[Diskussionsbeitrag über die Zulässigkeit der Auflösung], S. 424–425

Emil Lederer: Intervention on the Permissibility of Dissolution (1921)

This recorded commission intervention, published on pages 424–425, examines whether asking if an enterprise’s dissolution is permissible can yield a determinate legal answer. Lederer argues that the question would have an exact meaning for a judge if the anticipated law exhaustively enumerated the economic sectors or objects concerned. Yet the preceding discussion suggests a different legislative approach:

Das ist nach den gemachten Ausführungen nicht zu erwarten, sondern es werden allgemeine Kriterien gegeben, und es werden Stellen bestimmt, die darüber zu entscheiden haben, ob ein Unternehmen aufgelöst werden kann oder nicht.

English translation: That is not to be expected in light of the statements made; instead, general criteria will be provided, and bodies will be designated to decide whether an enterprise can be dissolved or not.

Lederer thus shifts attention from statutory enumeration to administrative judgment. Municipalities would need a legal opinion from the designated bodies concerning permission to sell enterprises. His reference to sales abroad prompts an interruption insisting that domestic sales are at issue; he maintains that foreign sales may also be involved.

The intervention then turns to the likely rationale for granting permission. Lederer anticipates that the deciding body will see no reason to intervene where the practice concerned has not previously occurred on a large scale. He applies that reasoning to municipalization:

Nun sind die Kommunalisierungen gerade solche, in welchen es bisher noch nicht in großem Umfange vorgekommen ist, und die Stelle wird daher schreiben: ja, es ist zulässig.

English translation: Now municipalizations are precisely cases in which it has not previously occurred on a large scale, and the body will therefore write: yes, it is permissible.

The passage’s central move is to connect an abstract question of legality with the practical reasoning of the authority empowered to answer it. Its relevance lies in showing how general statutory criteria could produce permissive decisions based on the limited historical extent of a practice, rather than on an explicit legislative classification.