A researcher conducting basic research in neurophysiology at the Free University of Berlin had sought approval for two animal experiments. The experiments in question were to be performed on live anthropoid apes (inter alia squirrel monkeys and Java Macaques). The responsible approval agency had rejected both applications (on 23 June 1992) despite having approved similar experiments by the researcher in the past (3 March 1988 and 17 September 1990). The justification provided for the refusal was that while the envisaged animal experiments were indispensable for the pursued experimental goal, they were not ethically acceptable.

 The researcher then filed suit in Berlin Administrative Court. The Administrative Court decided to initially stay the proceedings and obtain a decision from the Federal Constitutional Court as to whether § 7 Para. 3 Animal Protection Act (TierSchG) (review of ethical acceptability by the approval agency) was unconstitutional (judicial review proceedings). The Administrative Court itself was of this opinion and noted that § 7 Para. 3 TierSchG was in violation of Art. 5 Para. 3 Sentence 1 Basic Law (fundamental right to freedom of research). As an unqualified fundamental right, freedom of research could only be restricted by other, conflicting constitutional values; animal welfare does not, however, have constitutional status, and the court was therefore of the opinion that restriction of freedom of research by the provisions of the Animal Protection Act would be unconstitutional.

The Federal Constitutional Court was now called upon to decide whether the provisions of the Animal Protection Act regarding review of the ethical acceptability of animal experiments were unconstitutional. However, it rejected the submission of the Berlin Administrative Court as inadmissible. In the first place, the Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that the Berlin Administrative Court could have reached a decision irrespective of clarification of the question as to whether § 7 Para. 3 Animal Protection Act was unconstitutional:

If the experiments in respect of which the application was filed were, contrary to the opinion of the approval agency, ethically acceptable, there would be no need to decide upon the constitutional conformity of the legal norm. Secondly, pursuant to § 100 Para. 1 Sentence 1 Basic Law (judicial review proceedings) provision is only made for a submission to the Federal Constitutional Court if clarification of the question as to whether a legal norm is unconstitutional is indispensable for the decision-making of the submitting court. Submission to the Federal Constitutional Court would also be superfluous if the nullification of a norm could be avoided through its interpretation in accordance with the constitution.

In relation to § 7 Para. 3 an interpretation in accordance with the constitution would be such that while the researcher would have to provide scientific justification for the ethical acceptability of his planned animal experiments, the authorities would not have a material right of review, in other words they would not decide whether the researcher's representation was in fact accurate. In this sense the task of the agency would merely be to perform a qualified plausibility check and freedom of research would not be restricted in an unconstitutional manner.