¹ See Frank, C., Judicial Self-governance: A Role Model for Germany, in Strengthen the Judiciary's Independence in Europe 97, 99-100 (P.-A. Albrecht & J. Thomas eds., 2009).Google Scholar

² Instructive N. Garoupa & T. Ginsburg, Guarding the guardians. Judicial councils and judicial independence, 57 Am. J. Comp. L. 103 (2009); the authors also cover German institutions.Google Scholar

³ Essential German reading on court administration in Germany: F. Wittreck, Die Verwaltung der Dritten Gewalt (2006); Minkner, M., die Gerichtsverwaltung in Deutschland und Italien 25 et seq. (2015); Faissner, L. C., die Gerichtsverwaltung der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit in Frankreich und Deutschland 251 et seq. (2018). – Recent overviews in English by Seibert-Fohr, A., Judicial Independence in Germany, in Judicial Independence in Transition 447, 453 et seq. (A. Seibert-Fohr ed., 2012); Langbroek, P. & Westenberg, M., Court Administration and Quality Work in Judiciaries in Four European Countries 59 et seq. (2018).Google Scholar

⁴ English version available at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html.Google Scholar

⁵ See Dyrchs, P., Frey, W., Metzen, P., Napierala, R. & Rausch, H., Case assignment in German courts: North-Rhine Westphalia, in The Right Judge for Each Case. A study of case assignment and impartiality in six European judiciaries 215 (P. Langbroek & M. Fabri eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁶ According to section 21a para. 2 the presidium consists of the president of the court and four to ten judges (depending on the size of the court). These members are elected by their fellow judges in a direct and secret vote (section 21b para. 3).Google Scholar

⁷ Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 910 (2008); Jarass, H. D. & Pieroth, B., Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Kommentar (15th ed. 2018), Article 97 note 3.Google Scholar

⁸ English version: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/index.html.Google Scholar

⁹ First overview: Seibert-Fohr, supra note 3, at 459-60; Weiss, M., Labor Law, in An Introduction to German Law 299, 310 et seq. (M. Reimann & J. Zekoll eds., 2nd ed. 2005). – See Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], 93 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 36, 69.Google Scholar

¹⁰ As far as can be seen, there is no more English literature on the topic. Even the German literature is scarce, as the topic is deemed to be uninspiring due to its love for the details. See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 275 et seq., 372 et seq.; and Minkner, supra note 3, at 249-50, 278 et seq.Google Scholar

¹¹ Available in English: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_drig/index.html.Google Scholar

¹² See Berlit, U., eJustice, eAkte und Richterschaft, 121 Betrifft Justiz 15 (2015).Google Scholar

¹³ According to section 41 para. 3 of the North-Rhine Westphalian State Act on Judges and Prosecutors, the councils of judges have to participate in matters of technology (in detail see No. 1-6).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 292 et seq., 361 et seq.; Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 460-1; Minkner, supra note 3, at 247-8, 274 et seq.Google Scholar

¹⁵ This is the quite awkward circumscription of “promotion” in the Judiciary Act.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See sections 46 et seq. of the State Act concerning judges and prosecutors (especially section 43 para. 6 and section 58). According to many critics, the composition of this committee is not in accordance with the German understanding of democratic legitimacy (see below B.II.): Wittreck, supra note 3, at 400.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 300-1, 389 et seq.; Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 491-2; Minkner, supra note 3, at 250, 283–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 177-8 and H. Schulze-Fielitz, Article 97, in 3 Grundgesetz-Kommentar (H. Dreier ed., 3rd ed. 2018), note 35.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], 113 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen [BGHZ] 36, 40-1; Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court], 78 Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts [BVerwGE] 211, 213–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 282, 283 (2003).Google Scholar

²¹ See Wittreck, F., Dritte Gewalt im Wandel, 74 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 115, 137 (2015).Google Scholar

²² Last Decision: Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice] (as Federal Service Court), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 158 (2018); upheld by Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1532 (2018). – As far as can be seen, there are no English publications on the case. From the German literature, see Wittreck, F., Durchschnitt als Dienstpflicht?, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3287 (2012); Wittreck, F., Erledigungszahlen unter (Dienst-)Aufsicht?, Deutsche Richterzeitung 132 (2013); Schütz, C., Durchschnitt soll doch Dienstpflicht sein, 112 Betrifft Justiz 378 (2012); Thiele, A., Die Unabhängigkeit des Richters – Grenzenlose Freiheit? 52 Der Staat 415 (2013); Schütz, C., Die Richtgeschwindigkeit der Justiz, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung – Einspruch (Nov 29, 2017).Google Scholar

