Voluntary self-control in the outsourcing of legislation

Also in the future, so the Federal Government, law firms participate in the development of laws

Coarse Chancellien, which has been charged at law – spat, since then the participation of the law firm Freshfields, which represents the financial industry worldwide, was known in the financial market stabilization law, this topic is highlighted in the focus of the Office. The suspicion that here stakeholders for their own clientele laws lies close to. In the field of financial market legislation, there are a number of similar cases.

For the Federal Government and the affected ministries, this legislative routseourcing is obviously no problem, in any case, a replacement of this form of legislation is not foreseeable. Therefore, the institute of legislation, which was rounded up in the end of 2009, saved itself on a conference with this problem.

Max Stadler (FDP), Parliamentary State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice. Photos. Dow

Why, however, ministries of the preparation of law on private providers? Lobbyism and the laziness of their own officials, the parliamentary State Secretar in the Ministry of Justice, Max Stadler (FDP) explained, fell out. Rather, the procurement of law firms would then make sense if a regulation will be created within a very short time. Sometimes it is a lengthy affair, until in-house a line "stuck" is, in addition, there is anticipated in the conventional proceedings with the coalition partners, the Federal Council and the Bundestag. When using a law firm can be dispensed with it. In addition, real knowledge is more likely to be found outside the ministries than within. Since topics such as the financial market crisis are not easily accessible in laws, Stadler finds it legitimate to involve third parties.

Criticism of the attitude of the State Secretary came from state lawyer Matthias Rossi. Although state actors were not entitled to formulate the truth, which is why the introduction of external expertise also increases the acceptance of legislation. However, this general acceptance will be charging again as soon as you see who will influence the legislation. The argument, law firms worked faster, he does not want to be considered: Democracy is also the duty to slaughter, says Rossi. In addition, all essential forms of influence before the actual legislative act. Thus, the parliament was reduced to his form, the content influence noid.

Matthias Rossi teaches state and administrative law, European law and legislator at the University of Augsburg. Photos. Dow

Similarly, this also sees the Prasident of the Federal Rights Office Axel Filges. Although he is in principle open to the legislative routseourcing, but he too: he also negotiates the laws that lie on the table. This also determines the one who develops the draft, the framework of the decision-making. What does not stand in the design, will not advise anymore, instead only argue about formulations. "Consultation is always co-decision", Ulrich Battis brought the problem to the point.

For State Secretar Stadler, however, an influence of legislation is not given by the law firms – after all, the "Struck law", After which no law leaves the Bundestag as it comes in. Since the decision power ultimately at the couch, which to say goodbye to the draft, it does not matter how a law has arisen. However, most important transparency and the right choice of law firms.

Like this transparency in practice looks sometimes, a response of the black-red federal government to the question of Rainer Bruderle (FDP), which counseling institutions, including law firms, to which laws have been involved: With numerous laws, there is simply the remark "not specified". The reason: In a previous government’s response to a request to the same topic of Wolfgang Neskovic (Linke), the Federal Government already called the paid fees paid. Around the "Operating and business secrecy" To preserve, the government refused to give out the names of the consultants. Real transparency is so hardly possible. In doing so, this form of secrecy is unnecessarily, as Kai of Lewinski exported: Since the client is Mr. of the proceedings, thirst for this over the circumstances of the mandate – and thus also the fee.

What remains is the risk of conflict of interest. If a law firm develops a bill to a fiscal topic and at the same time pays banks to their client circle, could be inclined to influence the draft in favor of their clients from the private sector. Of course, the law firms active in the field of the law. For example, Norbert Wimmer is from the law firm White Case believes that there are no alone "Hidden agenda" was to be fired because a lawyer is obliged to professional law only the client.

To believe that a professional regime was an effective maaking to prevent unwanted influence on legislation, is quite naive. So if you control the cooperation of the law firms on laws and systematically knocks on conflicts of interest? The answer gives the Federal Government itself: "It is obligation of the contractors to ensure compliance with regulatory and legal specifications." The commissioned law firm should therefore seek self-prefix according to conflicts of conflict, to refer to these indications and, if necessary, from their mandate, and thus a lucrative order,. However, such a case has not yet become known in connection with legislative route tourcing.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: