Law report

The publication of court decisions concerning publication of judicial decisions, either completely ( in Germany: with tenor, facts and grounds of decision ) more or less, or by the respective publishers heavily cut and edited. Often the decision is preceded by a guiding principle; sometimes only the guideline is published.

The publication, in the different national legal systems differs considerably according to the nature, scale and access routes. The same applies to the underlying regulations. Thus, court decisions in many countries are exempt from copyright protection, so that they can be distributed freely.

Basically is required in the case law and legal literature and in public debate, the greatest possible publicity of court decisions. All the public interest judgments ( and other forms of decisions, for example, court decisions) to be published. In more recent times, reference is made increasingly sure that a publication on the internet best satisfy this disclosure requirement.

Court decisions are usually published in:

  • Legal and other professional journals,
  • Issued by the courts or private publishers decision Collections
  • In the trade press, hardly in the daily press,
  • In fee-based Internet databases,
  • In free Internet databases and on websites.

Only a small part of the total provisions adopted judicial decisions is actually published, with large differences according to court instance.

Germany

History

The emergence of judicial decision collections - a prerequisite for the modern publication beings - is fed from two historical sources: the duty to state reasons for judicial decisions and the management of legal books.

Written reasons for the verdict - initially thought of only in the sub- instance and not for the litigants or even the public, but for the higher court on appeal - it is only since the modern era. In Germany, the obligation to state reasons is probably the first time in the Württemberg Land Law of 1610.

Court books (City Books, jury books) with the distortion of the parties of a process and the judgment pronouncement has been around since the 13th century. They also long served only court internal and archival purposes.

Both lines of development joined gradually. In Prussia, for example, the general and invariable obligation to state reasons in 1831 was introduced. and in 1837 there appeared in the official order and edited the editorial for the public decisions of the Royal Privy Tribunal. The Imperial Court and the Federal Court led from the start intended for the public collections of critical for legal practice decisions: decisions of the Supreme Court in civil matters ( RGZ ) and decisions of the Supreme Court in criminal matters ( RGSt ) since 1879 with 173 and 77 volumes to 1945 and decisions of the Federal Court in civil matters ( references omitted ) and decisions of the Federal Court in criminal matters ( BGHSt ) since 1951. other courts conduct their own collection of decisions or allow other publication.

Legal

In 1997, of the Federal Administrative Court, that all courts [ ... ] by virtue of federal constitutional law, has the task to make available to the decisions of its panels of the public. In that regard, it is in the publication of judicial decisions is a public task. It detects all decisions on their publication, the public has an interest or can have.

In support of it says: This obligation follows from the rule of law bid including the judiciary, granting duty, the principle of democracy and also from the principle of separation of powers: Judicial decisions specify the provisions of the laws; also they make the right away ( see also § 132 para 4 GVG ). For this reason alone is the publication of judicial decisions to one of the Promulgation of standards comparable importance. The citizen must be especially can reliably bring experience in an increasingly complex legal, what rights he has and what obligations incumbent upon it; the possibilities and prospects of a legal protection shall be approximately predictable for him. Without adequate publicity to the case law that is not possible. Jurisprudence in a democratic constitutional state and especially in an information society must - like the other branches of government - in addition, also provide public criticism. It is not just that the public a certain development of case law can be provided as an aberration in question. The citizens have the relevant decisions and therefore be accessible, so that it is ever in the position to affect change on a questionable legal development in its opinion, with the objective of ( legislative ). The principle of democracy as well as the principle of mutual violence inhibition, which is the principle of separation of powers as its own, it requires that also the formation of public opinion an impetus to a parliamentary correction of the results must be possible, which contributes to the judiciary for legal development. Last but not least, it also serves the functioning of the administration of justice for the task of development of the law, if the publication of judicial decisions a professional scientific discussion is possible.

Publication practice

In an essay on LexisNexis Germany in JurPC was found in 2005 that the publication density was very low in Germany. Reference is here made ​​to the study by Walker 1998 ( see Related links ) for the period 1987 to 1993. Thereafter, the proportion of the published judgments was completed on all processes at around 0.5%. For instances, there are big differences. For example, while district courts rarely publish decisions, a study came from 1994 regarding the Federal Constitutional Court had a rate of 30%. This is likely to have considerably increased by the free Internet publication on the website of the Court, but there remains to be noted that the decisions of the Court even there only in a - set selection - not further substantiated.

Anonymization

From the courts handed out or self-published decision imprints are anonymous and neutralized usually, that is, there are the names of the parties defaced substantially. This is done for reasons of data protection and due to other protectable rights. From the anonymisation and the Federal Administrative Court holds in its above-mentioned decision.

Against the prevailing opinion Knerr has 2004 registered overlooking the procedural principle of public doubt.

Copyright

According to § 5 paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act on Government works enjoy decisions and officially written principles not protected by copyright.

The official written guidelines presented, the Federal fixed: An officially written within the meaning of § 5 paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act is a guiding principle to be recognized when it has been formulated by a member of the bench with his approval and made ​​available to the public. It is irrelevant whether an official obligation to draft guidelines. All that matters is whether the content of the announcement can be seen attributable to the court, that originates from a public authority.

Decision data banks of dishes are no official works prevailing opinion. Whether you are subject to database protection according to § § 87a ff of the Copyright Act (see also database work ), is controversial. Following the decision of the Federal Court in the case of " Saxon tendering service " can be officially within the meaning of § 5 of the Copyright Act also databases. The usually mounted formulation Any form of commercial use without the prior permission of the court is therefore condemned by critics as pure arrogance.

Delivery of decisions

Individuals who are not involved in the proceedings may obtain anonymous and neutralized decision impressions. While previously the calculation was made mostly by page ( 0.50 euros per side), consists now a flat fee (often in the amount of 12.50 Euro ) per decision through. Given the very hesitant attitude of the decisions on the internet keep these costs critic design for prohibitive.

Published in journals or collections decision earlier decisions can be inspected free of charge in libraries and reproduced with the usual copying costs.

Refuses a court to make a decision is available, is in the field of civil law before a Justizverwaltungsakt against which according to § 23 EGGVG can proceed.

Usually, courts require the reference number when requesting decisions.

Example in an anonymous decision impression ( injunction )

664796
de