²³ For a general outline of the German court structure see Holland, K. M., The Courts in the Federal Republic of Germany, in The Political Role of Law Courts in Modern Democracies 83 (Waltman, J. L. & Holland, K. M. eds., 1988) and Bell, J., Judiciaries within Europe. A Comparative Review 110 et seq. (2006); Robbers, G., Introduction to German Law (6th ed. 2017), notes 37 et seq.; recently Machura, S., Understanding the German Mixed Tribunal, 36 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 273 (2016). – German Reading: C. Degenhart, Gerichtsorganisation, in 5 Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland § 114 (J. Isensee & P. Kirchhof eds., 3rd ed. 2007) (leading handbook on German constitutional law).Google Scholar

²⁴ Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 421, 423 (1988); Bundesverwaltungsrecht [Federal Administrative Court] 46 BVerwGE 69, 71; see Schulze-Fielitz, , supra note 18, note 30-1.Google Scholar

²⁵ Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 158 (2018) (head note 2).Google Scholar

²⁶ English version: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html. Section 339 reads as follows: “A judge, another public official or an arbitrator who in conducting or deciding a legal matter perverts the course of justice for the benefit or to the detriment of a party shall be liable to imprisonment from one to five years.” General outline of the German criminal law system: Robbers, supra note 23, notes 246 et seq.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Wittmann, R., Tainted Law: the West German Judiciary and the prosecution of Nazi War Criminals, in Atrocities on trial: historical perspectives on the politics of prosecuting war crimes 211 (P. Herberer & J. Matthäus eds., 2008); essential German reading: H. Wrobel, Verurteilt zur Demokratie. Justiz und Justizpolitik 1945–1949 (1989) and J. Requate, Der Kampf um die Demokratisierung der Justiz (2008).Google Scholar

²⁸ See Bohlander, M., “United We Stand …” – The Judiciary in East Germany after the Unification, 21 Anglo-American Law Review 415 (1992). German reading: U. Hohoff, An den Grenzen des Rechtsbeugungstatbestandes: Eine Studie zu den Strafverfahren gegen DDR-Juristen (2001); Schaefer, H. C., Überzogenes Richterprivileg, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 734, 735 (2002); Lehmann, J., Der Rechtsbeugungsvorsatz nach den neueren Entscheidungen des BGH, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 127, 129 (2006).Google Scholar

²⁹ Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 92–3 (2010).Google Scholar

³⁰ Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 106 (2013); Landgericht Kassel [District Court Kassel], judgment of June 27, 2017 – 11 KLs 3600 Js 37702/09; see the comment by Hecker, B., Juristische Schulung 1042 (2012) as well as the critical note on the further proceedings by Kirchhoff, G., Kein-Urteil-Schelte, 118 Betrifft Justiz 102 (2014). Highly sceptical also Kirchhoff, G. & Schütz, C., Böswillige Vernichtung einer Existenz, 113 Betrifft Justiz 40-1 (2018 [Betrifft Justiz – literally “Concerning the judiciary” – is a left-leaning journal with strong ties to the “Neue Richtervereinigung”, see infra C.II.]).Google Scholar

³¹ See Olowofoyeku, A. A., Suing judges. A study of judicial immunity (1993).Google Scholar

³² See Terhechte, J. P., Judicial accountability and public liability. The German “judges privilege” under the influence of European and international law, 13 Ger. L. J. 313 (2012); Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 494-5. – German reading: Wittreck, supra note 3, at 150 et seq.; Breuer, M., Staatshaftung für judikatives Unrecht. Eine Untersuchung zum deutschen Recht, zum Europa- und Völkerrecht (2011). See also Robbers, supra note 23, at notes 267 et seq.Google Scholar

³³ English version: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html.Google Scholar

³⁴ See European Court of Justice, Case C-224/01, Köbler, judgment of Sept. 30, 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:513; Wittreck, supra note 3, at 154 et seq.; Hartmann, B. J., Öffentliches Haftungsrecht 216 et seq., 247 et seq. (2013).Google Scholar

