Die „Rechtsfindungswerkstatt der Integration“

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-334
Author(s):  
Ruth Weber
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Characteristics ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cultural Perspective ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Historical Developments ◽  
Gerichtshof Der Europäischen Union ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The Eu

Als „Rechtsfindungswerkstatt der Integration“ bezeichnet Koen Lenaerts die Institution, deren Präsident er ist: den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union. Ziel dieses Texts ist es, diese Selbstbeschreibung zu überprüfen. Neben einer Betrachtung der verfahrens- und organisationsrechtlichen Vorgaben ist dabei zentral, die Beratungskultur und den Begründungsstil des EuGH aus einer institutionellen und rechtskulturellen Perspektive zu beleuchten. Anhand des Vorabentscheidungsersuchens wird der EuGH zunächst als zentraler Akteur im europäischen Verfassungsgerichtsverbund vorgestellt. Der Vergleich mit den Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeiten Deutschlands und Frankreichs lässt die Alleinstellungsmerkmale des EuGH besser verstehen. Schließlich zeigt sich, dass der EuGH aufgrund historischer Entwicklungen der EU, insbesondere ihrer Erweiterungen, einem Wandel unterlegen ist und zugleich fortdauernde institutionelle Eigenheiten herausgebildet hat. The President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Koen Lenaerts, describes it as a “legal laboratory of integration”. The aim of this text is to review this self-description. In addition to the procedural and organisational requirements, it is crucial to shed light on the deliberative culture and the style of reasoning of the ECJ from an institutional and legal-cultural perspective. An analysis of the preliminary ruling presents the ECJ as a central figure in the European constitutional court network. A comparison with the German and French constitutional jurisdictions provides a better understanding of the ECJ’s distinctive features. Finally, it becomes apparent that the ECJ is subject to change due to the historical developments of the EU, especially the enlargements, and at the same time has developed its own enduring institutional characteristics.

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 Dialectics Between Constitutional Identity and Common Constitutional Traditions: Which Language for Cooperative Constitutionalism in Europe?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1097-1118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Fichera ◽  
Oreste Pollicino
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
And Function ◽  
Role And Function ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis Article revisits the role and function of constitutional identity and common constitutional traditions and claims that the latter have had an increasingly stronger influence on the process of European integration—more than may appear at first sight. In addition, the relevance of common constitutional traditions has not been undermined but, on the contrary, strengthened by the emergence of fundamental rights in EU law and the subsequent conferral of binding force on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Constitutional identity and common constitutional traditions are part of two discourses—security and fundamental rights—which are an expression of the security of the European project as an overarching frame characterizing the EU as a polity and legal system. After an overview of some of the most important rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, this Article concludes by emphasizing the importance of the recent conciliatory attitude recently adopted by the Court of Justice, although the more ambivalent attitude of the Italian Constitutional Court indicates how conflictual features are becoming increasingly important and can no longer be concealed as the EU reaches a more advanced stage of integration.

The EU Battle on the Last Word and the Environment

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 390-407
Author(s):  
Ludwig Krämer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
The Eu

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.

European Integration Through Preliminary Rulings? The Case of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1591-1622
Author(s):  
Mihail Vatsov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Do So

The preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is instrumental for the so-called “judicial dialogue” within the European Union (EU). The goals of the preliminary reference procedure are to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law and to contribute to the harmonious development of the law throughout the EU. It was through the preliminary reference procedure to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the principles of direct effect and supremacy were developed. It took many years before the first request by a Constitutional Court was sent to the CJEU. So far, the Constitutional Courts of Belgium, Austria, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and most recently Slovenia, have sent requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU. By far the most active of these in sending requests has been the Belgian Court. The Portuguese Constitutional Court has indicated that it can request preliminary rulings from the CJEU but is yet to do so. In the other Member States (MS) with Constitutional Courts, references have not been sent yet, although worthy occasions in terms of EU-law-related cases have occurred, as also observed in various contributions in this special issue. These MSs include Bulgaria.

