Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
On 7 February 2014 in the OMT Case, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe referred a question about the interpretation of Treaty law to the European Court of Justice for the first time. The question was whether the European Central Bank exceeded its mandate when it declared, in September 2012, that it was prepared to make emergency, unlimited purchases of specific states' bonds. Some view the referral as a genuflection acknowledging the judicial superiority of European Union jurisprudence. Has the Karlsruhe Court relinquished its role as “the final arbiter” and thereby surreptitiously bid farewell to the German sovereignty that the same Senate of the Constitutional Court so vigorously endorsed in the Lisbon Treaty Case in 2009?
1 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvR 2728/13 (Jan. 24, 2014), https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions/rs20140114_2bvr272813en.html [hereinafter OTM Case].Google Scholar
2 Lisbon case, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2/08 (Jun. 30, 2009) https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar
3 See id. Google Scholar
4 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1390/12 (Sept. 12, 2014).Google Scholar
5 OTM Case.Google Scholar
6 Id. Google Scholar
7 Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland, CJEU Case C-370/12 (Nov. 27 2012), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/recherche.jsf?language=en.Google Scholar