Administrative history/biographical information: University Judge 1810 - 1945 1810-1819 Syndicate from 1819 University Judge from 1923 University Council from 1935 University Legal Council from 1943 University Council Foreword: According to the statutes of the University of Berlin of 1816, which were replaced by a new statute in 1930, the so-called "academic jurisdiction" was exercised by the Rector and Senate. The legal basis of this provision was the "Regulations of 28.12.1810 concerning the Establishment of Academic Jurisdiction at Universities". This instruction abolished the jurisdiction previously extended to all members of the university under the provisions of General Land Law. With regard to the place of jurisdiction of university members, the following provision has been made: The members of the faculty, including the rector, the syndic and the secretaries, should have the jurisdiction of the royal civil servants. Other members of the university, such as court masters and servants of the students, were subject to the courts to which other citizens of the same class were assigned. A special place of jurisdiction has been created for students. For them, the respective Higher Regional Court was planned, in Berlin the Court of Appeal. In addition to exercising disciplinary and police authority in cases of violation of order and discipline within the university, the university authorities could also be punished: Students' injurious causes among themselves, light duels and all offences that threatened no more than 4 weeks in prison. In all other respects, the judiciary's function remained the same for civil claims. For the legal advice of the rector and the senate, the function of in-house counsel was created with the rank of full professor. In all disciplinary cases, the power to decide was vested in the rector and the syndic jointly or in the senate, with the competence being regulated in such a way that minor offences were decided by the rector alone or jointly with the syndic, while for major offences the senate was responsible (e.g. duels, realinjuries, disturbance of peace in public places, insulting an authority, insulting a teacher, inciting incitement and gang up among students). The syndicus had to lecture the senate on the cases to be tried. A further task of the syndic was to take up debt contracts of the students and to carry out judicial certifications for foreigners. The admissible disciplinary penalties were: Rector's reprimand; public reprimand before the Senate; detention; threat of "Consilium abeundi"; "Consilium abeundi"; relegation. These statutory provisions were supported by the reformers' desire to grant extensive rights to the university's governing bodies in the field of disciplinary law. Only the efforts of the reaction to suppress all movements at the universities that somehow appeared free or democratic put an end to this development. At the same time as the "Instruction für die außerordentlichen Regierungsbevollmächtigen bei den Universitäten" of 18 November 1819, a "Reglement für die zukünftige Verwaltung der akademischen Disziplin- und Polizeigewalt bei den Universitäten" was issued on the same day by King Friedrich-Wilhelm III and State Chancellor Hardenberg. After that, a university judge was appointed at all universities in Prussia to replace the previous in-house lawyer, who was given the task of enforcing academic discipline and police force. The reason given for issuing this instruction was that the rectors and senators of the universities had not maintained the necessary cooperation with the police authorities and that the change of rectors and senators had prevented the constant exercise of disciplinary authority. In reality, the individual provisions of this decree bear witness to the attempt to increasingly restrict the rights once granted to the university in the spirit of the reformers, in order to combat by all means the progressive movements developing among students in the universities. Thus the rector was able to deal with all minor offences, which resulted in warnings and reprimands, himself, but had to inform the university judge. For all offences that were likely to result in a prison sentence of more than 14 days, the university judge had to conduct the investigation himself, with the rector or a representative being called in for the negotiations. As major offences, the decree states: "Duels among students in which no significant wounding or mutilation has occurred; real juries; disturbance of silence in public places; insulting an authority; insulting a teacher; incitement; gangsterism among students; discrediting or making a discrediting statement; participation in secret or unauthorized connections. The decision in the case of an offence should be made by the university judge himself, if the university has not recognized the offence on relegation. The Senate had to be heard, but the decision on the Senate's objection was made by the Government Plenipotentiary, to whom the University Judge was subordinate. In the event of exclusion from university, Senate members should have a casting vote, and the majority of votes should be decisive. In this case, too, the university judge could appeal to the government representative in case of disagreement. The university judge was appointed by the Minister of Spiritual Affairs, Education and