The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Armenian Legal Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 199-219
Author(s):  
Narine Ghazaryan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Eu

The chapter analyses the limited impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on the legal order of the Republic of Armenia. Despite Armenia’s geographic proximity to the EU, CJEU precedents feature in only two cases of the Constitutional Court of Armenia. In both cases, CJEU case law is seen merely as part of comparative international legal practice, informing the judgment of the national court, rather than affecting the ratio per se. The chapter analyses the main reasons behind the apparent lack of CJEU impact on Armenian judicial practice and the legal order more generally. These include, for example, low intensity in bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia and cognitive barriers. The chapter also addresses the main features of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement and covers future possibilities for judicial interaction between the two legal orders.

scholarly journals Supremacía de la constitución versus primacía del derecho de la UE en materia derechos fundamentales: concordancias y discordancias entre el tribunal constitucional y el tribunal de justicia de la UE en el asunto Melloni

2017 ◽  
pp. 637
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Donaire Villa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Se analiza en este artículo el primer diálogo judicial directo entre el TC español y el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, sobre la Euroorden y la interpretación del artículo 53 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE cuando el nivel nacional de protección de los derechos es superior al dispensado por una norma de Derecho derivado de la Unión. Se ponen de manifiesto las posibles tensiones entre supremacía constitucional y primacía del Derecho de la Unión Europea, y la evocación por el Tribunal Constitucional de su doctrina de los derechos constitucionalmente reconocidos como límites a la integración en la Sentencia que cierra el diálogo con el Tribunal de Justicia en el Asunto Melloni.This paper surveys the first direct judicial dialogue between the Spanish Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European Arrest Warrant and the interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU when the national level of protection of rights is higher than that provided by a rule of secondary legislation of the Union. It highlights the possible tensions between constitutional supremacy and primacy of European Union law, and the evocation made by the Constitutional Court of its doctrine on rights constitutionally recognized as limits to the European integration contained in the judgment which closes the dialogue between both Courts within the so-called Melloni case.

scholarly journals The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-172
Author(s):  
Václav Stehlík ◽  
David Sehnálek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article analyses the use of the preliminary ruling procedure by the Czech courts in the 15 years of the Czech membership in the European Union. It presents statistics of cases lodged to the EU Court of Justice and refers to the most important decisions. The article compares the practise of both lower courts as well as courts of last instance, namely the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also outlines the attitude of the Czech Constitutional Court towards this procedure.

scholarly journals The Constitutional Court of Romania and European Union Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-85
Author(s):  
Dragoş Călin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Accession ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
Normative Content ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Constitutional Court of Romania has subjected the introduction of a norm of European Union law into the constitutionality control, as an interposed norm to the standard norm. On the one hand, the norm should be sufficiently clear, precise and unequivocal in itself, or its meaning should have been clearly, precisely and unequivocally established by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and on the other hand it should be circumscribed by a certain level of constitutional relevance, so that its normative content could support the possible breach of the Constitution - the only direct standard norm within the constitutionality control - by national law. However, the experience of the Constitutional Court of Romania over the eight years (2007-2014) since the EU accession, does not seem to be very convincing, irrespective of the way in which European Union law, including the case law of the CJUE has been used: as justifying or circumstantial argument, as a mere reference or in an inadequate context.

Essay: The Integrative Function of a European Constitution (Discussion of Chr. Dorau: Die Verfassungsfrage der Europäischen Union)

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Eric Murkens
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Convention ◽  
European Constitution ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Eu

Why did the European Union (EU) leaders at the Laeken summit in December 2001 agree to a constitutional convention headed by the former French President Valéry Giscard D'Estaing to design a constitution for the EU when, according to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the German Federal Constitutional Court, and many academic commentators, the founding treaties already form a constitution?

Securing Trust in the Court of Justice of the EU: The Influence of the Advocates General

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 509-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Institutional Characteristics ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis chapter examines the influence of the Advocates General in promoting trust in the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union. While it accepts that it may be difficult to quantify this influence—given the non-binding nature of the Opinions—it argues that the work of the Advocates General has an impact in securing confidence in the Court. This conclusion is supported by an examination of three possible levels of the influence exerted by the Advocates General, which are considered in the chapter in descending order of abstraction. The first and most abstract dimension of this influence is that provided by the institutional characteristics of the office of Advocate General and the role associated to it. The second dimension is the general contribution of the Opinions to the development of the case law. Finally, the chapter looks at the contribution of the Advocates General in the specific context of cases involving conflicting rights and interests and particularly in cases where fundamental human rights collide with essential Treaty objectives and freedoms—like the free movement of goods or persons—an area where trust in the work of the Court is crucial to ensure the legitimacy of the Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document