Sparkasse may initially continue to address customers as customers

Federal Constitutional Court, about dts
Federal Constitutional Court, about dts
The Sulzbach citizen Marlies Krämer initially failed due to a lack of justification before the Federal Constitutional Court. But the case is not over yet.

Marlies Krämer is well known in Saarland. As a champion of women's rights, but also as a local politician.

Krämer went to court as early as the 90s when she found that the phrase “owner” was on her passport. She achieved that the passport was changed in 1996 and since then the phrase "holder" has been used.

In 1998 she initiated the renaming of gravure areas in the weather forecast in Germany. For whatever background, this was usually given a woman's name. Since 1999, the low pressure areas have changed their gender annually - sometimes male, sometimes female.

In the past few years, the senior citizen, born in 1937, has been particularly noticeable for her litigation against the "Sparkasse", whereby you want to ensure that the female form of address is also taken into account in the bank's contractual texts.

At the beginning of 2018 the posse about addressing bank contracts. In Krämer's view, “account holder” and “recipient” should be used in addition to “account holder” and “recipient”. At first, the then 80-year-old lost to the regional court. Then she moved to the Federal Court of Justice, where she also lost.

The verdict was justified with the fact that the “generic masculine” is common in the language and does not express any disdain for people of the opposite sex. This form would also be used in many laws and even in the Basic Law.

After the verdict, Krämer announced that he would go to the Federal Constitutional Court, or even the European Court of Justice if necessary.

The applicant is concerned with the principle. Many companies, including the Sparkasse, do not use female forms in forms and forms.

Krämer wanted to change this and made her announcement true: she went before the Federal Constitutional Court.

There, the feminist was again defeated: The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the woman's suit for "deficiencies in the reasoning".

This did not resolve the legal question. A new attempt could thus be more successful.

Because the court said:If the constitutional complaint had to be decided on the matter, this would lead to unresolved questions of the fundamental rights relevance of the traditional use of the generic masculine and to questions of the constitutional requirements for the interpretation of equality laws that stipulate the use of a gender-equitable language".

The share symbol: 1 BvR 1074/18

Press release from the Federal Constitutional Court