Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:36:48.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Approach to European Law in German Jurisprudence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Dieter H. Scheuing

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To adequately assess the approach to European law in German jurisprudence is an impossible task to fulfill, yet one which is indispensable.

The impossibility of such an attempt becomes clear if one realizes the multitude and variety of courts and judicial procedures existing in the Federal Republic of Germany. Our present judicial system is composed of 1,162 national courts with a total of about 21,000 judges.1 Eight of these courts are federal courts, the others are courts of the Länder, i.e. of the sixteen Member States of the Federation.

Type
European & International Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , 01 June 2004 , pp. 703 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Cf. the attached sketch of the German judicial system; the number of judges is based on the data in the official German Statistical Yearbook 2002 (Statistisches Bundesamt, ed., Statistisches Jahrbuch 2002 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und für das Ausland).Google Scholar

2 Moreover, after all these remedies have been exhausted, and sometimes even before, the Bundesverfassungsgericht can be seized by the plaintiffs for a fundamental rights review over the court decisions via the constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde).Google Scholar

3 Estimation based on the data in the official German Statistical Yearbook 2002 (see above footnote 1).Google Scholar

4 Cf., in the German Basic Law, the Preamble and Article 24 of 1949 as well as Article 23 in its version of 1992.Google Scholar

5 Lütticke, 1966 ECR 257 (ECJ, 16 March 1966, Case 57/65).Google Scholar

6 BFH, 15 January 1969, Lütticke, Entscheidungen des Bundesfinanzhofs 95, 67.Google Scholar

7 BVerfGE 31, 145, 174 (translation: D.H.S.).Google Scholar

8 Alcan II, 1997 ECR I 1591, para. 38 (ECJ, 20 March 1997, Case C-24/95).Google Scholar

9 BVerwGE 106 328.Google Scholar

10 BVerfGE 2000, 175.Google Scholar

11 AG Miesbach, 6 July 1982, Prantl (not published).Google Scholar

12 Cf. the extract from the judgment in: Scheuing, Rechtsprobleme bei der Durchsetzung des Gemeinschaftsrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1985 Europarecht 229, 259 (translation: D.H.S.).Google Scholar

13 This judge's view was subsequently confirmed in: Prantl, 1984 ECR 1299 (ECJ, 13 March 1984, Case 16/83).Google Scholar

14 Von Colson und Kamann, 1984 ECR 1891 (ECJ, 10 April 1984, Case 14/83).Google Scholar

15 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970 ECR 1125 (ECJ, 17 December 1970, Case 11/70).Google Scholar

16 BVerfGE 37, 271; 2 CMLR 540 (1974) –„Solange I“.Google Scholar

17 BVerfGE 73, 339; 3 CMLR 225 (1987) -„Solange II“.Google Scholar

18 BVerfGE 89, 155; 1 CMLR 57 (1994) –„Maastricht“.Google Scholar

19 BVerfGE 102, 147 – „Bananenmarktordnung“.Google Scholar

20 Banana Market Regulation, 1994 ECR I-4973 (ECJ, 5 October 1994, Case C-280/93).Google Scholar

21 Kreil, 2000 ECR I-69 (ECJ, 11 January 2000, Case C-285/98).Google Scholar

22 Article 12a paragraph 4 phrase 2 of the German Basic Law as amended in 1956 and 1968 (translation: D.H.S.).Google Scholar

23 Article 12a paragraph 4 phrase 2 of the German Basic Law as amended in 2000.Google Scholar

24 Supra note 18.Google Scholar

25 Grad v. Finanzamt Traunstein, 1970 ECR 825 (ECJ, 6 October 1970, Case 9/70).Google Scholar

26 BVerwGE 74, 241 – “Denkawit“.Google Scholar

27 BFH, 16 July 1981, Kloppenburg, Entscheidungen des Bundesfinanzhofs 133, 470 (provisional ruling); BFH, 25 April 1985, Kloppenburg, Entscheidungen des Bundesfinanzhofs 143, 383 (main judgment).Google Scholar

28 Kloppenburg, , 1984 ECR 1075 (ECJ, 22 February 1984, Case 70/83).Google Scholar

29 BVerfGE 75, 223.Google Scholar

30 Marshall, , 1986 ECR 723 (ECJ, 26 February 1986, Case 152/84); Dori, Faccini, 1994 ECR I-3325 (ECJ, 14 July 1994, Case C-91/92).Google Scholar

31 SIMAP, 2000 ECR I-7963 (ECJ, 3 October 2000, Case C-303/98); Confirmed in the meantime in: ECJ, 9 September 2003, Case C-151/02 Jaeger (not yet published).Google Scholar

32 BAG, 18 February 2003, Case 1 ABR 2/02, Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Sozialrecht 2003, 742.Google Scholar

33 Faccini Dori, 1994 ECR I-3325 (ECJ, 14 July 1994, Case C-91/92).Google Scholar

34 Estimations based on the data in the official German Statistical Yearbook 2002 (see above footnote 1) and the statistics of the German Hospital Society, Krankenhausstatistik: Grunddaten der Krankenhäuser 2001, www.dkgev.de/1_pub.htm, 18 October 2003.Google Scholar

35 Sic in the meantime BAG, 5 June 2003, Case 6 AZR 114/02, not yet published.Google Scholar

36 Reported in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 19 February 2003, 13.Google Scholar

37 Francovich, 1991 ECR I-5357 (ECJ, 19 November 1991, Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90); Dillenkofer, 1996 ECR I-4845 (ECJ, 8 October 1996, Cases C-178/94 et al.).Google Scholar

38 These figures are based on the ECJ-statistics in: http://curia.eu.int/de/instit/presentationfr/rapport/stat/st01cr.pdf, 18 October 2003.Google Scholar

39 Molkereizentrale, 1968 ECR 215 (ECJ, 3 April 1968, Case 28/67).Google Scholar

40 Paletta II, 1996 ECR I-2357 (ECJ, 2 May 1996, Case C-206/94).Google Scholar

41 Grado, 1997 ECR I-5531, para. 12 (ECJ, 9 October 1997, Case C-249/96).Google Scholar

42 Foto-Frost, 1987 ECR 4199 (ECJ, 22 October 1987, Case 314/85).Google Scholar

43 Süderdithmarschen, Zuckerfabrik, 1991 ECR I-415 (ECJ, 21 February 1991, Cases C-143/88 and C-92/82).Google Scholar

44 Atlanta, 1995 ECR I-3799 (ECJ, 9 November 1995, Case C-465/93).Google Scholar

45 These figures are also based on the ECJ-statistics (see above footnote 38).Google Scholar

46 BVerfGE 37, 271, 282; 2 CMLR 540 (1974) -„Solange I“.Google Scholar

47 BVerfGE 104, 214 – “NPD-Verbot”.Google Scholar

48 BVerwGE 100, 370 –„Autobahnring München“.Google Scholar

49 Großkrotzenburg, 1995 ECR I-2189, para. 28 (ECJ, 11 August 1995, Case C-431/92).Google Scholar

50 BVerfGE, 21 August 1996, Autobahnring München, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1997, 481.Google Scholar

51 BVerwGE 108, 289.Google Scholar

52 BVerfGE, 9 January 2001, Rinke, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, 1267. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht then referred to the ECJ, who stated that the directive provisions on full time work were consistent with the equal treatment of men and women: ECJ, 9 September 2003, Case C-25/02 Rinke (not yet published).Google Scholar