In the Bundeswehr, soldiers elect a Vertrauensperson, a person of trust, to represent them. Before a disciplinary superior decides on certain personnel measures, he is to hear this representative, unless the soldier concerned expressly refuses it. The law adds two sentences that turn a formality into an obligation: Das Ergebnis der Anhörung ist in die Personalentscheidung einzubeziehen. Über die Anhörung ist ein Protokoll anzufertigen, das zu den Akten zu nehmen ist. (The result of the hearing must be included in the personnel decision. Minutes must be taken of the hearing and placed on file.)
law
Nearly Ten Million Objections
Anyone in Germany who disagrees with a tax assessment can file an Einspruch, an objection, within one month. In 2023, the tax offices received 9,932,766 objections, more than three times as many as the year before. The reason was the reform of the property tax, which required every property owner to file a new declaration. Of about 3.6 million objections that were settled in 2023, about 2.5 million ended with the office correcting its decision.
The Duty to Object
German civil servants carry die volle persönliche Verantwortung, the full personal responsibility, for the lawfulness of what they do in office. The law states what follows: Bedenken gegen die Rechtmäßigkeit dienstlicher Anordnungen haben Beamtinnen und Beamte unverzüglich bei der oder dem unmittelbaren Vorgesetzten geltend zu machen. (Civil servants must raise concerns about the lawfulness of official orders without delay with their immediate superior.) It is a duty, not a right. If the order stands and the doubts remain, the civil servant must go to the next superior above. If that superior confirms the order, the civil servant carries it out and is no longer personally responsible, unless the conduct ordered would violate human dignity, or is a criminal or administrative offense that the civil servant can recognize as such. This procedure is called Remonstration. The German Wikipedia adds that it is rarely used in everyday practice, because a civil servant who uses it often fears being labeled a Querulant, a troublemaker.
Dissent on the Record
Since 21 December 1970, a judge of the Federal Constitutional Court may publish the dissenting opinion he or she held in the deliberations. This Sondervotum, separate opinion, is printed with the decision. When it was introduced, it was very controversial, because many feared the court would lose authority. In practice it stays rare. Of 1,714 decisions in volumes 30 to 101 of the court’s official reports, 108 carried a separate opinion. The council of economic experts that advises the federal government, the Wirtschaftsweisen, has the same rule by law. A minority with a different view may state it in the report. Peter Bofinger, a member from 2004 to 2019, often disagreed with his colleagues and wrote minority opinions in several reports. In 2017, he wrote: Im Rat der fünf Wirtschaftsweisen gibt es zu viel Konformismus und zu wenig Minderheitsvoten. (In the council of the five economic sages there is too much conformity and too few minority opinions.)
Object Now or Lose the Right
In German private law, silence is in principle not a declaration of intent. Several rules make an exception, and they all reward the person who objects in time. A works council must be heard before every dismissal. If it has Bedenken, concerns, about an ordinary dismissal, it must state them in writing with reasons within one week. Äußert er sich innerhalb dieser Frist nicht, gilt seine Zustimmung zur Kündigung als erteilt. (If it does not respond within this period, its consent to the dismissal counts as given.) A shareholder who attended the annual meeting can, as a rule, challenge one of its resolutions in court only if he or she declared an objection for the minutes at the meeting. Between merchants, a letter confirming a deal counts as accepted unless the recipient objects without delay, and goods that are not inspected and complained about in time count as approved. A tenant who does not report a defect in the apartment promptly can lose the right to reduce the rent.
The Voting Computers
In the 2005 Bundestag election, voting computers were used in some constituencies. Two complaints were filed against the election. On 5 October 2006, the Chaos Computer Club and a Dutch group showed on Dutch television that the same type of machine could be manipulated without anyone noticing. The club examined the devices for the Federal Constitutional Court and published its report in June 2007. On 3 March 2009, the court ruled that the federal regulation on voting machines was unconstitutional. Because elections are public, the court said, the essential steps of voting and counting must be open to checking by citizens zuverlässig und ohne besondere Sachkenntnis, reliably and without special expert knowledge. The 2005 election was not repeated, because there was no sign of error or manipulation.
Recognized Rules of Technology
German construction contracts measure work against the allgemein anerkannte Regeln der Technik, the generally recognized rules of technology. Work counts as free of defects only if it has the agreed quality and follows these rules. A rule counts as recognized only when the great majority of technical experts hold it. It must also have proven itself in practice, not only in science: sich auch praktisch bewährt. For this reason, the standard takes up new methods late. A builder who departs from it carries the risk, because a departure is generally treated as a defect. A new building product with no recognized rule behind it needs a general approval from the German Institute for Building Technology before it may be used.
In November 2024, the federal cabinet approved a draft law for a Gebäudetyp E, a building type for simple and experimental building. Under the draft, in contracts between expert businesses, a departure from the recognized rules would no longer count as a defect under three conditions. It must be disclosed to the client before the work starts. The client must not object at once. And the building must remain safe and fit for use over time. A new government draft went to the Bundestag on 8 June 2026.
A New Drug Must Prove It Is Better
Since 1 January 2011, every drug with a new active substance in Germany must prove its Zusatznutzen, its added benefit, when it comes on the market. The manufacturer submits a dossier. The Federal Joint Committee, the highest self-governing body of German health care, then decides whether the drug is better than the established treatment it chose for comparison. If no added benefit is shown, statutory health insurance pays a price based on comparable drugs that already exist. New treatment methods face a similar test. In outpatient care, the Social Code allows them to be billed to statutory insurance only after the committee has recognized their benefit, auch im Vergleich zu bereits zu Lasten der Krankenkassen erbrachte Methoden, also in comparison with the methods the insurers already pay for.
Every Bill Must Name Its Problem
Bills from the German federal government open with a cover sheet in a fixed order. A bill from September 2026 is an example. Section A is Problem und Ziel, problem and goal. Section B is the solution and its benefit. Section C lists the alternatives. The sections that follow set out what the change will cost the budget, citizens and business. Since 2011, an independent council, the Nationaler Normenkontrollrat, has checked these compliance costs in every federal draft law. Since 2015, the government has followed a rule of one in, one out. A new burden on business must in principle be balanced by an equal relief somewhere else.
A Habit Becomes a Right
In German labor law, a benefit an employer repeats regularly can become an entitlement. This is called betriebliche Übung, company practice. The classic case is a Christmas bonus. If an employer pays it three years in a row without stating in writing that it is voluntary, the employee can claim it in the fourth year. The employer cannot simply withdraw a right created this way. He must give formal notice of changed terms of employment, an Änderungskündigung.