Medicine in agreement with the Minister of Justice, had to have the qualifications of a judge and was not allowed to be a university teacher. He had the rank of a full professor. While the syndic only took part in the "judicial affairs of the Senate", the university judge became an equal member of the Senate as a so-called legal advisor to the university. He had a duty to ensure that the Senate's decisions complied with existing laws. The differences of opinion on the legality of Senate decisions were decided by the Government Plenipotentiary. Even after the abolition of the office of Government Plenipotentiary in 1848, the University Judge retained the right of the provisional veto against decisions of the Senate which, in his opinion, were illegal or unconstitutional. The Senate protested in vain against this right, which the university judge Lehnert practised in 1864. The above remarks showed that the function of the university judge was closely connected with that of the government representative, indeed the university judge became the auxiliary organ of the government representative. The struggle of Government Plenipotentiary Schultz to consolidate his position at the University was expressed in his efforts to exert a direct and lasting influence on the appointment of the university magistrate in order to employ persons for this function who fully corresponded to the ideas of the Government Plenipotentiary. The previous syndic, Kammergerichtsrat Scheffer, took over the function of university judge in January 1820, but resigned it as early as March 1820, because there had been disputes between him and the government-appointed Schultz, which led to a prolonged illness of Scheffer. Scheffer applied for his dismissal, which he justified with his illness. After the efforts of the government Plenipotentiary to appoint an articled clerk as university judge had failed due to the resistance of the Senate and the Minister of Culture Altenstein, a successor was found in the person of the Kammergerichtsrat Brassert, who on Altenstein's personal order was commissioned to investigate the students Karl Ulrich and Karl von Wangenheim. But Brassert asked already after the session of the senate on 12 April 1820, at which he was introduced, to be released from his office, after he negated the political offenses in his expert opinion against Ulrich and von Wangenheim. However, the Senate decided to suspend the decision until the accused had been recognized as members of the fraternity. After a few days, Brassert withdrew his application and agreed to continue acting provisionally. His final appointment took place in November 1820, but already in March 1821 Brassert was persuaded by the rebukes and reprimands of Schultz, the government official, to give up his function for good. This request was granted by the Ministry. The decrees of 18 Nov. 1819 had led to an extremely tense situation at the university and provoked disputes that were detrimental to all sides. Brassert worked until December, when he was supported by an unskilled worker. The successor - a candidate of the government-appointed Schultz - was the subject of disputes that went far beyond the scope of the university and were finally resolved at the highest level. Despite the negative attitude of Minister Altenstein, the Assessor of the Court of Appeal Krause was appointed university judge in December 1821 by a cabinet order of King Friedrich Wilhelm III. Schultz had turned directly to the king and pointed out that the liberal conditions prevailing at the university would create the danger of revolutionary and state-threatening activities. If his request were not complied with, he would be obliged to resign. The Director of the Ministry's Education Department, von Ladenberg, was entrusted with the temporary administration of this office and with the additional function of curator. The reason given for this measure was that the previous form of deputies could no longer be justified vis-à-vis the Federal Government. As Max Lenz rightly notes in his 1910 History of the University, this was just an excuse from Eichhorn, who sought to regulate university life as he pleased. This measure had been taken without prior consultation of the Senate, so that Eichhorn's Rector and Senate were outraged by this intervention. A protest letter that Boeckh had drafted and that had been signed by 31 Ordinaries was rejected by the Ministry. Thus the function of the university judge Krause as deputy extraordinary government representative was also extinguished. The Instruction of 2 May 1841, which Lenz mentions but does not deal with further, is of interest for these explanations only in so far as it deals with the tasks of the Government Plenipotentiary in the implementation of academic jurisdiction. There has been no fundamental change other than the removal of some formal norms due to Ladenberg's position as Director of the Ministry's Education Department. If the government representative was prevented from attending, the rector and university judge again acted as representatives. Krause left the university on 1 September 1842. On October 1, 1842, the Kammergerichts-Assessor Lehnert was appointed as his successor, administering the position as university judge until April 1848. As his successor, the Higher Regional Court Assessor von Ladenberg was appointed by the