The rule of law principle includes the requirement for predictability and calculability of state action. Countless internet addresses controlled by the power apparatus spread propaganda about the alleged rule of law principle.
What does practice look like?
The only predictable thing is that the power apparatus interprets all rights according to its own interests. Not even the Federal Constitutional Court adheres to the rule of law principle, although it has repeatedly feigned predictability and calculability of state action with its jurisprudence.
The legal remedy that the alleged constitutional state is particularly proud of - the constitutional complaint - is in reality a procedure full of obstacles, according to Constitutional Judge Lübbe-Wolff.
Barely more than one percent of complaints are successful. If the plaintiff is not represented by a lawyer, the success rate is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3%. The Constitutional Court, in order to cope with the complete flood of constitutional complaints (note: due to violations of law), has introduced through judge-made law a multitude of prerequisites that lead to rejection of the complaint. Even the expert Zuck, and he is one of the leading ones in Germany, cannot predict the success of a complaint (cf. http://www.amazon.de/Das-Recht-Verfassungsbeschwerde-Rüdiger-Zuckidp/3406467237).
The same is true for the praised European Court of Human Rights. Success rates are falling everywhere, but certainly not because we are a nation of troublemakers. The chances in gambling are certainly higher than 0.2 to 0.3%. Instead of the power apparatus dealing with the underlying causes and accordingly deploying more people for this, citizens' rights are blocked with few judges who cannot handle the workload. This also has the advantage that human rights violations can be covered up and one can boast that these are flawless rule-of-law conditions!
Legal clarity arises through the drafting and promulgation of legal norms (laws, regulations, statutes). There must be no unreasonable difficulties in gaining knowledge of them (cf. http://wapedia.mobi/de/Rechtssicherheit). Where are you going, rule of law principle with predictability and calculability of state action, when only about 2 out of 1000 citizens manage to file successful constitutional and human rights complaints because the legal norms are kept secret?
The leading parties and the federal government hardly deal with the topic of fundamental rights. Most questions are either not answered or answered with meaningless phrases. Answers are characterized by a self-satisfied basic attitude as if there were no cause for criticism whatsoever, which contradicts the Basic Rights Report (cf. Jerzy Montag on July 3, 2009 in the Bundestag, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLTR31SZrfik). The Director of the German Institute for Human Rights, Heiner Bielefeldt, said: "There is a tendency of German complacency on the topic of human rights." http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/menschenrechte-in-deutschland-mangelhaft/1434380.html This is also largely how legal remedies and petitions from citizens to authorities and courts proceed. Disciplinary complaints are notoriously "without deadline, without form, and without fruit" (cf. e.g. http://www.odenwald-geschichten.de/?p=682, "Brell, Drafting Disciplinary Complaints, 2006" http://zentrumsforen.net/beschwerdezentrum/justizirrtum/forum/posts/3988.html).
Other legal remedies such as the "right to be heard objection" also don't work, cf. http://www.hoerbuchkids.de/hui/homepage/justiz/info.php?id=134.
Tagesspiegel
By Jan Dirk Herbermann
Germany received poor grades from the UN Human Rights Council. The loudest complaints came from countries that are not exactly famous for their own human rights records.
Jan Dirk Herbermann [Geneva]
Racism, discrimination against foreigners, activities of neo-Nazis: Representatives of the federal government had to listen to harsh criticism about the human rights situation in Germany before the United Nations on Monday. The UN Human Rights Council, the highest global body against oppression, torture and violence, had summoned the Germans to Geneva for the first time - all other UN members must also undergo a review. "There are difficulties in Germany," admitted the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Gernot Erler, at the beginning of the hearing. He cited deficiencies in the integration of foreigners, in gender equality, and right-wing extremist crimes.
Many countries were not satisfied with this admission: Iran, Russia, Egypt, Pakistan, India and Cuba pressed further. The representative of the Iranian theocracy spoke of a "dramatic increase" in racist violence in Germany, the envoy of the Cuban Castro dictatorship denounced racism against Roma and Sinti, and Moscow's UN ambassador complained about discrimination against immigrants from former USSR states. "It was clear that these topics would come up," remarked a diplomat. "Especially the countries that don't have clean records on human rights themselves are the loudest in their criticism."
Critical Words from Europe Too
Much was also said about Germany's past. "Germany is a country with a very difficult history," said Erler. The crimes of the Nazis had led to a clear consensus in the Federal Republic: "Never again." The parliamentary state secretary in the Federal Interior Ministry, Peter Altmaier, agreed. He said on the topic of Holocaust denial: "We cannot and will not allow that."
The Germans also had to accept critical words from friendly European states: A Dutch diplomat complained about cases of "excessive violence" by some German law enforcement agencies, Liechtenstein wanted to know more about the fate of around 5,000 street children in the Federal Republic, and Denmark criticized attacks against homosexuals. Human rights organizations also criticized the federal government. Amnesty International accused Berlin of having "whitewashed" a report to the Human Rights Council. The Director of the German Institute for Human Rights, Heiner Bielefeldt, said: "There is a tendency of German complacency on the topic of human rights."