Post sponsored by

MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Germany –

Source: The Federal Constitutional Court

Press release no. 54/2020 from 1. July 2020Beschluss of 26. May 20201 BvR 1074/18

The 2. Chamber of the First Senate of the Federal constitutional court has forms with a decision published today, a constitutional complaint based on the use of gender-fair language in the savings Bank, and forms are not accepted for a decision.

The complainant is a customer of a savings bank that uses forms and forms in business transactions that only contain grammatically male, but not also grammatically female or gender-neutral names. The complainant’s complaint to oblige the Sparkasse to use forms and forms that use a grammatically feminine or neutral form was unsuccessful before the civil courts in all instances up to the Federal Court of Justice. this led to unresolved questions of the fundamental rights relevance of the traditional use of the generic masculine as well as questions of the constitutional requirements for the interpretation of equality laws, which prescribe the use of a gender-fair language. However, the constitutional complaint is inadmissible because it does not meet the formal requirements for justification. The complainant does not in any way agree with the argument put forward by the Federal Court of Justice and independently supporting its decision that the Basic Law itself uses the generic masculine which the complainant has criticized. Regardless of whether or to what extent this argument has a constitutional effect, the constitutional complaint does not meet the procedural requirements due to the lack of discussion. The complainant’s argument that the Saarland Equal Opportunities Act, which stipulates that the state’s departments use gender-equitable language, only applies as an objective right, but does not also grant actionable subjective rights for individuals, is also not substantively challenged by the complainant. It neither complains about a violation of the guarantee of effective legal protection that may be affected, nor does it otherwise deal with it from a constitutional point of view. This also did not allow the Federal Constitutional Court to examine the matter.


EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and/or sentence structure need be perfect.

MIL Translation OSI