Judge election: Expert opinion sees no suspicion of plagiarism at Brosius-Gersdorf

The lawyer Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, rejected by parts of the Union as a constitutional judge, was relieved of the accusation of scientific misconduct in a short report. “The examination showed that the allegations are unfounded and have no substance,” explain the lawyers Michael Quaas and Peter Sieben from the law firm Quaas and Partner in a cover letter.

Brosius-Gersdorf and her husband Hubertus Gersdorf had commissioned the exam, after all the allegations of plagiarism had also been raised as an argument against their election. Brosius-Gersdorf had previously rejected criticism of her content-related positions in the ZDF program “Markus Lanz”, for example, about an obligation to vaccinate in the Corona crisis or the termination of pregnancy. These were reproduced completely wrongly by individual media.

The constitutional lawyer initially sticks to her candidacy. However, if the Federal Constitutional Court threatened to do so due to the continued debate about the burst judge election, it would do without immediately, she said on ZDF. “This is a damage that I can’t answer for it.”

Short report sees no room for accusation of plagiarism

Immediately before the judge election in the Bundestag, planned last Friday and bursting at the end, plagiarism against Brosius-Gersdorf had also become loud. The Austrian plagiarism searcher Stefan Weber published parallels between their doctoral thesis and the habilitation thesis of her husband.

The dissertation of Brosius-Gersdorf at the University of Hamburg was submitted in 1997, the habilitation thesis of her husband Hubertus was concluded in the short report in November 1997 and presented at the same university in the summer semester of 1998. The title of Brosius-Gersdorf’s doctoral thesis was “Deutsche Bundesbank and the principle of democracy. A constitutional study on the autonomy of the Bundesbarbar before and after the third stage of the European Monetary Union”. Her husband wrote about “public companies in the area of tension between democracy and profitability principle”.

The law firm considered similarities in footnotes, headings and text passages and came to the conclusion: “Even if one assumes that all of the evaluations shown cannot be explained, they do not justify a plagiarism, nor do they question the scientificity of the work (…).” This applies to both Brosius-Gersdorf and for her husband.

“The threshold required for this is far from being achieved in both quantitative and qualitative terms,” says the reason. The habilitation thesis of her husband was later created than the doctoral thesis by Brosius-Gersdorf himself.

The Stuttgart law firm expressly provides a preliminary evaluation. “A detailed legal assessment should be made at a later date,” the short report said.

On Friday, the election of two new judges and a judge for Karlsruhe was discontinued by the agenda of the Bundestag. The pressure against the lawyer Brosius-Gersdorf proposed by the SPD had become too great in the Union. The group management was no longer able to guarantee the support agreed with the coalition partner. According to DPA research, MPs had received many emails before the planned vote in which the constitutional lawyer was warned.

Now it is completely open how the CDU, CSU and SPD can dissolve the dilemma and yet still be able to choose judges together – because Union politicians stick to their criticism as well as the SPD on its candidate.

Brosius-Gersdorf speaks of campaign

Brosius-Gersdorf said “Markus Lanz” in the show that it is no longer just about her. “It is also about what happens when such campaigns, and in some cases a campaign, were enforced, what does what is done with us, what does the country with our democracy.” She must weigh this.

“I also do not want to be responsible for a government crisis in this country because we don’t know what happens afterwards. These are all aspects, I take it extremely seriously and I consider it.”

CDU MP now sees SPD parliamentary group leader

The CDU member of the Bundestag, Saskia Ludwig, who had vehemently spoken out against a choice of Brosius-Gersdorf, gave the SPD parliamentary group leader Matthias Miersch responsibility for the processed situation. The latter knew that it was in their faction. “He should have withdrawn the candidate and spared all of these discussions to all of us,” she said in a “world” interview.

The signals are more than clear that “from us MPs this lady cannot be selected”. This can also be felt in a large part of the population. “Mr. Miersch is responsible.”

The CDU MP Gitta Connemann said in the program “Early Start” by RTL/NTV for an interview with Brosius-Gersdorf: “In the end, such a question is not decided in talk shows or in the media, but it is a question that has to be decided in conversation between the coalition factions between the SPD, CDU and CSU.”

Bamberg Archbishop offers personal conversation

After irritation about a sermon, the Bamberg Archbishop Herwig Gössl offered the professor a personal conversation. He wanted to clear up misunderstandings, wrote Gössl in an explanation. Brosius-Gersdorf had come to Gössl’s sermon on the weekend on ZDF. She finds it particularly disturbing that he spoke of an “abyss of intolerance and contempt for people” in terms of her person. “I think the infam.”

The wording in the sermon was concerned with the protection of unborn life. Gössl now emphasized in his letter: “At no time did I want to personally attack or defame the respected lawyer Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf. I never questioned her competence as a lawyer and her personal integrity.”