Definition and Fundamentals of General Jurisdiction
Die General Jurisdiction In legal terminology, this refers to the principle or legal construct whereby an authority, a court, or a body is competent for all matters within a specific area or subject matter, unless a specific jurisdiction of another entity has been expressly established. Thus, general jurisdiction represents the counterpart to individual or special jurisdiction, under which an instance is only entrusted with certain, conclusively defined tasks.
General jurisdiction can play a role both in public administration and in the judiciary, and to some extent in international law. Its purpose is to ensure comprehensive task management by a central authority when regulatory gaps would otherwise exist or when there is a substantive need for centralized control.
Historical Development of General Jurisdiction
The principle of general jurisdiction historically developed out of the necessity to organize governmental action effectively before a differentiated administrative and judiciary system had emerged. During the formation of modern states, general jurisdiction was, for example, a characteristic feature of monarchical central authorities or the administrative courts of the 19th century. The lack of specialized agencies or courts meant that one authority was generally responsible for all legal disputes or administrative processes, unless otherwise provided by law.
With the increasing specialization of state functions, legal systems gradually created special jurisdictions. Nevertheless, agencies with general jurisdiction continue to play an important role today; for example, in the area of ordinary jurisdiction, with administrative authorities possessing general competence, or in federal systems in the case of presumed competences.
General Jurisdiction in the German Legal System
General Administrative Law
In general administrative law, general jurisdiction is found particularly among authorities with general competence. A classic example is Section 3(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG), according to which authorities are, as a rule, responsible for carrying out administrative procedures unless another law provides for a specific jurisdiction.
This also includes the so-called “One-Stop-Shop” principle at the municipal level within the scope of self-administration, which can establish generally competent structures, particularly when dealing with matters within their own sphere of responsibility.
Jurisdiction
Ordinary jurisdiction (local courts, regional courts, higher regional courts, Federal Court of Justice) is, according to Section 13 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG), generally competent for all civil and criminal disputes, unless a specific jurisdiction (e.g., for labor, administrative, fiscal, or social matters) has been established by law. This is referred to as “general jurisdiction.”
General jurisdiction ensures uninterrupted judicial oversight within its original area of responsibility and prevents jurisdictional conflicts, as long as no explicit special jurisdiction is otherwise assigned.
Constitutional Law
In constitutional law, the term general jurisdiction appears especially in the demarcation of competencies between the federal government and the states (Länder). As a rule, the states possess general jurisdiction for legislation and administration under Article 30 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG), unless the Basic Law expressly allocates specific competencies to the federal government—a so-called presumption of jurisdiction in favor of the states.
General Jurisdiction in International Law
In international law or in supranational organizations such as the European Union, general jurisdiction can serve both the purpose of legal certainty and as an instrument of competence allocation. Here, there is often a presumption of jurisdiction in favor of member states unless an express general jurisdiction of an organ or central authority exists.
In international contractual law and in the field of conflict-of-law rules, general jurisdiction can also function as a residual jurisdiction for certain international courts or arbitration tribunals, for example, where no specific jurisdiction has otherwise been established.
Distinction and Relationship to Individual or Special Jurisdiction
General jurisdiction must always be distinguished from individual or special jurisdiction, where a body, court, or authority acts only within the scope of specific, legally defined areas of responsibility. General jurisdiction becomes relevant where neither law nor regulation assigns or governs a special jurisdiction explicitly.
The practical relevance of general jurisdiction lies in preventing gaps in the area of organizational competence and in ensuring continuous responsibility. It is regularly applied as a “residual competence” or “general clause.”
Criticisms and Evaluation of General Jurisdiction
The principle of general jurisdiction is not without controversy. On one hand, it ensures comprehensive capacity for action and closes gaps in competence; on the other hand, insufficient specialization may impair the quality of administrative actions or judicial decisions. Thus, in modern states, general jurisdiction is increasingly limited or specified by special legislative regulations.
Furthermore, especially for authorities with general jurisdiction, there is a risk of overload, inefficiency, and lack of subject-matter expertise in highly specialized legal questions.
Summary
General jurisdiction is a fundamental organizational principle in law, playing a significant role in administration, the judiciary, and the law of competences. It ensures comprehensive authority of state organs where special jurisdictions are absent and guarantees the continuous fulfillment of sovereign tasks. Its descriptive function within the framework of state competences remains an important component of the principle of the rule of law, despite increasing specialization and more differentiated competence distributions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who decides, in a state governed by the rule of law, about the specific general jurisdiction of an organ?
