für Presserecht 394–398

  • Gärditz KF (2009) Hochschulorganisation und verwaltungsrechtliche Systembildung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärditz KF (2014) Anmerkung zum Beschluss des BVerfG vom 24.06.2014 (1 BvR 3217/07; BVBl 2014, 1127). Zur Frage der wissenschaftsadäquaten Organisation der Hochschulmedizin. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1133–1137

  • Gaßner K (2012) Die Rechtsprechung zur Versammlungsfreiheit im internationalen Vergleich. Eine Analyse anhand von Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, des EGMR, des EuGH, der Obersten Gerichtshöfe der Russischen Föderation und des U.S. Supreme Courts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

  • Geis M-E (2004) Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Universitäten. WissenschaftsrechtR 37:2–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis M-E (2010) Universitäten im Wettbewerb. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 69:364–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbig M (2014) Grundrecht auf staatlichen Schutz. Ein Vergleich von Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser J (2006) Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften, Die soziale Ordnung der Forschung. Campus, Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (1987) Bürgerlichkeit im Recht. Suhrkamp, Berlin, p 149

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (1988) Die Grundrechte im Entstehungszusammenhang der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. In: Kocka J (ed) Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert, Pt. 1. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, p 67

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatje A (1993) Wirtschaftswerbung und Meinungsfreiheit. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich J (2010) Medienökonomie, 2nd edn. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen M (2016) Art. 1 paras 34 et seq. In: Maunz D (ed) Grundgesetz, 79th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzmann K (2015) Fundamental right protection against market-related information activity—the case of multilevel product warnings. China-EU Law J 4:33–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzmann K (2017) The protection of marriages and family. A constitutional responsibility to enable all-embracing interaction as a means without an (objective) end. China-EU Law J (this issue)

  • Höfling W (2014) Art. 1 paras 48 et seqq. In: Sachs M (ed) Grundgesetz, 7th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe U (2011) Die Kunstfreiheit als EU-Grundrecht. Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarass H (2017) Die Bedeutung der Unionsgrundrechte unter Privaten. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 310–334

  • Knebel SV, Schoss RC (2016) Umfang und Legitimationsprobleme staatlichen Informationshandelns im Internet. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 105–112

  • Krausnick D (2012) Staat und Hochschule im Gewährleistungsstaat. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisor-Wietfeld K (2016) Rahmenbedingungen der Grundrechtsausübung. Insbesondere zu öffentlichen Foren als Rahmenbedingungen der Versammlungsfreiheit. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K (2000) Datenschutz—vom Abwehrrecht zur planerischen Optimierung von Wissensnetzwerken. Zur „objektiv-rechtlichen Dimension“ des Datenschutzes. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 12–19

  • Müller F (1966) Normstruktur und Normativität. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller F (1994) Strukturierende Rechtslehre. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller F, Christensen R (2013) Juristische Methodik. Pt. I. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Payandeh M (2016) Wissenschaftsadäquanz der europäischen Forschungsförderung. Wissenschaftsrecht 97–117

  • Piątek W (2017) The Right to an effective remedy in European law—significance, content and interaction. China-EU Law J (this issue)

  • Plicht S (2017) Access to state-held information. China-EU Law J (this issue)

  • Poscher R (2003) Grundrechte als Abwehrrechte. Reflexive Regelung rechtlich geordneter Freiheit. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossen H (1988) Freie Meinungsbildung durch den Rundfunk. Die Rundfunkfreiheit im Gewährleistungsgefüge des Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Rössler B (2001) Der Wert des Privaten. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1928) Verfassungslehre. Duncker & Humblot, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (1993) Die Wissenschaftsfreiheit nach Organisationsgrundrecht. In: Becker B, Bull HP, Seewald O (eds) Festschrift für Werner Thieme zum 70, Geburtstag. Heymann, Köln, pp 697–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder M (2017) Automated communication and basic rights. China-EU Law J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-018-0081-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz W (1998) Gewährleistung kommunikativer Chancengleichheit als Freiheitsverwirklichung. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz W, Held T, Kops M (2002) Perspektiven der Gewährleistung freier öffentlicher Kommunikation. Ein interdisziplinärer Versuch unter Berücksichtigung der gesellschaftlichen Bedeutsamkeit und Marktfähigkeit neuer Kommunikationsdienste. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz W, Held T, Dreyer S (2008) Regulation of broadcasting and internet services in Germany. A brief overview, 2nd ed. Working Papers of the Hans Bredow Institute No 13, 2008

  • Seckelmann M (2012) Autonomie, Heteronomie und Wissenschaftsadäquanz. Wissenschaftsrecht 200–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr A (2016) Das Recht am öffentlichen Raum. Theorie des öffentlichen Raumes und die räumliche Dimension von Freiheit. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Starck C (2010) Commentary on Art. 5 German Basic Law. In: von Mangoldt H, Klein F, Starck C (eds) Grundgesetz. Kommentar, vol 1, 6th edn. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Suerbaum J (2003) Die Schutzpflichtdimension der Gemeinschaftsgrundrechte. Europarecht 390–416

  • Suhr D (1976) Entfaltung der Menschen durch die Menschen. Zur Grundrechtsdogmatik der Persönlichkeitsentfaltung, der Ausübungsgemeinschaften und des Eigentums. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Trute H-H (1994) Die Forschung zwischen grundrechtlicher Freiheit und staatlicher Institutionalisierung. Das Wissenschaftsrecht als Recht kooperativer Verwaltungsvorgänge. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Trute H (2003) Verfassungsrechtliche Grundlagen. In: Roßnagel A (ed) Handbuch Datenschutzrecht. Die neuen Grundlagen für Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. C. H. Beck, München, pp 156–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Utrilla D (2017) Market freedoms and private interactions under EU law. China-EU Law J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-018-0083-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesting T (1997) Prozedurales Rundfunkrecht. Grundlagen—Elemente—Perspektiven. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • von Coelln (2009) Universitäten im Wettbewerb. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1090–1098

  • von Hayek FA (1937) Economics and knowledge. In: Caldwell B (ed) The collected works of F A Hayek, vol XV. The Market and other Orders. Routledge, London, pp 57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hayek FA (1964) The Theory of Complex Phenomena. In: Caldwell B (ed) The collected works of F A Hayek, vol XV. The Market and other Orders. Routledge, London, pp 257–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hayek FA (1968) Competition as a discovery procedure. In: Caldwell B (ed) The collected works of F A Hayek, vol XV. The Market and other Orders. Routledge, London, pp 304–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich N (2000) Das Grundrecht der Berufsfreiheit im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht. Der Schutz der Wirtschaftsteilnehmer gegenüber Eingriffen der Gemeinschaft in ihre berufliche Freiheit. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goethe University Frankfurt, 60629, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Roland Broemel

  2. Chinesisch-Deutsches Institut für Rechtswissenschaft, China University of Political Science and Law, Xituchenglu 25, Haidian District, Beijing, 100088, China

    Libin Xie

  3. Shandong University Law School, Jinan, China

    Zhongxia Li

Authors
  1. Roland Broemel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Libin Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhongxia Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Broemel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broemel, R., Xie, L. & Li, Z. Interaction and basic rights in an international perspective: an introduction. China-EU Law J 6, 127–139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-019-00085-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-019-00085-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation