Search results

Verhältnis der Bevölkerung zum Recht, zu Rechtsinstitutionen und zu
Juristen.

Themen: Kenntnis der zuständigen Gerichte und der Aufgabe des
Bundesverfassungsgerichts; Art und Häufigkeit von Gerichtskontakten;
Teilnahme an Gerichtsverhandlungen als Zuschauer; Einstellung zu und
Kenntnis der Funktionen von Rechtsanwälten, Staatsanwälten und Richtern;
Image von Staatsanwälten und Richtern (semantisches Differential);
allgemeine Bewertung von Gerichtsurteilen; Einschätzung des Ansehens der
Gerichte in den Massenmedien; Lesen von Zeitschriften; Ansprechpartner
in juristischen Fragen und Distanz zur Rechtspflege; eigene Kontakte zu
einem Rechtsanwalt; allgemeine Einstellung zu Juristen; Kenntnis von
Prozeßmodalitäten und Prozeßkosten; vermuteter Einfluß des Einkommens
des Beklagten sowie der Qualität des Rechtsanwalts auf den
Prozeßausgang; Einstellung zum Einzelrichter versus Richtergremium;
Rechtsnorm oder sittliche Bewertung als Kriterium für
Sanktionsverlangen, dargestellt an verschiedenen Sachverhalten wie z. B.
Steuerhinterziehung, Schwarzarbeit, Fahrerflucht, Rauschmittelkonsum,
Selbstmordversuch, Diebstahl, Kuppelei und abweichendem Sexualverhalten;
Beurteilung des Zwecks von Strafen und Bewertung von
Resozialisierungsmaßnahmen; geeignete Mittel zur Senkung der
Kriminalität; Einstellung zum Strafvollzug, zur Todesstrafe und zur
Prügelstrafe sowie zur Ehescheidung; politisches Interesse; Einstellung
zu gesellschaftlichen Interessenverbänden, staatlichen und privaten
Institutionen und Parteien; Beschwerdeverhalten gegenüber Behörden;
Einstellung zu mehr staatlicher Kontrolle und zu einem Verbot radikaler
Parteien; Beurteilung der Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung in der
BRD; eigene Strafen; Parteipräferenz; Arbeitszufriedenheit (Skala);
Ortsgröße.

Demographie: Alter; Geschlecht; Familienstand; Kinderzahl; Konfession;
Religiosität; Schulbildung; Berufsausbildung; Berufstätigkeit;
Einkommen; soziale Herkunft; Bundesland; regionale Herkunft.

Rolle und Einfluss der Europäischen Union bei familienrechtlichen Angelegenheiten (Scheidung, Sorgerecht, Erbrecht) innerhalb der EU; wahrgenommene Unterstützung durch europäische Konsulate/Botschaften im Ausland bei persönlichen Notlagen.

Juristische Schwierigkeiten von Unternehmen bei grenzüberschreitenden Transaktionen innerhalb der EU.

Beteiligung von Unternehmen in der EU an grenzüberschreitenden Transaktionen. Stellenwert von juristischen Hindernissen beim grenzüberschreitenden Handel. Verankerung des Vertragsrechtes im internationalen Grenzverkehr.

Die Studie zum Grundgesetz wurde vom Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach im Auftrag des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung durchgeführt. Im Erhebungszeitraum 04.08.2023 bis 16.08.2023 wurde die deutsche Bevölkerung ab 16 Jahren in persönlichen Interviews zu folgenden Themen befragt: Einstellungen zur Demokratie und zum politischen System in Deutschland, Vertrauen in das Grundgesetz und das Bundesverfassungsgericht, Wissensstand zum Grundgesetz sowie Bekanntheit und Bewertung einzelner Grundrechte. Außerdem spielten mögliche Änderungen des Grundgesetzes (Recht auf digitale Souveränität, Kinderrechte, Modifizierung des Asylrechts) eine Rolle. Die Auswahl der Befragten erfolgte durch eine Quotenstichprobe.

