“Investment Protection Act”: Dobrindt wants to undermine the Basic Law

Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) wants to use all means possible to prevent the socialization of living space, as planned by the possible new red-green-red government in Berlin. “Arbitrary left-wing socialization fetish” is incompatible with the Basic Law, he told Bild.

In doing so, Dobrindt brings himself to the point of absurdity, because socialization is expressly provided for in the Basic Law. In principle, the application of Article 15 is not an attack on the Basic Law, but rather takes its possibilities seriously.

The key points of the “Investment Protection Act” that have now become known impose high hurdles. The socialization of rental apartments should only be permitted if it can be clearly proven that they are necessary.

The taz is an independent, left-wing and opinionated daily newspaper. We have been arguing in our comments, essays and debate texts since the taz was founded in 1979. We often cannot and do not want to agree on an opinion. That's why you'll find some completely opposing positions here - all part of the very broad left-wing spectrum of opinions.

This means: The Berlin state government would have to prove that investments and funding for housing construction have already been exhausted in order to overcome the rent crisis in the capital. If socialization does occur, compensation should be based on the market value - which constitutional lawyers view critically.

In addition, according to the Basic Law, socialization falls within the scope of competing legislation. Since the federal government has not decided on its own legal regulations, it is the states' turn. And a federal law may only be passed here in exceptional cases, namely if the “establishment of equivalent living conditions in the federal territory or the preservation of legal or economic unity” make this necessary.

It is questionable whether this applies to the “Investment Protection Act”. According to what is known, the federal government does not itself shape socialization in a positive way, but simply restricts it through the states.

In order to legally prevent socialization, an amendment to the Basic Law would be needed, but for this there is not the necessary two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat. The Interior Minister should therefore ask himself what the legality of his own plans is.