The merger of supermarkets is controversial. But the Tengelmänner and Tengelfrauen are grateful if the policy is trying to secure their jobs. Judges, sabotage, are handy.
The free market is inviolable; to respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority. No, that is not in the Basic Law. No, there is not at the forefront of the market and competition, but about the dignity of man. Free market and competition are important, but not sacred. The economic order that has the German company gutgetan so and that would also be good for European society as is, Social market economy, not free market economy. It is therefore important that, in all the desire in the competition, the common good does not come under the wheels. For the common good, it counts when jobs can be secured. This may, as economists formulate the, be a “außerwettbewerblicher aspect”. But it is an important consideration.
When Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel tries to safeguard jobs within the possibilities that expressly gives the law to him by ministerial approval Tengelmann, which is not to blame, but to praise. To blame is the Cartel Division of the Oberlandesgericht Dusseldorf, the “partiality” subordinated to the Minister so in harsher form. This is ridiculous and absurd. A minister who wishes to gain employment is not self-conscious, but also makes policy; self-conscious, if he would thus secure private benefits would be; not also claim Gabriels biggest critic. A social democrat who would not seek within the law and its political possibilities to get 16 000 jobs in 451 Tengelmann Shopping markets, would be an irresponsible wastrel. One can argue whether the conditions at Edeka with which he tries to claim that will be successful; the judges doubt that; but this is a policy issue, not a legal. Higher Regional judges are no top economic policy makers.
Tengelmänner and Tengelfrauen are grateful if the policy takes care of their jobs
In the dispute over the merger of Tengelmann and Edeka which Gabriel my ministerial approval with strict conditions has approved, it is not just about Tengelmann and Edeka and not just about jobs. It’s about power issues, the relationship between justice and politics and to the separation of powers. The decisions of the Cartel Court in matters Tengelmann are a legal declaration of war of three judges not only to Minister Gabriel, but against the policy as such. The judges want to replace the political discretion by their own discretion; they want to control the economic policy legally so that their is no scope in a particular case. The cartel judges want her subject (antitrust law, is intended to prevent dominant mergers), not see spotted with social and otherwise supposedly competitive foreign viewpoints. They therefore agitate against the statutory instrument that they consider an intrusion of politics into the law of the economy: the ministerial approval. The cartel judges does not fit the ministerial approval, they consider them contrary to the system. Actually, they want to rip the relevant paragraphs; but that they should not; the use only with the Federal Constitutional Court. But instead of the law submitted for examination there, the judges tear substitute the Minister in the air. The judges make policy; to them is not. Hans-Peter Uhl, legal adviser to the CDU / CSU parliamentary group, otherwise no friend of Gabriel and the SPD has, therefore, defended the minister in Handelsblatt against the attacks of the judge.
Ministerial approval allows an economy minister in 43 years to approve a merger also opposing the decision of the Bundeskartellamt at the request of the fusion consent companies. This is not often; 21 times has been an application since 1973, only in eight cases, ministerial approval has been granted. So that was now in case number 22, the case Tengelmann; for the first time it was on the argument job security and not to international competitiveness based (as in 2002 at E.ON / Ruhrgas) or the like.
Cartel and Monopolies Commission had the Edeka merger rejected by warning of a concentration spiral ; the loss of jobs was of no consequence in its opinions. Such consequences, the Monopolies Commission cold, could indeed be mitigated by the positive macroeconomic environment. So a set of the laid-off Tengelfrau can frame then. Most women Schlecker (Economy Minister Philipp Rösler, FDP, had then prevented a transfer company for Schlecker) are still unemployed
bodies, which are only obliged to competition law may talk so cold. not one in the public interest Obligated politicians. Gabriel has attempted to link the fusion via pad at the conclusion of legally secure collective agreements. The cartel judge but make fun in disconcerting ways. Make to the way that leads to ministerial approval, so demanding, that they are practically unrealizable. The judges make the political decision Minister bureaucratic Ministry decision whose review you replace with your own reviews. That’s not legal interpretation as it belongs to judge everyday, that’s political empowerment.
It may happen that a court considers a law to make little sense. But it may, this law will not apply so that it loses its meaning and is inapplicable; a court may not be in this way even the legislature. That must a court only if it is the Federal Constitutional Court; it may reject laws. Then, if there is no law, but things (such as the right to industrial action) must be controlled, courts can also act quite creatively; the entire right to strike is therefore case law. And if the legislature, as many a time, it is above decisions must stand in the Supreme Court, and alternatively make policy. But only then!
Judges are independent. This is a good thing. But the cartel Richter in Dusseldorf have confused something: independence does not mean independence from the law
.
No comments:
Post a Comment