In a state governed by the rule of law, it is the task of the respective constitution or relevant legal provisions to determine or limit the general jurisdiction of an organ. In Germany, for instance, the Basic Law lays down the final competence framework, specifying which organs possess universal or task-based competences. For example, a parliament may have general jurisdiction unless special statutory exclusions apply. By contrast, executive bodies and courts are generally functionally and substantively limited to their respective areas of responsibility. The allocation of competences is determined in part by the principle of separation of powers and in part by competence catalogues. In the event of conflicts of competence, the Federal Constitutional Court or a comparable body may decide in order to prevent overlapping competences or exceeding of authority. Determining general jurisdiction is therefore an expression of the constitutional order of organization and serves to secure the principles of the rule of law.
What legal limits apply to the general jurisdiction of state organs?
The general jurisdiction of a state organ is legally limited in particular by the principle of separation of powers and by special statutory allocations of competence. Under the German Basic Law, for example, the power of the Bundestag is not unlimited, as constitutional restraints, federal competence distributions, and the principle of constitutionality restrict laws and measures. Furthermore, obligations under international law and European Union law prevent unlimited national general jurisdiction. Every measure must also have a legal basis—the so-called principle of legality in administration. In federal systems, there must also be a distinction between federal and state competences, so that clear limits are set for those politically responsible.
In which cases does the distinction from individual jurisdiction play a particular role in legal practice?
Distinguishing general jurisdiction from individual jurisdiction is essential in legal practice for determining which body or authority is responsible for a decision, measure, or lawmaking. This is particularly relevant in administrative law, such as in transferring tasks to specialized agencies like the police, regulatory offices, or special administrations. In constitutional and administrative procedural law, incorrect allocation may lead to competence conflicts that can regularly be reviewed by courts. In proceedings for judicial review of statutes, disputes between government organs, or federalism disputes, the need for precise distinction also arises. This allocation determines the effectiveness of administrative acts as well as their challengeability before courts.
How are conflicts regarding general jurisdiction between levels of government addressed?
Conflicts over general jurisdiction between different levels of government, such as the federal government and the states, are resolved through so-called rules on the distribution of competences. In Germany, these are mainly regulated in the Basic Law in Articles 70 ff., which establish the principle of limited individual empowerment and express legislative competences. Often, conflicts are first addressed through negotiations or mediation procedures, for example in the Bundesrat or through establishing mediation committees. If they cannot be resolved in this way, a final determination by the Federal Constitutional Court is possible. The court then examines which organ is competent in the specific case and whether there has been an exceeding or assumption of general jurisdiction.
What role does the principle of a statutory basis play for questions of general jurisdiction?
The principle of a statutory basis is central to the permissibility of exercising competences in the state sector, especially in connection with general jurisdiction. According to the principle of the reservation of law, intrusions into constitutionally protected areas and fundamental decisions may only be made on a statutory basis. This means that even if an organ appears formally generally competent, it may not exercise this power at will, but is always bound by law. Such binding not only secures the rule of law but also prevents abuse of power and protects citizens from uncontrolled interventions. Thus, the requirement of a statutory basis serves as an effective legal filter against unlimited general jurisdiction.
Are there current examples of (almost) generally competent organs in German law?
Current examples of nearly generally competent organs predominantly exist at the municipal level, for instance in the form of “general jurisdiction of the municipal council.” According to the municipal constitutions of the states, municipal councils are generally authorized to regulate all matters of the local community, unless statutory provisions oppose this or competences are explicitly assigned elsewhere. By contrast, at the federal level, due to the strong differentiation of the separation of powers and the high number of special statutory provisions, genuine general jurisdictions are rarely found. In theory, it could apply to parliament, but in practice it is substantially restricted by various limitations.
How does general jurisdiction affect the relationship between fundamental rights and state action?
The most effective barrier to the general jurisdiction of a state organ lies in the area of fundamental rights, which are paramount to all state action. According to Article 1(3) of the Basic Law, legislation, executive authority, and the judiciary are bound by fundamental rights as directly applicable law. Thus, even and especially a “generally competent” organ may not use its powers to violate or undermine fundamental rights. If fundamental rights are affected, these are generally subject to the strict standard of proportionality and close judicial scrutiny. The enforcement and protection of fundamental rights thus serve as a significant counterweight to unrestricted state powers.
