Judge Borowsky and the natural rights: a turning point for Thuringia?

Judge Borowsky and the natural rights: a turning point for Thuringia?

The focus of the current legal debate is the Erfurt District Court, which, under the chairmanship of judge Martin Borowsky, gives a new dimension in two sensational decisions. These judgments, which were felled on August 2 and October 17, 2024, refer to the so -called "diesel cases" and have rejected the discussion about nature's rights in Germany. Borowsky and his dish have decided that nature not only has rights, but that they must also be significantly taken into account in claims for damages. However, the questions about the judicial independence and the role of the sole judge throw a shadow on these remarkable decisions.

The judgments are not only legally significant, but also a sign of growing complexity in case law. In both cases, the entire chamber did not decide, but a single judge, which raises questions about the responsibility and the fundamental importance of the cases. According to the legal requirements, the chamber should have taken over the cases because they go beyond the individual cases. The omission of a template to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) also raises questions: Why was this possibility not used to create clarity about nature's rights at European level? The decisions could possibly affect the parties' right to justice, which questions the court's credibility.

legal training and judicial responsibility

In the second decision of the LG Erfurt, the need for legal training is emphasized in order to promote nature rights. However, the court's argument that Richter has responsibility towards society could be considered problematic. Borowsky mixes personal and institutional dimensions of his role here, which leads to a diffuse understanding of responsibility. The judicial independence could be at risk if judges see himself beyond the law as the designer of social reality. Such action could undermine the neutrality of the judiciary and blur the limits of judicial power.

The judgments of the LG Erfurt are therefore not only legal decisions, but also a call for reflection on the role of judges today. While the recognition of the rights of nature may be progress, the question remains how these rights can be preserved within the framework of a system of under constitution, without endangering the independence of the judiciary. The Thuringian judiciary is therefore the focus of a heated debate about the future of law and responsibility in Germany.