Das am 23. März 1933 vom Reichstag beschlossene Ermächtigungsgesetz zog einen Schlussstrich unter die Weimarer Verfassung. Von den Nationalsozialisten selbst wurde es als wichtige Legitimationsgrundlage ihrer Herrschaft verstanden. Die Demokratie in Deutschland fand mit dem Gesetzesbeschluss ihr vorläufiges Ende. Der Staatsrechtler Philipp Austermann erklärt anlässlich des 90. Jahrestages des Gesetzes, warum und wie es zustande kam, ob es überhaupt legal war, welche verfassungsrechtlichen und politischen Folgen es hatte und welche Schlüsse nach 1945 daraus für das Grundgesetz gezogen wurden. (Verlagswerbung)
Members of the German Bundestag and members of the state legislatures (Landesparlamente) receive a salary for their mandate (so-called remuneration). They are also entitled to so-called Members' allowances (Amtsausstattung), which consist of monetary allowances and benefits in kind. German Members of Parliament normally have the right to use public transport free of charge and/or the right of reimbursement of travel costs. The development of the financial compensation for members of parliament from the times of the Kaiserreich to this day shows very clearly how the parliamentary mandate has become a fulltime job. An adequate income and appropriate Members' allowances are key conditions for a true democracy and successful parliamentary representation. A sound financial basis of this kind is essential (a) for enabling everyone to participate in the political life of the State and (b) to secure the inevitable professionalism of the parliamentary mandate. Adapted from the source document.
Ever since the Federal Constitutional Court was founded in 1951, it had to deal with the status of the Members of Parliament, especially their income situation. Its decisions strongly effect the Members' legal position. The remuneration for the Members of Parliament has been subject of several proceedings. In an important key case, known as the "Diatenurteil" ("remuneration case") in 1975, the Court decided that the "job profile" of the deputies had changed and had become a "fulltime-job". Therefore the nature of the remuneration had changed as well. It was no longer seen as a non-taxable representation allowance but as a taxable salary. The Court also tried to answer other questions concerning the parliamentary mandate. In this and following cases it prohibited extra allowances for Members of Parliament with a special function in a parliamentary standing committee or a parliamentary party (with an exception for the President of the Parliament, the vice-presidents and the chairmen of the parliamentary parties). However, the reasoning in these decisions is not very convincing. In 2007, the Court had to deal with the question whether other paid work at the time of the mandate is legally acceptable. It was not able to find a common position in that case but was divided into two "fractions". Adapted from the source document.
