Fundamentos destacados: 132. (2) También se argumenta que quienes se encuentran a bordo de un avión que […] va a ser utilizado para destruir la vida de otras personas están condenados de todos modos. Sin embargo, este argumento no altera el hecho de que la medida adoptada sobre la base de la disposición impugnada, que normalmente da lugar a la muerte de personas inocentes en una situación desesperada, equivale a una violación del derecho a la dignidad de estas personas. La vida y la dignidad humana de cada persona gozan de la misma protección constitucional, independientemente de la duración de su existencia física (cf. C I, II 2 b aa supra). Cualquiera que cuestione esto o lo ponga en duda niega a quienes se encuentran en una situación de emergencia sin alternativas —como las víctimas de un secuestro aéreo— el respeto que les corresponde en reconocimiento de su dignidad (cf. C II 2 b aa, bb, aaa supra).
[…]
155. Dado que la Federación no tenía competencia legislativa para promulgar el artículo 14, apartado 3, de la Ley de seguridad aérea, la disposición no es válida, ni siquiera en la medida en que el uso directo de la fuerza contra una aeronave pudiera estar justificado con arreglo al Derecho constitucional sustantivo. La disposición es inconstitucional en su totalidad y, por tanto, nula de conformidad con la primera frase del apartado 3 del artículo 95 de la Ley del Tribunal Constitucional Federal (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BVerfGG). Dadas las circunstancias, no cabe una mera declaración de incompatibilidad de la disposición impugnada con la Ley Fundamental.
[Traducción de LP]
132. (2) It is also argued that those who are on board a plane that […] is to be used to destroy the lives of other people are doomed anyway. However, this argument does not alter the fact that the measure taken on the basis of the challenged provision, which typically results in the killing of innocent people in a desperate situation, amounts to a violation of the right to dignity of these people. Each person’s life and human dignity are afforded the same constitutional protection regardless of the duration of their physical existence (cf. C I, II 2 b aa above). Anyone who contests this or calls it into question denies those who are in an emergency situation with no alternatives – like the victims of an aircraft hijacking – the respect that they are due in recognition of their dignity (cf. C II 2 b aa, bb, aaa above).
[…]
155. Given that the Federation did not have the legislative competence to enact § 14(3) of the Aviation Security Act, the provision is not valid, including insofar as the direct use of force against an aircraft could be justified under substantive constitutional law. The provision is unconstitutional in its entirety and is therefore void pursuant to § 95(3) first sentence of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BVerfGG). Under the given circumstances, there is no scope for a mere declaration of incompatibility of the challenged provision with the Basic Law.
[Idioma original]
Headnotes
to the judgment of the First Senate of 15 February 2006
1 BvR 357/05
1. Article 35.2 sentence 2 and 35.3 sentence 1 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) directly grants the Federation the right to issue regulations that provide the details concerning the deployment of the armed forces for the control of natural disasters and in the case of especially grave accidents in accordance with these provisions and concerning the cooperation with the Länder (states) affected. The concept of an “especially grave accident” [within the meaning of Article 35.2 sentence 2 of the Basic Law] also comprises events in which a disaster can be expected to happen with near certainty.
2. Article 35.2 sentence 2 and 35.3 sentence 1 of the Basic Law does not permit the Federation to order missions of the armed forces with specifically military weapons for the control of natural disasters and in the case of especially grave accidents.
3. The armed forces’ authorisation pursuant to § 14.3 of the Aviation Security Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz – LuftSiG) to shoot down by the direct use of armed force an aircraft that is intended to be used against human lives is incompatible with the right to life under Article 2.2 sentence 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the guarantee of human dignity under Article 1.1 of the Basic Law to the extent that it affects persons on board the aircraft who are not participants in the crime.
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
In the proceedings
on
the constitutional complaints
of Dr. H (…),
of Mr. B(…),
of Dr. F(…),
of Dr. H(…),
of Mr. T(…), Dipl.-Ing.,
of Mr. A(…),
– authorised representative of complainants 1 to 6:
Rechtsanwalt Dr. Burkhard Hirsch,
Rheinallee 120, 40545 Düsseldorf –
against § 14.3 of the Aviation Security Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz – LuftSiG) of 11
January 2005 (Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt – BGBl) I p. 78).
the Federal Constitutional Court – First Senate –
with the participation ofJustices
President Papier,
Haas,
Hömig,
Steiner,
Hohmann-Dennhardt,
Hoffmann-Riem,
Bryde,
Gaier
held on the basis of the oral hearing of 9 November 2005:
Judgment:
1. § 14.3 of the Aviation Security Act of 11 January 2005 (Federal Law Gazette I page 78) is incompatible with Article 2.2 sentence 1 in conjunction with Article 87a.2 and Article 35.2 and 35.3 and in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law and hence void.
2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to reimburse the complainants their necessary expenses.
Reasons:
A.
The constitutional complaint challenges the armed forces’ authorisation by the Aviation Security Act to shoot down, by the direct use of armed force, aircraft that are intended to be used as weapons in crimes against human lives.
I.
1. On 11 September 2001, four passenger planes of US American airlines were hijacked in the United States of America by an international terrorist organisation and caused to crash. Two of the planes hit the World Trade Center in New York, on crashed into the Pentagon, the Ministry of Defence of the United States of America.
The crash of the fourth plane occurred southeast of Pittsburgh in the state of Pennsylvania, after, possibly, the intervention of passengers on board had resulted in a change of the plane’s course. More than 3,000 persons in the planes, in the area of the World Trade Center, and in the Pentagon died in the attacks.
[Continúa…]
