In 1987 Björn Engholm was the target of a smear campaign run from the office of his rival Uwe Barschel. Engholm then became minister-president of Schleswig-Holstein and chairman of the Social Democrats. By 1993 he was the favorite to become the party’s candidate for chancellor. Then it came out that he had known about Barschel’s methods earlier than he had said. He had made false statements in the late phase of the Barschel affair. On 3 May 1993 he resigned. A news portal summed it up: Der Verlust seiner Glaubwürdigkeit kostete ihn das Amt, the loss of his credibility cost him the office.
The Stasi Past in Public Service
The Unification Treaty of 1990 gave public employers in the former East Germany a special ground for dismissal. Work for the Stasi could justify dismissal without notice if keeping the employee seemed unzumutbar, unreasonable to expect. On 3 April 1990 the theologian Heinrich Fink was elected rector of Humboldt University in Berlin. In November 1991 the federal commissioner for the Stasi records reported that Fink had been registered as an informant. The university dismissed him without notice. On 8 July 1997 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the special ground is compatible with the Basic Law. Each case, it said, must be judged on its own. The more important the employee’s position, the less the employer can be expected to keep him.
Time and openness also counted in a related ground, a lack of personal fitness. On 13 September 1995 the Federal Labor Court ruled on an employee who had answered a Stasi questionnaire falsely. A deliberately false answer belegt nicht zwangsläufig, does not necessarily prove, a lack of personal fitness. It counts in the employee’s favor if the Stasi work lies far in the past. It also counts if he reported it als er noch nicht mit der Aufdeckung seiner früheren Tätigkeit für das MfS rechnen mußte, when he did not yet have to expect his past to be uncovered.
The Candidate Who Was Dr. Schirmer
Wolfgang Schnur was a lawyer who had defended East German dissidents. In 1990 he led the new party Demokratischer Aufbruch, Democratic Awakening. Helmut Kohl campaigned with him and saw him as a possible East German prime minister. On 5 March 1990, reports came out that Schnur had worked for the Stasi as an informant. He said the files could not refer to him, and on 8 March he rejected the accusations again. Then a former Stasi officer said that Schnur had been a top informant under the cover name Dr. Schirmer. Schnur resigned in mid-March, days before the Volkskammer election of March 1990. In 1993 he lost his license to practice law. In 1996 a Berlin court convicted him.
Her Husband’s Reports
Vera Lengsfeld was an East German civil rights activist. In 1988 she was jailed for a protest against the regime and then expelled from the country. In 1991 she learned that her husband, the poet Knud Wollenberger, had informed on her to the Stasi under the code name Donald. He had been an informant since 1972, and he went on writing reports on her during their marriage. They divorced in 1992. In 2000, when he was gravely ill, she forgave him. She later told the broadcaster Al Jazeera: “You can only forgive somebody if they are repentant.” She also said: “It took my former husband 10 years but he was repentant.”
The License Comes Back Only With Proof
A German driver who loses the license for driving with 1.6 per mille of alcohol or more cannot simply apply again after the ban. The Driving License Regulation requires a medizinisch-psychologische Untersuchung, a medical and psychological examination. Germans call it the MPU, or the Idiotentest, the idiot test. It includes a medical check, reaction tests and an interview with a psychologist. According to the legal publisher Haufe, the psychologist expects konkrete Anhaltspunkte für eine daraus resultierende Verhaltensänderung, concrete signs of a change in behavior. In March 2021 the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the authority may order the test even below 1.6 per mille. This applies when there are signs of an unusually high tolerance for alcohol, such as driving with 1.1 per mille or more without visible impairment.
Lost the Trust for Good
German disciplinary law for federal civil servants names trust as one of its measures. Section 13 of the Federal Disciplinary Act says that account should be taken of how far the civil servant has damaged das Vertrauen des Dienstherrn oder der Allgemeinheit, the trust of the employer or of the public. The most severe step depends on one condition. A civil servant who, through a serious breach of duty, das Vertrauen des Dienstherrn oder der Allgemeinheit endgültig verloren hat, who has lost that trust for good, is removed from service.
How Long a Conviction Counts
A German employer often asks an applicant for a Führungszeugnis, a certificate of conduct from the Federal Central Register. A conviction does not stay on it forever. The Federal Central Register Act sets fixed periods. For a fine, or for a prison sentence of up to three months, the period is three years. For most longer sentences it is five years, and for serious sexual offenses it is ten. Some small first convictions do not appear on the certificate at all. These are fines of up to 90 daily rates and prison sentences of up to three months. Once the period has passed, the law says: Verurteilte dürfen sich als unbestraft bezeichnen. Convicted persons may call themselves unpunished. Since 1 May 2010 there has also been an erweitertes Führungszeugnis, an extended certificate, for people who work with minors. It also lists smaller convictions for certain offenses relevant to the protection of children and young people.
Dismissal on Suspicion
German labor law allows an employer to dismiss an employee because of a suspicion alone. This is the Verdachtskündigung, the dismissal on suspicion. The employer does not have to prove the offense. The Federal Labor Court accepts that the suspicion of serious misconduct can by itself destroy the trust needed to continue the job. The conditions are strict. The suspicion must be dringend, urgent. Before the dismissal, the employer must hear the employee and give him a chance to answer. In a ruling of 25 April 2018, the court said that the employee must be able to see which facts the employer wants to clear up. If his innocence is shown later, he may have a right to be hired again.
A Banker’s Diaries and a Mayor’s Calendar
In the Cum-Ex tax affair, written records decided what the public learned. The Hamburg banker Christian Olearius kept diaries. Prosecutors seized them in their investigation against him. When entries were published, they revealed meetings with Olaf Scholz, then mayor of Hamburg. Scholz had at first denied the meetings. A review of his calendars later showed that he had received Olearius at city hall, the last time on 10 November 2017. On 30 April 2021 Scholz testified before the investigating committee of the Hamburg parliament. He was asked about what Olearius’s side had argued at the meetings. Zwar könne er dazu aus eigener Erinnerung nichts sagen, he could say nothing about it from his own memory, he said. He denied any influence on the tax decision.
A Will in One’s Own Hand
A German can make a valid will with one sheet of paper and no notary. Section 2247 of the Civil Code allows it. Der Erblasser kann ein Testament durch eine eigenhändig geschriebene und unterschriebene Erklärung errichten. The testator can make a will by a declaration written and signed in his own hand. The law adds that he should state when and where he wrote it, with the day, the month and the year.