The former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, believes that the partisan political disputes surrounding the appointment of judges are a major reason for the declining reputation of Germany’s highest court. Writing to “Welt am Sonntag,” Papier stated that established political parties have effectively divided up the right to propose candidates for judicial positions over the years. This “unchecked access” creates the public impression of political influence, which ultimately harms the court’s acceptance.
While the election of judges by the Bundestag and the Federal Council is democratically correct and necessary, the issue, Papier argues, lies in the perception that positions are being allocated according to party proportionality. Speaking about polls regarding public trust in the Federal Constitutional Court, he expressed concern. Although the court still enjoys an exceptionally high status compared to other institutions, he notes a discernible decrease in public confidence. He attributes this decline to various causes, including a general erosion of trust in democratic institutions and a growing lack of respect for the judiciary within both politics and the general public.
Papier also offered sharp criticism regarding accusations that meetings between constitutional judges and government officials amount to “backroom deals” or “cronyism.” He firmly rejected these allegations, stating they are incorrect and damage faith in the court’s independence.
Furthermore, he dismissed the idea that the Constitutional Court itself has become overly political and consequently lost public trust. While individual decisions are rightfully open to criticism-he himself viewed the climate protection ruling critically because it, in his view, intervened too heavily in the legislative freedom of the Diet-he drew a clear line. He insisted that such technical and professional controversies are distinct from doubts about the court’s institutional independence.
On the other hand, Papier viewed the recent disagreements over judicial appointments as proof of the continued significance of the Federal Constitutional Court. He suggested that no one would debate judicial appointments so intensely if the court had lost its unique standing. He concluded by stating that the Federal Constitutional Court remains “the beacon of German rule of law,” and therefore deserves respect, independence, and political restraint.
