scholarly journals Defending Sovereign Statehood Against Transforming the Union Into a State

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
German Parliament ◽  
State Legislative ◽  
The Eu

German Constitutional Court decision of 30 June 2009 on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution – Overview of earlier case-law – Analysis of the judgment – Comparison with earlier case-law – The Court's reference to sovereignty – The concept of democratic legitimacy – Participation of the German Parliament – Transformation of the EU into a state – Creeping evisceration of state legislative authority – Assessment of the judgment

‘An Association of Sovereign States’

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Bieber
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Conceptual Foundations ◽  
Fundamental Requirement ◽  
The Eu

German Constitutional Court decision of 30 June 2009 on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution – Continuing sovereignty of member states under the EU Treaty – Extended constitutional limits to European integration (‘eternity clause’) under German Constitution, but these are not violated by Lisbon Treaty – Composition of European Parliament does not satisfy fundamental requirement of democracy but does not violate German Constitution since EU is not a state – Critical assessment of conceptual foundations of decision

When, if not Now? An Update on Civil Partnership in Germany

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne E.H. Sanders
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Same Sex Parents ◽  
Open Marriage

Following the article “Marriage, Same-Sex Partnership, and the German Constitution,” which was published in theGerman Law Journalin 2012 (seeAnne Sanders,Marriage, Same Sex Partnership and the Constitution, 13 German L.J. 911 [2012]), this article provides an update on recent developments in relation to same sex partnerships in Germany. The focus of this Article is case law of the German Constitutional Court from 2002 through today, but it also discusses other court decisions in relation to the rights of same sex parents. The Article concludes with an examination of a recent draft law which—if successful—will open marriage to same sex couples. While its chances for success are extremely slim, this Article argues that same sex marriage will eventually be introduced in Germany.

Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Char ter and the German Constitutional Watchdog: Court of Justice of the European Union: Judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C-617/10 Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Theoretical Foundations ◽  
The Eu

In late February 2013, the ECJ handed down the Åkerberg Fransson preliminary ruling (Fransson), a ten-page decision which tackled the unresolved issue of the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) to domestic measures. Notwithstanding the Advocate General's effort to investigate the theoretical foundations that legitimise this projection of the Charter upon state acts, the ECJ delivered a judgment which largely followed in the pattern of its own anodyne case-law on general principles. The judgment confirmed that the Swedish measures at stake – cumulating administrative and criminal penalties for tax evaders – ‘implemented’ EU law insofar as they contributed to the effective collection of VAT, one of the sources of the EU's budget. As a consequence, it is for the Swedish judge to check their compliance with the Charter's norm on ne bis in idem. This decision confirms that the Charter applies to national measures that do not transpose EU legislation and happen to fall within its scope only incidentally.Regardless of the relative conservativeness of this finding, its implications are fated to displease member states and the reasoning of the Court was not compelling enough to prevent distinguishing and criticism. The first attack was promptly brought by the German Constitutional Court, which in its anti-terror database decision made clear that it subscribes only to a restrictive reading of Fransson and does not accept that the Charter applies to domestic measures whose objectives are set domestically, even if their purposes are shared by EU legislation.

scholarly journals Why the European Union is not a State

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
The European Union ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Relative Concept ◽  
The Eu

German Constitutional Court decision of 30 June 2009 on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution – Analysis of inconsistencies – Differences between the EU and a state – Sovereignty of the member states and Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Argument for a relative concept of sovereignty – Sovereignty and the right to withdraw – Critical analysis of BVerfG's assessment of the EU's democratic deficit and denial of the importance of the European Parliament

The Franco-German Constitutional Divide

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 374-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Herman Reestman
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Identity ◽  
Constitutional Patriotism ◽  
Key Word ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Current Union ◽  
Nation People

German Constitutional Court decision of 30 June 2009 on the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution – ‘Identity’ key word of the Lissabon-Urteil – The national identity clause in the current Union Treaty – Nation: people and state; diachronic and synchronic identity – Constitutional patriotism – The national identity clause in the Lisbon Union Treaty – Volksidentität and state identity – Verfassungsidentität: diachronic identity – Identité constitutionnelle de la France: synchronic identity – confidence and diffidence in the Union

scholarly journals Beyond the Binary: Towards a Third Sex Category in Germany?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Dunne ◽  
Jule Mulder
Keyword(s):  
Gender Identity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
The Future ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Progressive Potential ◽  
Domestic Law