³⁵ See Brinke, D. ten, Judges appointed by Parliament: Germany, in Judges in the Service of the State? Procedures, Criteria and Political Influence on National Selection of Judges for the Highest Judicial Offices and their Possible Influence on the International Crime Court 39 (D. ten Brinke & H.-M. Deml eds., 2002); Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 461; German literature: Wittreck, supra note 3, at 305-6; Schulze-Fielitz, H., Artikel 95, in 3 Grundgesetz-Kommentar (H. Dreier ed., 3rd ed. 2018), note 24 et seq. -See Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], 143 BVerfGE 22.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 396 et seq.; Dietrich, T. E., Richterwahlausschüsse und demokratische Legitimation (2007); Gärditz, K. F., Richterwahlausschüsse für Richter im Landesdienst. Funktion, Organisation, Verfahren und Rechtsschutz, Zeitschrift für Beamtenrecht 109 (2011); Graefen, H.-J., Probleme der Richterwahl, in Volkssouveränität, Wahlrecht und direkte Demokratie 127 (H.-H. v. Arnim ed., 2014).Google Scholar

³⁷ This was the case in Hessen; see Priepke, W., Zusammensetzung des Richterwahlausschusses, Deutsche Richterzeitung 11 (1972).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 400; Tschentscher, A., Demokratische Legitimation der dritten Gewalt 361 (2006).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], 143 BVerfGE 22; Gärditz, K. F., Anmerkung zum Beschluss des Zweiten Senats des BVerfG vom 20.9.2016 – 2 BvR 2453/15, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3429 (2016); Sachs, M., Bedeutung der Bestenauslese nach Art. 33 II GG für die Richterwahl nach Art. 95 II GG, Juristische Schulung 89 (2017).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Hurlin, I., Wer wird Richterln [sic] in Schleswig-Holstein?, in Mitwirkung – Mitbestimmung 49, 50 (Neue Richtervereinigung ed., 1992); Vultejus, U., Der Zugang zum Richterberuf, in Arbeit und Recht 251, 254 (1995). In Hessen, Social Democrats proposed a reform of the Richterwahlausschuss alluding to the fact that the members belonging to the judiciary were deemed conservative and close to the rival Christian Democrats; the judges were simple coined “political opponents”: T. Rasehorn, Der Richterwahlausschuß als gesellschaftspolitisches Problem der Justiz, in Liber Amicorum Rudolf Wassermann, 401, 410 (C. Broda et al. eds., 1985); Wittreck, supra note 21, at 146-7.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Schulze-Fielitz, , supra note 18, at note 32; cf. Seibert-Fohr, supra note 3, at 455 et seq.Google Scholar

