...
The German understanding of the rule of law is based on a strict etatist concept of the law, i.e. Legal legal norms have to reference the state. All relevant regulation has to be pre-formulated by legislation, whereby the separation of competences between the federal parliament and the provincial legislative bodies has to be observed. Non-legislative rules and regulations − like by-laws and decrees − have to be explicitly permitted by statute and have to fit into the legal order. Other social laws like religious or expert laws and technical standards may exist besides statute as long as they will do not cause collisions. They may be ensured, for example, by the freedom of religion (Art. 4 GG) or within the private autonomy guarantee. As a standard of legality they can only be drawn on as far as they are approved by the statutory legal order and jurisdiction.
The principles of the supremacy of statutory law and the pre-formulation of state-actions by legislation ("Vorrang und Vorbehalt des Gesetzes") both express a comprehensive concept of the obligation to the law and judicial control. Executive actions, therefore, are strictly bound to the law. Explicit statutory competences are required whenever individual human rights are affected by state action. The statutory competence not only approves the act, but also restricts it to the legally approved. The more intense the state action affects human rights, the more specifically the competence has to be formulated by legislation in order to provide the encroachment with the necessary democratic legitimacy and - from a rule of law point of view - comply with the demands of proportionality (for competences in the case of privacy relevant security measures e.g. see German Constitutional Court, decisions of March 4, 2004 (2004/3/4 "Acoustic surveillance of private living space), and March 11, 2008 (" and 2008/3/11 "License plate scan)").
In the German understanding of Rechtsstaatlichkeit, the obligation of executive actions to the law is accompanied by the requirement of close judicial review with a strict standard of review (Art. 20 III GG). It is ensured by the independency of the judges (Art. 97 GG) and by a complex system of different recourses to the courts and stages of appeal for judicial self-control. Procedural law is approved a self-consistent legal matter with its specific dogmatics. In cases of state actions against individuals access to judicial review is guaranteed within the basic rights canon (Art. 19 IV GG). Only exceptionally, judicial review may not be compulsorily exercised by courts but by adequate control instances. E. g. for the control of intelligence a confident parliamentary control is approved (see German Constitutional Court, decision of December 15, 1970 (1970/12/15 "Telephone surveillance for intelligence purposes)"). And within the range of individual autonomous choice of action non-state arbitration bodies may serve for judicial review purposes instead of courts. In cases of criminal court procedure, constitutional rights guarantee fair trial principles (Art. 101-103 GG).
...
