Federal Constitutional Court also comments on the federal government's legislative competence regarding genetic engineering law

In its decision on the State of Saxony-Anhalt’s application for judicial review, the Federal Constitutional Court also commented on the federal government’s legislative competence on genetic engineering law pursuant to Article 74, paragraph 1, no. 26, second alternative, of the Basic Law.
The Federal Constitutional Court has stated that the federal government's legislative authority to enact regulations on genetic engineering stems from Article 74, Paragraph 1, No. 26, Second Alternative, of the Basic Law (GG). This provision was inserted into the Basic Law to provide the federal government with a clear basis of jurisdiction in the area of ​​genetic engineering relating to humans, animals, and plants, with the exception of artificial insemination (cf. BT-Drs. 12/6000, pp. 34 et seq.; BT-Drs. 12/6633, p. 9). The competence title is to be interpreted broadly. In addition to human genetics, it also covers genetic engineering relating to animals and plants and establishes comprehensive authority for the federal legislature to regulate genetic engineering law. The competence title therefore encompasses not only regulations concerning research and development using genetic engineering techniques, but also other standards governing the use and handling of genetically modified organisms. It concluded that not only the definitions of "genetically modified organisms" and "placing on the market" (Section 3 Nos. 3 and 6 of the Genetic Engineering Act), but also the provisions legally and functionally embedded in genetic engineering law regarding the handling of marketed products (Section 16b of the Genetic Engineering Act) and the site register (Section 16a of the Genetic Engineering Act), as well as the supplementation and specification of civil law claims in the event of impairments of use (Section 36a of the Genetic Engineering Act), fall within the scope of this competence. A different interpretation, according to the Federal Constitutional Court, would lead to a fragmentation of genetic engineering law into core federal competencies under Article 72, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), as well as competencies based on necessity and derogations under Article 72, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Basic Law (GG). Such a differentiation would run counter to the intention of the constitutionally amending legislature to provide the federal government with sufficiently clear competence in the field of genetic engineering by introducing Article 74, paragraph 1, no. 26 of the Basic Law.

This publication can also be found on the website of the law firm Dr. Kauch .