Ministry. After the institution of the extraordinary government representative was abolished as a result of the March Revolution in July 1848, Ladenberg's activities were limited to curatorial business, which was almost exclusively carried out by the Ministry's Education Department. After von Ladenberg had been entrusted with the management of the Ministry of Culture in November 1848, he resigned his function at the university and, by decree of 16 November 1848, entrusted the then Rector and the University Judge with the administration of the curatorial business, which essentially consisted of handling scholarship matters. This regulation came into force on 5 December 1848 and remained in force until 1923, when an administrative director was appointed to the university as part of the university reform and the responsibilities of the administrative director and the rector were reorganised. Symptomatic, however, is that the above-mentioned decree of 1848 already provided for a reformation of this office. These reform intentions of some liberal officials, seen as the first reaction to the revolutionary events of March 1848 but never realized because of the capitulation of the liberal bourgeoisie to the feudalabsolutist regime, only came to fruition after the November Revolution. On April 1, 1875, Lehnert was retired at his request and appointed as his successor to the syndic of the Mittelmärkische Ritterschaftsdirektion, Schultz. Schultz died on 16 April 1885. In the meantime, the introduction of the so-called "Reichsjustizgesetze" necessitated a reorganization of academic jurisdiction. In this "Law concerning the Legal Relations of Students and Discipline at the State Universities, the Academy of Münster and the Lyceum Hosianum of Braunsberg" of 29 May 1879, disciplinary authority was exercised by the Rector, the University Judge and the Senate. The following penalties were foreseen: Reference; fine up to 20,-M; detention up to 2 weeks; non-crediting of the current semester to the prescribed period of study; threat of removal from the university (signature of "Consilium abeundi"); removal from the university ("Consilium abeundi"); exclusion from university studies (relegation). The university judge had to conduct the investigation in all cases. The powers of punishment were defined as follows: Rector: reprimands and prison sentences up to 24 hours; Rector and judge: fines and prison sentences up to 3 days; Senate: All higher penalties. In the Ministry's instruction of 1 October 1879, it was pointed out that the term "university court" could no longer be used due to the "change in circumstances". This purely formal act, of course, did not change the way disciplinary authority was exercised, but the rector and the senate were now directly involved in the exercise of disciplinary authority, while the university judge could only pronounce punishments in association with the rector. The successor to Schultz, Paul Daudé (1885-1913), a former public prosecutor, used this power to take action, in close cooperation with the Berlin police president, against progressive efforts within the student body and Polish and Russian students. Daudé was repeatedly commissioned by the Minister himself to provide expert opinions. He is also the author of the infamous "Lex Arons". Since 1901, the university judge also acted as treasurer of the State Library and the Meteorological Institute. He was also a member of the Matriculation Commission, the Honorarium Postponement Commission, the Support Fund and the General Nursing Association for Students. The regulations for students at the state universities of 1879 were renewed in 1905 and 1914, without any change in the regulations governing the position of university judges. Daudé's successor was Ernst Wollenberg, who served as university judge until his appointment as administrative director of the university in 1923 and was also a part-time in-house lawyer of the Technical University. Already in 1919 reform efforts began, which in 1923 led to the enactment of new statutes for the universities by the Prussian Ministry of Education, but which did not change the character of the higher education policy of the Weimar Republic. The discussion about the position of the university judge was also held at Berlin University. The commission set up to consider the matter concluded that the removal of the function of university judge was justified, but called for the appointment of an administrative director who, without being a member of the Senate, would have the task of managing the administrative affairs of the university and its institutes, as well as providing legal advice and preparing disciplinary matters. The appointment was to be made by the government, with the Senate having the right to make proposals. The new statutes, which were then issued by decision of the Prussian State Ministry of March 20, 1923, eliminated the institution of the university judge and introduced the function of the "university council". The University Council then had the task of providing legal advice to the Administrative Director, the Rector and the other institutions of the University. In addition, he was responsible for carrying out the academic discipline in accordance with the disciplinary rules, which were still applied in accordance with the aforementioned law of 1879. The Prussian