»Save Article 15« | Socialization: Protest against the federal government's blocking law

Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) would like to prohibit the state of Berlin from socializing housing stock. But the federal government is not allowed to do that, says an open letter. Photo: dpa/Fabian Sommer Berlin wants to expropriate large housing companies. In 2021, Berliners decided this in a referendum launched by the “Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen und Co” (DWE) initiative. The subsequent Berlin state governments never implemented the referendum. That could change now. Five years later, after the House of Representatives election, the Berlin Left, the Greens and the SPD agreed to socialize 160,000 apartments if they formed a coalition. The black-red federal government, however, wants to put a stop to this before it even gets to that point. In July she announced that she wanted to pass a law that would take away the federal states' authority to socialize. The declaration of intent has been renewed again and again, most recently by Federal Construction Minister Verena Hubertz (SPD).

There is now opposition to this: More than 200 people have signed an open letter to the federal government in which they speak out against a blocking law and in favor of an open basic law. Among them are many trade unionists, including Verdi chairman Frank Werneke and IG BAU chairman Carsten Burckhardt. Numerous scientists have also signed, such as law professor Isabel Feichtner and social scientist Alex Demirović.

“The question of socialization must be decided in the democratic process - a blocking law prevents exactly that,” says the letter entitled “Save Article 15”. The proponents of socialization refer to Article 15 of the Basic Law. It says: "Land, natural resources and means of production can be transferred to common property or other forms of public economy for the purpose of socialization through a law that regulates the type and extent of compensation."

There are considerable doubts as to whether a blocking law is constitutional. Timo Laven is a legal scholar and holds a doctorate on Article 15. He also signed the open letter. “The states are only responsible for socialization if the federal government does not make full use of its authority,” he explains in an interview with “nd”. As long as the federal government itself does not socialize, the states have the right to do so. Enacting a law "without any positive content of its own" that only serves to block the powers of the states contradicts the established case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, said Laven.

"The question of socialization must be decided in the democratic process - a blocking law prevents exactly that."

The remaining signatories of the open letter are also certain: such a law would be unconstitutional. It is said that a simple federal law cannot make socialization impossible for the states. In addition to the competence regulations, which Laven also addresses, the open letter cites another procedural reason: "Any blocking law would undermine an article of the Basic Law without having the necessary two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat to change the constitution." This contradicts the spirit of the Basic Law, no matter how tricky the wording may be.

In addition, two further points of criticism are formulated. On the one hand, a blocking law contradicts the founding consensus of the Federal Republic. On the one hand, the Basic Law protects personal property, but distinguishes it from economic power resources such as “land, natural resources and means of production,” according to the open letter. "The Basic Law thus opens up the possibility for current and future generations to organize parts of the economy as a public economy." Only if this choice is retained can "our economic order" claim legitimacy.

On the other hand, a blocking law disregards the will of the population, which was expressed with the positive result of the 2021 referendum. “One can argue about the usefulness of this decision, like any majority decision,” says the open letter. To subsequently block him from a higher level is still wrong and violates the principle of democracy. "If you want to defend democracy, you also have to respect uncomfortable referendums."

Even if no blocking law were passed, it is certain that a decision by the Berlin state government to socialize the housing stocks of large housing companies would end up before the Federal Constitutional Court. Article 15 of the Basic Law has not yet been applied. How the court would decide is difficult to say. “Decisions of this magnitude by the Federal Constitutional Court are difficult to predict,” says lawyer Laven. However, the previously known draft law from the DWE initiative is based on the results of the expert commission. This committee, made up of numerous renowned constitutional lawyers, came to the conclusion in 2023 that socialization was in principle legally possible. The design was worked out very carefully and rests on a “very solid foundation,” says Laven. "And it is based on Article 15, which enshrines the possibility of socialization in the constitution."

This article cost you nothing. Us: research, production and technology. We saved on office rent as well as on printing and distribution. And we gave up salary. Nevertheless, the calculation doesn't work without you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year. You pay what you can, in return we keep writing.

No paywall, no small print, just one goal: that nd stays.