The project consists of a database containing all intentional, completed homicides in Switzerland from 1990 till 2014. Information about the offender, the victim and the circumstances of the offences are collected. The offences are categorized into different types of homicide to give consideration to the heterogeneity of this offence.
Data were collected in the context of two different SNF-projects. The first one (1990-2004) has already been published (homicide in Switzerland over twenty years [1980-2002]). For the current project, the new data (2005-2014) are completed with the old ones.

The project is methodologically inspired by an previous study carried out by Wolf Linder at IDHEAP in Lausanne in 1985 on the subject of "legal inflation". At that time, the population and development of Swiss laws from 1947 to 1982 were statistically documented and evaluated on the basis of a complete survey. Based on a methodological approach that, similar to demography, distinguishes between population and flow variables, the growth of legislation with all additions and removals as well as the evolution of the scope of legislative activity were collected and analysed for all legislative bodies and standardisation levels as well as the various fields of activity. The predominantly descriptive study, published in a journal article and in book form, provided for the first time a comprehensive picture of the longer-term evolution of legislative activity and also refuted popular assertions such as that of "legislative inflation" or the increase in "prescriptive" vis-à-vis the "constitutional state".
The current project examines legislative activity from 1983-2007, enabling a second 25-year period to provide interesting information and comparisons with the results of the previous study. However, in line with the further developed state of research and the statistical data now available on parliamentary and general Swiss policy research, a number of new analytical questions offer themselves:
- Can the "internationalization of politics" also be determined at the level of intensified international legislative activity and typical areas (above all economic and environmental legislation), as postulated in the literature on globalization?
- Does the legislative activity in individual areas (e.g. environmental law) follow economic cycles?
- Does strong controversy lead to longer treatment of a bill, but to more frequent revision of the law?
- Does globalisation lead to a stronger position of the executive in lawmaking or, conversely, has parliamentary reform led to a stronger position of the Councils in legislation?

This research is part of sentencing studies, that is, the process by which judges punish offenders. In order to study the effect of order (i.e. whether the order in which the evidence is administered influences judicial decisions) and the compensatory effect linked to the paradox of conviction (i.e. that in order to convict, judges would be satisfied with clues that are all the less convincing the more serious the crime committed, but that they would then compensate their lack of conviction with a less severe sentence), this research proposes to conduct a broad survey of all criminal judges in Switzerland.

The evaluation mandate is based on a motion by National Councilor Vreni Hubmann (02.3142). Hubmann demanded that retaliatory firing in private law employment relationships should be void rather than contestable and that the duration of protection against dismissal should be extended appropriately (amendment Art. 10 Gender Equality Act - GEA). Since the topic of retaliatory firing cannot be examined on its own, the evaluation was extended to the question of how the Gender Equality Act (GEA) meets his claim. Possible weaknesses of the law should be pointed out and any need for reform identified. The activities and scope of action of the Federal Office for Gender Equality are not the subject of the evaluation, and in particular not the financial aid under the Gender Equality Act. These two areas have already been examined in earlier evaluations.
The evaluation comprises three levels:
- Investigation and evaluation of cases concerning the Gender Equality Act (courts and arbitration boards)
- Interviewing various stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Gender Equality Act on their experiences
- Statistical analysis of wages and occupational status of women and men (based on the Swiss Earnings Structure Survey) as the most important indicators of an unequal employment situation. The third point is governed by a separate mandate from the Federal Statistical Office and not part of the project presented here.
The topics examined here are:
- Knowledge level of the GEA and its regulations
- Influence of the GEA on the development and status of equality in the work environment
- Concrete cases of discrimination: at the level of companies, counseling, conciliation boards and courts
- New regulations in the GEA: collective actions, simplified burden of proof, protection against dismissal and sexual harassment as well as
- Legislative development
As points of reference of the impact assessment are the problems in the enforcement of equal rights for women and men that the GEA was supposed to solve:
- Lack of awareness of discrimination (instrument in law: general prohibition of discrimination)
- Exposure (instrument: collective action right)
- Difficult adducing of proof (instrument: simplified burden of proof)
- Missing protection against dismissal (instrument: protection against dismissal)
- Lack of support (instrument: arbitration bodies, funding of counseling centers)
- Expensive procedures (instrument: freedom of costs for the procedure)
- Taboo topic sexual harassment (instrument: liability of the employer for sexual harassment)

