Professor Hendrik Lackner from the Faculty of Law at Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences in Germany delivered an online lecture on the Constitutional Review of Section 15(2) Sentence 2 of the Thalidomide Foundation Act to students of the College on the evening of 28 May.

The lecture was chaired and interpreted by Deputy Dean of the College Professor Xie Libin. Dr. Chong Wenrui, Lecturer at the School of Law of China Jiliang University, and Dr. Song Beibei, Lecturer at CUPL’s School of Politics and Public Administration, served as discussants.

In his lecture, Lackner introduced Germany’s legal response to compensate victims of thalidomide (also known as Contergan). He focused in particular on Section 15(2) Sentence 2 of the Thalidomide Foundation Act, which stipulates that any income received by a victim from third parties—especially from abroad—based on a thalidomide-related prescription must be deducted from the victim’s damages and thalidomide pension. According to him, this provision has sparked constitutional controversy, with some victims claiming that it infringes on their constitutionally protected property rights.

Lackner explained that the case hinges on the interpretation of Article 14 of the Basic Law, which guarantees the right to property. The court ultimately held that the right to claim thalidomide compensation does fall within the scope of constitutional property protection. However, it concluded that the deduction clause does not amount to an expropriation, but rather a permissible regulation of property content and limitations. Applying a proportionality review, the court assessed the legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and proportionality in the strict sense of the interference. It found that the law’s aim, preventing double compensation, was legitimate, the measure was suitable and necessary, and the financial impact on victims remained minor due to increases in compensation levels. The court thus upheld the constitutionality of the provision.

Lackner emphasised the broader significance of this ruling, which reflects judicial restraint, deference to legislative judgement, and a careful balancing of competing interests.

During the discussion session, Chong and Song engaged in a thoughtful dialogue with Lackner, exploring issues such as the scope of property protection, the application of the proportionality principle, and the balancing of public interest against individual property rights.

This lecture offered a nuanced examination of constitutional law in the German legal context and provided valuable comparative insights for Chinese scholars. It also contributed meaningfully to academic exchange on legal protections for victims and the interpretation of property rights across jurisdictions.