That press conferences will start with personal comments, that is most that can be expected in the case of resignations and serious quarrels – rather not the idea of a legal opinion on the German Constitution. But the times after that, and the fear of one’s own home has led to a new politicization in the Hyperspeed of social networks such as Twitter events, anticipates, evaluates, and files before they are actually judged to have occurred, so to speak.

touched, the renowned constitutional lawyer Helge Sodan. The Berlin’s largest housing Association BBU had asked to review the “constitutionality” of the socialization plans of the people’s initiative “Deutsche Wohnen expropriate”. A “courtesy report” get in there, tweeted an Alliance of 108 tenants, the Association of the BBU also represents.

“blatant assertion” rejected Sodan this allegation to be sharp. He was also not branchennah, have claimed “independence”. He suppose not every job, on the contrary, hopeless desire, he reject and he would have done also in this case, when it would be so.

but it Is not in this case, as Sodan judge. As evidence of the state law decomposed precise, our Constitution in its articles and terms. The his estimation, the “strongest” Argument against the nationalisation of exchange-listed Deutsche Wohnen, in accordance with article 15 of the basic law: The state Constitution of Berlin itself provides absolutely no socialization. Whilst it was true that the Federal government breaking law, the law of the land. Here, however, is not: Because of the Berlin Constitution of Sagittarius is a a fundamental fundamental right, even better than the Federal law, namely, that on the property. And the legitimacy of the Berlin Constitution is out of the question: it was reformed in 1995 by a Commission headed by Renate Künast, and by popular vote has been confirmed.

No “socialization items”

Unconstitutional also Plan to socialize all of the company’s profit and more than 3000 flats. It is contrary to the “principle of equality”, still one of the fundamental rights according to the Constitution, the company picked from a specific threshold (3000 dwellings) and “out” are talking about.

The apartments could not be socialized because “it is the socialization of goods”. Apartments are not a “means of production” and that the law chosen term, the verges company a cabinets ungsfähige feature “land”.

“Disproportionate” is a socialization of housing. Because no apartment is more emergent. And not the General public benefit, but to “current tenant”. Sodan referred in conversation to the fact that the legislators have so far been fully exploited yet by no means all of the legal options to combat the housing shortage: Reasonable for a purchase of the real estate of “up to ten companies”. In addition, the country could adopt the “environmental protection” regulations, the prevention of the displacement of tenants. Had to use it, first go to “other instruments” without “such a far-reaching intervention” in the Constitution.

country could act on the debt brake break

does not force but the sheer Misery of the apartment search and the historically unprecedented inflow of speculative financial capital in the markets of the metropolises to be stronger? The Rents and purchase prices are rising faster than income, and a speculative vacancy is economically attractive – not to endanger the social peace? “Speculation has always existed, and profits, there must also be,” says Sodan. Also in 1995, after the capital decision for Berlin “went the prices rapidly upwards”.

More about

BBU, its members upset tenant opinion against expropriation

Ralf beautiful ball

Sodan criticize has warned that the country could break due to the additional debt for the purchase of the apartments, the law on the debt brake, from 2020 onwards across Europe. Speaking of Europe: protecting the market economy and the still more extensive than the basic law. And also, the German Constitution was not, as some lawyers argue about the basic law, neutral to the economy.