comment
This rarely happens in the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court: When the First Senate left the room after the verdict on the Hartz IV sanctions was announced, applause surfaced. Long-lasting applause.
First of all, the constitutional judges had made one thing clear: the Social Code is not part of the criminal law. A message that politicians should finally take to heart.
The constitutional court admits it quite a large, even a very large scope to design the welfare state. The basic right to a dignified subsistence level may be subject to conditions - concretely that the affected people also contribute to overcoming their need for help.
However, if the legislature restricts the fundamental right with this justification, then this may only serve one purpose: to enable those affected to earn their subsistence income even through gainful employment. The Social Code II, in which Hartz IV is regulated, must be judged by this standard, and only in this case - this also applies to the sanctions.
Confused as a thread
The previous sanctions regulations did not meet this standard - and the consternation of the Constitutional Court judge runs like a thread through the verdict: what should be the incentive for those affected to change their behavior, if the sanctions are strictly enforced always three months anyway?
And how can it be, the judges in the reasoning repeatedly ask mutatis mutandis, that there is still no reliable scientific evidence on whether the sanctions work as they should - if they have been valid for more than a decade?
The answer is obvious: because the various government parties have not been particularly interested since 2005 - especially the Union and the FDP, which was also part of the Federal Government from 2009 to 2013.
Characteristic is the reaction of the then CSU leader Horst Seehofer, as the former SPD Labor Minister Andrea Nahles in 2015 at least the extremely harsh regulations for under 25 -year-old wanted to relax: "The dilution of sanctions at quenching will prevent the CSU."
Non-paternalism, not education, not improvement
Anyone who speaks this way makes it clear that it is not about bringing people into the labor market as well as possible with paternalistic pressure, and thus freeing them from their predicament - through a means that would be checked and abolished if they fail. But it's about punishing unpopular behavior.
But the Social Code is not there for that. It is there to help people. This was clearly made clear by the constitutional judges this Tuesday. Where the state calls for participation, it must also be suitable for getting people back into gainful employment, they write in the explanatory memorandum. And then: "Duty to cooperate must not be abused in practice for paternalism, education or improvement."
Just for this sentence, the constitutional judges have earned applause.