⁴² See Tettinger, P. J., Artikel 58, in Kommentar zur Verfassung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (W. Löwer & P. J. Tettinger eds., 2002), notes 9 and 16.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Debusmann, G., Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet: Einstellungsverfahren für junge Richter im Bezirk des OLG Hamm, Deutsche Richterzeitung 263 (2003).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Wittreck, supra note 21, at 156.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], 17 BVerfGE 252, 262; Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court], 3rd Chamber of the Second Senate, Deutsche Richterzeitung 100 (1991); Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court], 50 BVerwGE 11, 13 et seq.; 67 BVerwGE 222, 225; Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of Justice], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 425 (1991); Dienstgerichtshof [Regional Service Court] Frankfurt a. M., Der öffentliche Dienst 220 (1988); Verwaltungsgericht [Administrative Court] Frankfurt a. M., Zeitschrift für Landes- und Kommunalrecht Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz und Saarland (LKRZ) 378 (2014). See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 185, 357–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 183 et seq.; Schulze-Fielitz, , supra note 18, at notes 41 et seq. (each with further references to case law); see also Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 505-6.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Schlosser, P. & Habscheid, W., Federal Republic of Germany, in Judicial Independence. The Contemporary Debate 78 (S. Shetreet & J. Deschěnes eds., 1985); Wang, Y., The Independence of Judges in China and Germany 110, 129 et seq., 174 et seq. (2011); Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 447.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Last example: The minister of justice of the eastern state of Saxony (himself a former judge and president of the Richterbund) had to resign after using his official mail account to ask a court in another German state after the further duration of a private lawsuit filed by the minister.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Wang, supra note 47, at 180 et seq.; Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 473 et seq. Cf. L. Jünemann, Richterliche Unabhängigkeit und Leistungsbeurteilung – Ein Beitrag aus deutscher Sicht, in Richterliche Unabhängigkeit und Leistungsbeurteilung 55 (T. Stadelmann, S. Gass & R. McCombe eds., 2015).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ But see Clark, D. S., The Selection and Accountability of Judges in West Germany. Implementation of a Rechtsstaat, 61 South. Cal. L. Rev. 1795, 1832 (1988).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Dreier, H., Verantwortung im demokratischen Verfassungsstaat, in Verantwortung in Recht und Moral 9 (U. Neumann et al. eds., 2000); Ehlers, D., Verantwortung im öffentlichen Recht, 46 Die Verwaltung 467 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵² See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 140 et seq.; Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 484 et seq.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Riedel, J., Individual Evaluation of Judges in Germany, 4 Onati Socio-Legal Series 974 (2014).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Voßkuhle, A. & Sydow, G., Die demokratische Legitimation des Richters, Juristenzeitung 673 (2002); Tschentscher, A., Demokratische Legitimation der dritten Gewalt (2006); Wittreck, supra note 3, at 114 et seq.; Minkner, supra note 3, at 48 et seq.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Dreier, H., Artikel 20 (Demokratie), in 2 Grundgesetz-Kommentar (H. Dreier ed., 3rd ed. 2015), note 140.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ German reading: Wittreck, supra note 3, at 163 et seq.; Coelln, C. v., Zur Medienöffentlichkeit der Dritten Gewalt (2005); Vismann, C., Medien der Rechtsprechung (2011). See Wolf, M., The Press and the Courts in Germany, in: Judicial Independence. The Contemporary Debate 117 (S. Shetreet & J. Deschěnes eds., 1985).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Oberverwaltungsgericht [Higher Administrative Court] Münster, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1133 (2015); short remark on this judgment by Schmittmann, J. M., Zeitschrift für Datenschutz 392 (2015).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Köcher, R., Im Namen des Volkes, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 8 (Aug. 28, 2014): 66% of those interviewed have trust in the courts. More recent data: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153813/umfrage/allgemeines-vertrauen-in-die-justiz-und-das-rechtssystem/ (22.7.2018); see also the older study of Kniffka, R., Das Ansehen der Justiz in der Öffentlichkeit, 2 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 225 (1981).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/176867/umfrage/vertrauen-in-das-bundesverfassungsgericht/ (22.7.2018); cf. Herzkammern der Republik. Die Deutschen und das Bundesverfassungsgericht (M. Stolleis ed., 2011).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Still not published.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Darnstädt, T., Der Richter und sein Opfer 94 et seq. (2013); Bubrowski, H., Die Leiche war doch nicht zerstückelt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 8 (June 28, 2014).Google Scholar

⁶² See Boyne, S. M., The German Prosecution Service. Guardians of the Law? (2014).Google Scholar

