‘An Association of Sovereign States’

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Bieber

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

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm

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


Author(s):  
Franz C Mayer

This chapter considers the highly problematic issue of defiance by a court. Notably, the chapter focuses on defiance by national courts in the context of European integration—a phenomenon which has occurred with some frequency. Still more specifically, this chapter turns to the German Constitutional Court’s approach to European integration. Though the 1949 German Constitution (the Grundgesetz) appears to be more open for European and international cooperation than most other constitutions on the continent, it too seems to be edging toward defiance. As a first step it is thus necessary to take a closer look at the broader picture of the German constitutional landscape, in particular at the German Constitutional Court and its decisions on European integration. Based on that broader account of cases, the chapter then assesses the degree and motivations of defiance and to reflect on possible future developments.


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock

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


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 374-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Herman Reestman

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


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-37
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka

Summary The paper deals with the changes in the centralized (Kelsenian) model of constitutional review resulting from a state’s membership of the EU, which unequivocally demonstrates the decomposition of the classic paradigm of constitutional judiciary. The main point raised in the paper is that European integration has fundamentally influenced on the four above-mentioned basic elements of the Kelsenian model of constitutional review of legislation, which are the following: the assumption of the hierarchical construction of a legal system; the assumption of the supreme legal force of the constitution as the primary normative act of a given system; a centralised model of reviewing hierarchical conformity of legal norms; coherence of the system guaranteed by a constitutional court’s power to declare defectiveness of a norm and the latter’s derogation. All its fundamental elements have evolved, i.e. the hierarchy of the legal system, the overriding power of the constitution, centralized control of constitutionality, and the erga omnes effect of the ruling on the hierarchical non-conformity of the norms. It should be noted that over the last decade the dynamics of these changes have definitely gained momentum. This has been influenced by several factors, including the “great accession” of 2004, the pursuit of formal constitutionalization of the EU through the Constitutional Treaty, the compromise solutions adopted in the Treaty of Lisbon, the entry into force of the Charter, and the prospect of EU accession to the ECHR. The CJEU has used these factors to deepen the tendencies towards decentralization of constitutional control, by atomising national judicial systems and relativizing the effects of constitutional court rulings within national legal systems. The end result is the observed phenomenon, if not of marginalisation, then at least of a systemic shift in the position of constitutional courts, which have lost their uniqueness and have become “only ones of many” national courts.


Author(s):  
Paul Craig

This chapter traces the development of what is now the EU. It first describes the origins of ideas of European unity. It then discusses the various treaties that paved the way towards broader European integration. These include the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty of 1951,the Single European Act 1986, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) of 1992, and the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Next, the chapter turns to the impact of the global financial crisis on the EU and considers several theories of integration.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1491-1508
Author(s):  
Eva Julia Lohse

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).


2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1259-1262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat

Generations of politicians and lawyers will have to read and re-read the recent ruling of the German Constitutional Court of 30 June 2009 regarding the Treaty of Lisbon (“Lisbon Case”) on almost a daily basis for many years to come. The Court, master of its own proceedings and not feeling bound by any doctrine of judicial self-restraint, has expounded in this decision at great length about its own philosophy of the European integration process. Based on its self-established theory, in which every German citizen is holder of a democratic right to a legislature that is endowed with substantial powers to determine the destiny of the German people, the Court examined the Treaty in each and every detail. The claimants, alleging through a constitutional complaint that this democratic right had been breached, could not point to any specific injury that they had suffered. In real terms, their constitutional complaints amounted to an ‘abstract' review of the Treaty, a remedy which the Basic Law reserves for the federal government, any government of a Land, or for a third of the members of the Bundestag. But the Court saw the constitutional complaints, which had been filed by the extreme right and the extreme left of the political spectrum, as a welcome opportunity to define the constitutional limits of the European integration process. Far from reflecting the views of the framers, the ruling reads like a political manifesto from the judges.


Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm

This chapter examines the question of who is sovereign in the relationship between the European Union and its Member States. It first considers the relevance of the debate over sovereignty in the EU and the development of the concept of sovereignty, paying attention to public powers form the substance of sovereignty, Jürgen Habermas’ theory of dual sovereignty, and the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It then explores the problem of whether one should maintain the concept of sovereignty or recognize that the era of post-sovereignty has begun. It argues that it makes sense to address the question of who is sovereign in the EU, suggesting that the answer will determine the future course of European integration. It also analyses which concept of sovereignty is best suited to understand and explain the EU.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 390-407
Author(s):  
Ludwig Krämer

Abstract In May 2020, the German constitutional court decided that under certain conditions, a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union should or could be ignored by a national court, which would have the last word to decide on the compatibility with the EU Treaties of a measure adopted by an EU institution or body. The contribution examines, whether this German decision is compatible with the EU Treaties and concludes that it this is not the case.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document