(c) With regard to the question of whether there has been a serious violation of the Constitution, the requirements of the rule of law arising specifically from the nature of the procedure for banning a political party under articles 21.1 and 2 in conjunction with article 20.3 of the Basic Law must be respected; The banning of a political party by the Federal Constitutional Court is the sharpest, albeit double-edged, sword that a democratic rule of law state has against an organised enemy. Maximum legal certainty, transparency, predictability and reliability is therefore necessary in procedures for banning a political party (see BVerfGE 107, 339 Senate minority). the political party concerned may be given the last opportunity before the Federal Constitutional Court to challenge the arguments of the applicant(s) who consider it necessary to ban the political party having the image of a loyal constitutional institution whose continued participation in the decision-making process of the people and the State is necessary and legitimate, precisely in the interests of a free democratic fundamental order. State freedom of intervention and self-determination are particularly important in this situation (cf. BVerfGE 107, 339 senatorial minority). Care must be taken to ensure that the political party can defend its position freely, unchecked and self-determined. In addition to the requirements of reliability and transparency, the requirement of strict freedom of state intervention in the sense of uncontrolled and self-determined decision-making and self-presentation before the Federal Constitutional Court (see BVerfGE 107, 339 Senate minority) is indispensable. (d) Finally, according to the ECtHR, the prohibition of a political party must be proportionate to the objectives pursued by the ban. In that regard, however, the ECtHR limits the examination of `reasonableness` to the legal implications of Libra and determines whether the consequences of the ban on political parties resulting from national law are disproportionate to the seriousness of the threat to democracy identified in relation to an urgent social need. If there is an urgent need, it generally considers that the prohibition is proportionate (see ECtHR, Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 13 February 2003, no. 41340/98 et al., §§ 133 and 134; ECtHR, Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v.
Spain, judgment of 30 June 2009, no. 25803/04 and others, § 93; ECtHR, Eusko Abertzale Ekintza – Acción Nacionalista Vasca v. Spain, judgment of 15 January 2013, no. 40959/09, § 81). (c) The democratic and free fundamental order is rooted primarily in human dignity (Art. 1 para. 1 GG). The case law of the Federal Constitutional Court recognises that this constitutes the highest value of the Basic Law (cf. BVerfGE 5, 85 ; 12, 45 ; 27, 1 ; 35, 202 ; 45, 187 ; 87, 209 ; 96, 375 ). Human dignity is not subject to availability. The State must respect and protect them in all their forms (cf. BVerfGE 45, 187 ).
This deprives the State and its legal system of any absoluteness and “natural” primacy. e) It is also incompatible with the requirement of strict freedom of State interference if a request for the banning of a political party is based on evidence the source of which is at least partly the result of the actions of undercover police informants or investigators (cf. BVerfGE 107, 339 Senate minority; no use of material from informants – freedom of source). In 2011, authorities reportedly tried to link the party, and in particular the organization`s 30-year-old national director Patrick Wieschke, to the so-called “Zwickau terror cell”. This increased the possibility of another attempt to ban the party. The cell was implicated in a series of murders and the November attack on a savings bank in Eisenach. The authorities have also prosecuted Ralf Wohlleben, former vice-president of the party`s federation in Thuringia, although the latter case is unlikely to lead to a national challenge to the party`s legal status. [69] The chances of success of the new banning attempts have been questioned, since the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has 130 informants in the party, some of whom hold senior positions, raising the question of whether the party is effectively controlled by the government. [70] 2. According to those criteria, there is no procedural obstacle in the present proceedings which would lead to the closure of the procedure for banning the political party.
Based on the applicant`s certificates and the evidence presented, it can be assumed that since at least 6. December 2012 there were no police informants or undercover investigators at the respondent`s management levels (a), that the material evidence is not based on the statements and conduct of party members who have contacts with government agencies (b), and that the special status of the respondent`s No. 1 representative was taken into account and that knowledge of the respondent`s procedural strategy was not not related to intelligence funds were obtained (c); For this reason, it is already clear that there is no significant violation of the fundamental principles of the rule of law (first stage of the review). It is therefore not necessary to weigh such an infringement against the preventive purpose of the prohibition procedure (second stage). These recommendations have been compiled by reviewing advice obtained from a number of different websites, including the National Black Police Association, the ACLU, and we hope this information will be helpful to you, but we urge you not to rely on this information for legal advice. We hope that the information presented here will make you aware of some of your rights, although you should consult a lawyer for legal advice on these matters. (d) The principle of democracy is a constituent element of the free democratic fundamental order. Democracy is the form of government of free and equal. It is based on the idea of free self-determination of all citizens (cf. BVerfGE 44, 125 ). In this regard, the Basic Law is based on the assumption of the intrinsic worth and dignity of the human being, who can be free; At the same time, it guarantees human rights, which are at the heart of the principle of democracy, through the right of citizens to determine, through elections and other votes in freedom and equality, the public authority which concerns them personally and objectively […]. There is little work on neuroimaging in people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.
A voxel-based morphometry (VBM) study conducted in Germany with a small sample size showed gray matter abnormalities in the prefrontal and insular regions. [13] Another voxel-based diffuse tensor and tensor imaging (DTI) study conducted in Germany revealed gray matter abnormalities in the right and anterior prefrontal cingulate cortex. Abnormalities of the white matter of the frontal lobe were also detected. [14] As the ECtHR expressly states, the existence of an urgent social need to ban a political party must be established on the basis of an overall examination of the circumstances of the individual case and take account of national specificities (ECtHR, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 30 January 1998, no. 133/1996/752/951, § 59; ECtHR, Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 13 February 2003, no. 41340/98 and others, § 124; ECtHR, Partidul Comunistilor and Ungureanu v.
Romania, judgment of 3 February 2005, no. 46626/99, § 58; ECtHR, HADEP and Demir v. Turkey, judgment of 14 December 2010, no. 28003/03, §§ 69 et seq.; ECtHR, Russian Republican Party v. Russia, judgment of 12 April 2011, no. 12976/07, § 127). Therefore, with regard to Article 21 para. 2 GG, it must be taken into account that the provision is based primarily on the historical experiences of the rise of the NSDAP in the Weimar Republic and on efforts to prevent such incidents from happening again through early intervention against totalitarian political parties. In this context, the idea that banning a political party should be considered only when a political party has become so strong that an erosion or abolition of the free democratic fundamental order seems not only possible, but even likely, if one follows the course of events, is incompatible with such efforts.
In this regard, the early fixing of a date for the banning of a political party entails Article 21 para. 2 sentence 1 GG, which does not require waiting for the occurrence of a concrete threat to the free democratic fundamental order, on the basis of the specific historical experience of the establishment of the tyrannical and despotic regime of the National Socialists. In this context, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, an urgent social need may be presumed to be precluding a political party if the requirements of Paragraph 21(2)(1) GG are met, namely if there are concrete and serious indications that it is at least possible that the actions of the political party directed against the free democratic fundamental order can be crowned with success. (aa) The guarantee of human dignity includes, inter alia, the preservation of personal individuality, identity and integrity and elementary equality before the law […]. This understanding is based on an image of man as persons capable of making free and self-determined decisions and shaping their destiny independently (cf.