wolfgang sellert already commented on this in earlier assessments of judicial independence.5 After commencing the examination of the judicial reports and documents of the RHR, located in theHaus-, Hof- andStaatsarchivof Vienna under the direction of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in 2006 – the accumulated results have so far been published in seven volumes6 – new perspectives and questions have arisen. These shall be discussed below. I will rely on previously presented items – I am sailing the same boat, but rigging new sails. Regarding theRKG, it had attempted to defy the interventions of the emperor by not having its seat at the imperial court, but rather in another long-standing city of the Holy Empire, that is first in Frankfurt, later in Speyer and finally in Wetzlar.7 Moreover, the emperor – as insisted upon by the princes in 1486 – was only allowed to exerciseordenlichs Gewalts und nit Vollkommenheit Keyserlichs Gewalts.8 This meant that the decrees of the RKG were to be issued in the name of the emperor, but without his participation.9 Later, this principle was affirmed in the Reichskammergerichtsordnung (RKGO) of 1555,10 in the Jüngsten Reichsabschied of 1654 (JRA),11 in the Reichshofratsordnung(RHRO) of 165412 and in the Electoral Capitulations (Wahlkapitulationen). One of the most comprehensive catalogues of rules is included in the Electoral Capitulation of Charles VII from 1742. In it, the emperor declares that neither he nor theRHRwould ‘interfere’ in the proceedings pending before theRKG, nor would he cancel them or decide on them. He also pledged to spare the RKGfromRescripta, Promotoiales, 5 Sellert, Wolfgang 1995 pp. 118-132; Sellert, Wolfgang 1997 pp. 122-129; Sellert, Wolfgang 1990 pp. 15-44. 6 APAvol. 1-5 and Antiqua vol. 1 and 2. 7 Handhabung Friedens und Rechts 5 §. 8 Smend, Rudolf 1911 p. 5 with source references. 9 Ibid. 10 Laufs, Adolf 1976 p. 217. 11 165 and 166 §§JRA1654. 12 Tit. II 8 §RHRO1654. 59 The Imperial Chamber Court
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=