⁶³ See Frank, supra note 1, at 97 et seq. (the author was chairman of the Richterbund at the time of the publication). German material: http://www.drb.de/cms/index.php?id=552; there also the pdf of the draft of a “Landesgesetz zur Selbstverwaltung der Justiz (Landesjustizselbstverwaltungsgesetz – USvG)”. Compare C. Frank, Selbstverwaltung der Justiz: Ein Modell auch für Deutschland, 91 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 405 (2008); Weber-Grellet, H., Selbstverwaltung der Justiz – Zwei-Säulen-Modell des Deutschen Richterbundes, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 153 (2007); Weber-Grellet, H., Weitere Schritte auf dem Weg zur Selbstverwaltung der Justiz, Deutsche Richterzeitung 2, 46 et seq. (2012); Seibert-Fohr, , supra note 3, at 461 et seq.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Cebulla, M. & Kannenberg, W. K., Selbstverwaltung der Judikative. Die Gesetzentwürfe der Neuen Richtervereinigung (2012); English reading: Haeuser, H., Self-governance within the Courts: vertical versus horizontal, in Strengthen the Judiciary's Independence in Europe 103 (P.-A. Albrecht & J. Thomas eds., 2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Minkner, supra note 3, at 267, 275; Wittreck, supra note 21, at 155-6.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Wittreck, supra note 3, at 642 et seq., 655 et seq.; Wittreck, supra note 21, at 152 et seq. (with further German readings).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See namely Groß, T., German constitutional Expectations, in Strengthen the Judiciary's Independence in Europe 38 (P.-A. Albrecht & J. Thomas eds., 2009) (Groß is a Public Law teacher from Osnabrück); Albrecht, P.-A., Safety mechanisms for the autonomy and independence of the judiciary. Insights from the third power in Europe in discussion between the CCJE-Working-Group and the German Commission “Judicial System” in Berlin (June 23rd 2014), 97 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 420 (2014) (Albrecht held a chair for criminology at Frankfurt a. M.).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Boettcher, H.-E., Away from Napoleonic and Wilhelminian Models, to a democratic Organisation of the Courts in Germany, in Strengthen the Judiciary's Independence in Europe 111 (P.-A. Albrecht & J. Thomas eds., 2009); or Weber-Grellet, , Weitere Schritte, supra note 63, at 2 et seq., 46 et seq.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Reformpläne in Schleswig-Holstein und Hamburg, 95 Betrifft Justiz 330 (2008); drawing near (senator of justice) T. Steffen, Autonomie für die Dritte Gewalt – Erwartungen aus der Politik, 91 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 354 (2008); see Mackenroth, G., Selbstverwaltung der Justiz – Zwischenbilanz in Frageform, Deutsche Richterzeitung 79, 81 et seq. (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Entwurf eines … Gesetzes zur Änderung des Grundgesetzes – Herstellung der institutionellen Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, BT-Drs. 17/11701; Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Herstellung der institutionellen Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, BT-Drs. 17/11703 (“BT-Drs.” stands for printed matters of the German parliament [Bundestag]); see the expert votes: http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/ausschuesse18/a06/anhoerungen/Archiv; see also Kreth, E., Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein, Deutsche Richterzeitung 236 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Clark, supra note 50, at 1802 et seq., 1816 et seq.; Gressmann, M., Germany, in Process of the appointment and training of judges 153 (International Association of Judges ed., 1999); Riedel, J., Recruitment, Professional Evolution, and Career of Judges and Prosecutors in Germany, in Recruitment, professional evaluation and career of judges and prosecutors in Europe: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands And Spain 69 (G. Di Federico ed., 2005); Riedel, J., Training and Recruitment of Judges in Germany, 5 International Journal for Court Administration 42 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷² See Korioth, S., Legal Education in Germany Today, 24 Wisconsin Int'l. L. J. 85 (2006); see also the contributions in Legal education and judicial training in Europe (D. Piana et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁷³ See Lange, E. & Luhmann, N., Juristen – Berufswahl und Karrieren, 65 Verwaltungsarchiv 113 (1974).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See the highly sceptical view of Viefhues, W. & Volesky, K.-H., Neue Konzepte zur Gerichts- und Arbeitsorganisation in Verbindung mit dem Einsatz moderner Informationstechnik in der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit, Deutsche Richterzeitung 13, 19 (1996); and Wittreck, supra note 3, at 477-8.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Wittreck, supra note 21, at 157; Minkner, supra note 3, at 660-1.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Zacharias, D., Terminologie und Begrifflichkeit, in 2 Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum § 40 (A. v. Bogdandy, P. Cruz Villalón & P. M. Huber eds., 2008), notes 14 et seq.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Robbers, supra note 23, at notes 144 et seq. German reading: Wittreck, supra note 3, at 114 et seq.; Dreier, supra note 55, at notes 109 et seq.; Minkner, supra note 3, at 48 et seq.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Standards on Judicial Independence 279 et seq. (S. Gass, R. Kiener & T. Stadelmann eds., 2012); sceptical Terhechte, J., Judicial Ethics for a Global Judiciary – How Judicial Networks Create their own Codes of Conduct, 10 Ger. L. J. 501 (2009); and Wittreck, supra note 3, at 222 et seq.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Möllers, C., The Three Branches. A Comparative Model of the Separation of Powers (2015); see also Heringa, A. W. & Kiiver, P., Constitutions Compared 22 et seq. (3rd ed. 2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Hailbronner, K. & Kau, M., Constitutional Law, in An Introduction to German Law 53, 81 (M. Reimann & J. Zekoll eds., 2nd ed. 2005); Dixon, R., Constitutional amendment rules: a comparative perspective, in Comparative Constitutional Law 96, 104 (T. Ginsburg & R. Dixon eds., 2011). Best German coverage: H. Dreier, Article 79 III, in 2 Grundgesetz-Kommentar (H. Dreier ed., 3rd ed. 2015), notes 14 et seq.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Leading cases: Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court] 93 BVerfGE 37; 107 BVerfGE 59.Google Scholar

⁸² There is consensus that the requirement of democratic legitimization as such is “änderungsfest” (lit. amendment-proof), while many constitutional lawyers point out that the details of the model may be altered. See only Dreier, supra note 80, at note 37; Hain, K.-E., Article 79, in 2 v. Mangoldt/Klein/Starck, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (P. M. Huber & A. Voßkuhle eds., 7th ed. 2018), notes 83-4.Google Scholar