V. Consequences for the Precautionary Principle as Applied
2. Specific Requirements of Risk Administration
The rule of law demands that, particularly when individual rights are concerned, the high degree of leeway granted to risk administration is compensated by certain formal requirements.
174 M. Brenner/A. Nehrig (note 19), 1029, mentioning the example of § 25 VII of the Pharmaceutical Products Code (Arzneimittelgesetz – AMG), which determines the setting up of commissions by the competent higher federal au- thorities which are supposed to deal with products not requiring a prescription and which may participate in the decision-making processes.
175 M. Brenner/A. Nehrig (note 19), 1029; U. Di Fabio, Das Arzneimittel- recht als Reprọsentant der Risikoverwaltung, Die Verwaltung 1994, 357; differ- ent though BVerwGE 81, 12, at 17.
176 See for example M. Brenner/A. Nehrig (note 19), 1029.
177 M. Brenner/A. Nehrig (note 19), 1029 et seq.; BVerwGE 106, 115 et seq.
178 M. Brenner/A. Nehrig (note 19), 1030; BVerwGE 106, 115 et seq.
179 M. Brenner/A. Nehrig (note 19), 1030; M. Ohms, Behửrdliche Risikoab- schọtzung im Lichte von „Artikelgesetz“ und Stửrfallverordnung, UPR 2001, 87 et seq.; concerning gene technology see R. Kroh, Risikobeurteilung im Gentechnikrecht – Einschọtzungsspielraum der Behửrde und verwaltungsge- richtliche Kontrolle, DVBl. 2000, 102 et seq.
a) Requirement of Argumentation and Clear Determination
One of these requirements is the necessity of a particularly detailed ex- planation of the decisions.180 The more leeway is granted to the legisla- tor or the competent authorities, the more substantial the argumenta- tion needs to be.181 The explanation needs to detail the reasons, the pur- pose and the form of precautionary action.182 The argumentation may, to the available extent, rely on the technical status quo and the mainte- nance of certain standards or threshold values.183 Furthermore, for rea- sons of legal certainty, precautionary measures need to be clearly de- termined.184
b) Requirements of Proportionality and Risk Comparison
In the field of risk administration, the principle of proportionality gains a special importance.185 However, due to the existing factual uncertainty it is rather difficult to apply the proportionality test on risk assess- ment.186 The Federal Administrative Court has tried to solve this prob- lem by applying the so-called “expanded proportionality test”, which is a weaker and more generalized version of the normal proportionality test.187 According to the Federal Constitutional Court the aptness of a measure is sufficiently shown if it is potentially able in an abstract way to achieve the desired aim.188 This allows for an overall assessment e.g.
180 U. Di Fabio (note 17), 573; F. Ossenbühl (note 9), 167; for the necessity to give reasons for discretionary decisions see generally R. Dolzer, Zum Begrün- dungsgebot im geltenden Verwaltungsrecht, DệV 1985, 9 et seq.; concerning the consequences for legal review see R. Dechsling: Rechtsschutz und Begrün- dungspflicht, DệV 1985, 714 et seq.; see further U. Di Fabio (note 2), 827 et seq.
181 U. Di Fabio (note 17), 573.
182 U. Di Fabio (note 17), 573; P. Stoll (note 3), 325; C. Calliess (note 1), 207 et seq.
183 U. Di Fabio (note 17), 574.
184 F. Ossenbühl (note 9), 167.
185 U. Di Fabio (note 2), 830; F. Ossenbühl (note 9), 167; G. Lübbe-Wolff (note 2), 62 ff; S. Marr/A. Schwemer (note 1), 139.
186 U. Di Fabio (note 2), 831.
187 U. Di Fabio (note 2), 831; F. Ossenbühl, NVwZ 1986, 161 (168).
188 BVerfGE 67, 157, at 175.
of annual emissions in Germany, abstracting from the circumstances of the concrete case.189 Thus, the proportionality test is basically reduced to a mere equal treatment check.190 Long-term concepts of protection geared towards their uniform and continuous implementation thus re- place the proportionality test in the individual case.191 In addition to the proportionality test, some authors advocate the comparison of different risks as a means of justification of precautionary action.192
c) Requirement of Establishing Accountability
The administration has to establish the existence of a link of account- ability. Since the classical causality model of danger prevention does not function here, the administration is left with a rather wide margin of discretion.193 Thus, a permission may be rejected on the grounds that the addressee of the prohibition is emitting substances or otherwise un- dertaking an activity which is generally capable of endangering the ful- filment of the precautionary aim.194
d) Requirement of Administrative Review
One important feature of risk decisions is their provisional character.195 If the State is allowed to limit the freedom of action on the basis of an uncertain factual situation, it has to reconsider its decision when better knowledge becomes available.196 This includes a revision of so-called
“experimental law”.197 The Federal Constitutional Court has decided in the so-called Werkverkehrsentscheidung and the Mitbestimmungsent- scheidung that the legislator may enact experimental laws and evaluate
189 Salzwedel (1983), 27 et seq.;F. Ossenbühl (note 9), 167.
190 F. Ossenbühl (note 9), 168.
191 F. Ossenbühl (note 9), 168.
192 See P. Stoll (note 3), 326; U. Di Fabio (note 2), 824 et seq.
193 C. Calliess (note 1), 242 et seq.
194 C. Calliess (note 1), 242 et seq.; on the function of permissions see gener- ally R. Wahl/G. Hermes/K. Sach (note 62), 217 et seq.
195 U. Di Fabio (note 2), 823.
196 U. Di Fabio (note 2), 823.
197 U. Di Fabio (note 2), 823; M. Kloepfer (note 12), 91 et seq.;H. Horn, Ex- perimentelle Gesetzgebung unter dem Grundgesetz, 1989, 20 et seq.
the experiences gained through them in adequate periods.198 Since a clear-cut purpose of the rights limitation cannot be defined due to the existing uncertainty, balancing the importance of that purpose against the form and degree of limitation is a difficult enterprise. In the case of emission control, the Federal Administrative Court has ruled that the degree of precaution needs to be proportional to the risk potential of emissions which the precautionary measure intends to prevent.199 While this is certainly a reduction of judicial control intensity, it is a necessary corollary of an effective implementation of the precautionary princi- ple.200