Minister's close collaborator, Erich Wende, already pointed out at that time that a reform of these outdated regulations was inevitable. The fact that the University Council involved prosecutors and investigating magistrates as well as the rector as the judge in the disciplinary proceedings resulted in a situation that was already contrary to the procedural rules of general criminal law. The position of university councillor was usually filled part-time by a judge who was not a member of the Senate, but who could be called in to advise the Senate on Senate sessions. The participation in the matriculation committee remained. With effect from November 1, 1923, Hermann Marcard, Councillor of the Local Court, was appointed University Councillor at Berlin University, and in January 1924 he was also appointed Legal Counsel of the State Library. At the end of January 1933 the NS-Studentenbund publicly staged a large-scale slander campaign against Marcard for his actions against National Socialist thugs, which ended with Marcard's replacement as a university councillor in April 1933. Mardcard's successor was Wilhelm Püschel, the director of the regional court, who was appointed to the post of university councillor by the ministry in May 1933. However, Püschel retired in October 1935, as the position of university council was to be converted into a full-time legal council position on April 1, 1936. The Leitmeyer Public Prosecutor's Office Council was appointed to the University Law Council. In addition to providing legal advice to the Rector, the Administrative Director and the other academic authorities of the University, Leitmeyer was also commissioned to provide legal advice to the Administrative Director of the Charité Hospital, the Rector and the academic authorities of the Technical University of Berlin, as well as to the Director General of the State Library. Leitmeyer had already been active since October 1935 on a commission basis as a university law council. In the meantime, by decree of the Reich Minister for Science, Education and Popular Education of 1 April 1935, a "Penal Code for Students, Listeners and Student Associations at Universities" had been announced. This new disciplinary order, which corresponded to the NS leader principle, provided for the following penalties: 1. oral warning; 2. written reprimand; 3. non-compliance with the current semester; 4. distance from the university, combined with non-compliance with the semester; 5. permanent exclusion from studies at all German universities. The Legal Council had to conduct the investigation. Warnings and reprimands were issued by the Rector, while non-compliance, removal and expulsion were imposed by the Rector following a prior decision of the so-called Tripartite Committee, to which the Rector and the heads of the faculty and student body belonged. The Legal Council had the function of an accuser, i.e. it had to submit the accusation and represent it. Appointment at the Reich Ministry of Science was possible. The old disciplinary regulations of 1879 and 1914 probably remained in force until the enactment of the penal code on April 1, 1935, with the abolition of the provisions that had become obsolete as a result of the development. Wende already pointed out that fines and detention were outdated and should be abolished. In the period from November 1936 to March 1937, the Legal Council was entrusted with the performance of the University Trustee's duties. Leitmeyer was delegated to the university administration of the so-called "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" in 1939 and appointed curator of the Brno Technical University in 1940. As a replacement, the Regional Court Councillor Bernhard Rosenhagen was appointed provisionally from September 1939 and definitively by the Ministry from September 1, 1940. His responsibilities included providing legal advice to the Rector, the University Curator and the academic authorities of the University, the Administrative Director of the Charité Hospital, the General Director of the State Library and the State Materials Testing Office. When Rosenhagen was appointed Administrative Director of the Charité Hospital in 1943, he only performed his duties as a legal councillor at the university part-time with the official title "University Councillor". His activities ended on 8 May 1945. In summary, the university judge had to carry out his duties as an executive and supervisory body at the universities. This applies not only to the time of the reaction after the enactment of the Karlovy Vary decisions in 1819, but also to the later years. The university judge Daudé (1885-1913) is a particularly vivid example of whose commission and for what interests the university judge had to work. III. archival processing Although the individual disciplinary processes were used, the entire holdings had to be processed in accordance with the principles of order and registration. The order and distortion took place in the months of December 1967 to March 1968 by the then archive manager Kossack. The transfer of the index or find book entries into the electronic form did not mean any changes to the order of the holdings. Only the spelling and the punctuation were normalized. The signatures and titles have been retained. Citation style: HU UA, University Judge.01, No. XXX. HU UA, UR.01, No. XXX.