This Case Note discusses the recent judgment of the German Constitutional Court (1 BvR 2019/16) requiring either the legal recognition of sex categories beyond male or female, or the aboltion of sex registration requirements. The Note considers the Court's decision within the broader constitutional case law on gender identity, and explores both the progressive potential, and the future—perhaps unforeseen—consequences, of the ruling. The Case Note proceeds in three sections. Section A introduces the facts of the constitutional challenge, and sets out both the submissions of the complainant, as well as the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. In Section B, the Case Note explores the domestic law novelty of the decision, placing particular emphasis on the application of a constitutional equality framework to persons who experience intersex variance. Finally, in Section C, the Case Note contextualizes the judgment, situating the reasoning of the Constitutional Court within wider movements for transgender—otherwise known as trans—and intersex rights.

The German Constitutional Court and Preliminary References—Still a Match not Made in Heaven?

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1491-1508
Author(s):  
Eva Julia Lohse
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
The Eu

So far, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, henceforth:BVerfG) has only made a single preliminary reference to the (now) Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), despite frequent rulings on matters connected with European Union (EU) Law. Its apparent reluctance seemed odd considering the atmosphere of dialogue and cooperation which prevails between the non-constitutional courts and the EU courts. This situation might, however, have changed with the preliminary reference from January 2014, proving predictions on the perceived “most powerful constitutional court” and its relationship to the EU partly wrong. The legal effects of its preliminary reference on the interpretation of Articles 119, 123, 127 ff. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the validity of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) by the European Central Bank (ECB) under EU Law are as yet unclear; although the Opinion of the Advocate General Cruz Villalón was delivered in the beginning of 2015, which did not confirm the doubts expressed by theBVerfGabout the conformity of the OMT programme with EU law. Nonetheless, the interpretative scheme and the normative questions as to the reluctance of theBVerfGremain the same after this single referral and offer explanations as to why theBVerfGhad for nearly sixty years not referred a question to the former European Court of Justice (ECJ).

scholarly journals The Limits of Agencification in the European Union

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1223-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslava Scholten ◽  
Marloes van Rijsbergen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Eu

Although not explicitly regulated by the EU treaties, EU agencies not only exist but also have increased in number and power. In addition, while EU agencies may exercise very similar functions to those of the Commission, Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) do not list agencies among the possible authors of non-legislative acts. The existing situation raises the questions of the extent to which the ongoing agencification in the EU is legitimate and what its limits are. This article addresses these questions in the light of the old and new Treaties and case law, including the just releasedESMA-shortsellingcase. It shows that while the Lisbon Treaty made a few steps forward on the road of legitimizing EU agencies and delegating important powers to them, the scope of powers that EU agencies can have remains unclear. In this respect, the European Court of Justice's lenient approach in theESMA-shortsellingcase is unfortunate because it neither clarifies the issue nor pushes the Union Legislator and the Member States to address it. Consequently, in the absence of clear limits, further agencification is likely to persist at the risk of increasing the democratic legitimacy deficit and remaining accountability gaps.

Das BVerfG zwischen Verfassungsinterpretation, europäischer Integration und politischer Positionierung – Eine Zwischenbilanz zum NPD-Verbotsurteil vom 17.1.2017

2019 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77
Author(s):  
Lise Känner
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Repression ◽  
Political Background ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Substantive Law

In this paper, the author examines the effects that the judgment of the German Constitutional Court concerning the party ban in Art. 21 I GG (17 January 2017) had on government, legislator and society since it was rendered roughly two years ago. For this purpose, she illustrates the relevant changes of the procedural and substantive law of Art. 21 GG and analyses the historical and political background of those changes. She puts special emphasis on the influence that the case law of the ECHR had on the new interpretation of Art. 21 GG. In the end, she questions whether the judgment, which on the surface emphasises the importance of strengthening the freedom of political parties, is able to live up to it’s own standards in reality. For this, she studies to what extent state repression (also, and in particular illegal one) of political parties has increased during the time since the judgment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document