Unlike the Supreme Court, dissenting opinions are rare at the Federal Constitutional Court.

At least outwardly, they want to maintain the greatest possible unity in Karlsruhe, no matter how different the views in the secret deliberations may have been.

Even a close result like Wednesday's draws attention.

A dissenting opinion, which could hardly have been formulated more clearly, was added.

It comes from Astrid Wallrabenstein - of all people, one might think.

Marlene Grunert

Editor in Politics.

  • Follow I follow

The Frankfurt law professor, born in Münster in 1969, whose ancestors are from Hungary and whose language she is fluent in, has been a member of the court for two years.

She received her doctorate from Brun-Otto Bryde, the first constitutional judge proposed by the Greens.

After a period as a lawyer, Wallrabenstein became a professor in Bielefeld in 2008.

Her academic focus is on nationality and social law.

She spoke out decisively on these topics before her time in Karlsruhe.

In a guest article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wallrabenstein called the plans for the expatriation of IS fighters “limitlessly selfish in the literal sense”.

Germany is forgetting a promise made after the Holocaust:

Wallrabenstein was also proposed by the Greens for the Constitutional Court, as Andreas Voßkuhle's successor in the Second Senate.

It got off to a rocky start there.

At the beginning of 2021, the majority of her colleagues excluded her from a procedure because of bias.

At that time, the Senate followed a motion by Peter Gauweiler, who had fought for the ECB ruling.

Now it was about its implementation.

Statements made by Wallrabenstein in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sunday newspaper gave rise to the application for bias.

After her election and before her appointment as constitutional judge, she outlined ways of resolving the ECB conflict.

From the Senate's point of view, she did not attach "decisive importance" to "at least the wording of the judgment".

His attitude was strict.

Now it could seem as if Wallrabenstein had defiantly freed himself from the defensive.

At least in the negotiations, it didn't seem as if she had ever been there.

Wallrabenstein appears bold and pointed.

It would be misleading to accuse her of irrelevant intentions.

For the recognized scientist, it is the power of the argument that counts.

You can see that in their publications and also in the dissenting opinion.

You don't even have to share its content to find it worth considering.