The evaluation mandate is based on a motion by National Councilor Vreni Hubmann (02.3142). Hubmann demanded that retaliatory firing in private law employment relationships should be void rather than contestable and that the duration of protection against dismissal should be extended appropriately (amendment Art. 10 Gender Equality Act - GEA). Since the topic of retaliatory firing cannot be examined on its own, the evaluation was extended to the question of how the Gender Equality Act (GEA) meets his claim. Possible weaknesses of the law should be pointed out and any need for reform identified. The activities and scope of action of the Federal Office for Gender Equality are not the subject of the evaluation, and in particular not the financial aid under the Gender Equality Act. These two areas have already been examined in earlier evaluations.
The evaluation comprises three levels:
- Investigation and evaluation of cases concerning the Gender Equality Act (courts and arbitration boards)
- Interviewing various stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Gender Equality Act on their experiences
- Statistical analysis of wages and occupational status of women and men (based on the Swiss Earnings Structure Survey) as the most important indicators of an unequal employment situation. The third point is governed by a separate mandate from the Federal Statistical Office and not part of the project presented here.
The topics examined here are:
- Knowledge level of the GEA and its regulations
- Influence of the GEA on the development and status of equality in the work environment
- Concrete cases of discrimination: at the level of companies, counseling, conciliation boards and courts
- New regulations in the GEA: collective actions, simplified burden of proof, protection against dismissal and sexual harassment as well as
- Legislative development
As points of reference of the impact assessment are the problems in the enforcement of equal rights for women and men that the GEA was supposed to solve:
- Lack of awareness of discrimination (instrument in law: general prohibition of discrimination)
- Exposure (instrument: collective action right)
- Difficult adducing of proof (instrument: simplified burden of proof)
- Missing protection against dismissal (instrument: protection against dismissal)
- Lack of support (instrument: arbitration bodies, funding of counseling centers)
- Expensive procedures (instrument: freedom of costs for the procedure)
- Taboo topic sexual harassment (instrument: liability of the employer for sexual harassment)

The evaluation mandate is based on a motion by National Councilor Vreni Hubmann (02.3142). Hubmann demanded that retaliatory firing in private law employment relationships should be void rather than contestable and that the duration of protection against dismissal should be extended appropriately (amendment Art. 10 Gender Equality Act - GEA). Since the topic of retaliatory firing cannot be examined on its own, the evaluation was extended to the question of how the Gender Equality Act (GEA) meets his claim. Possible weaknesses of the law should be pointed out and any need for reform identified. The activities and scope of action of the Federal Office for Gender Equality are not the subject of the evaluation, and in particular not the financial aid under the Gender Equality Act. These two areas have already been examined in earlier evaluations.
The evaluation comprises three levels:
- Investigation and evaluation of cases concerning the Gender Equality Act (courts and arbitration boards)
- Interviewing various stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Gender Equality Act on their experiences
- Statistical analysis of wages and occupational status of women and men (based on the Swiss Earnings Structure Survey) as the most important indicators of an unequal employment situation. The third point is governed by a separate mandate from the Federal Statistical Office and not part of the project presented here.
The topics examined here are:
- Knowledge level of the GEA and its regulations
- Influence of the GEA on the development and status of equality in the work environment
- Concrete cases of discrimination: at the level of companies, counseling, conciliation boards and courts
- New regulations in the GEA: collective actions, simplified burden of proof, protection against dismissal and sexual harassment as well as
- Legislative development
As points of reference of the impact assessment are the problems in the enforcement of equal rights for women and men that the GEA was supposed to solve:
- Lack of awareness of discrimination (instrument in law: general prohibition of discrimination)
- Exposure (instrument: collective action right)
- Difficult adducing of proof (instrument: simplified burden of proof)
- Missing protection against dismissal (instrument: protection against dismissal)
- Lack of support (instrument: arbitration bodies, funding of counseling centers)
- Expensive procedures (instrument: freedom of costs for the procedure)
- Taboo topic sexual harassment (instrument: liability of the employer for sexual harassment)