Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:12:58.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Red Lines, If Any, Do the Lisbon Judgments of European Constitutional Courts Draw for Future EU Integration?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Stefan Theil

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.

The lingering European financial crisis continues to threaten the Eurozone and, in the opinion of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the very survival of the European idea. With this apocalyptic rhetoric, it is easily forgotten that only nine years earlier Europe overcame a predicament that was, at the time, equally described as the most challenging in its history. Two failed referendums in Member States of the European Union (Member States)—namely, in France and the Netherlands—stopped the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Constitutional Treaty) in its tracks and led to an extended “period of reflection” for Europe's leaders. From this emerged a reboot of the Constitutional Treaty, now dubbed the Treaty of Lisbon, with few substantial changes, but more success throughout the ratification procedures. The final hurdle presented itself in the form of institutionally strong Constitutional Courts (CC) and Tribunals (CT) of the European Member States. Of these, the following were at one time or another seized with complaints against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty: The Austrian Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austrian CC), the Belgian CC, the Ústavní soud České republiky (Czech CC), the French Conseil Constitutionnel (French CC), the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (German CC), the Hungarian CC, the Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesa (Latvian CC), the Polish Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Polish CT), and the Tribunal Constitucional de España (Spanish CT).

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , 01 July 2014 , pp. 599 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Which Merkel epitomized in the phrase: “Scheitert der Euro, dann scheitert Europa.” (“If the Euro fails, then Europe fails.”) Bundesregierung, Official German Government Bulletin (Oct. 26, 2011), http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Bulletin/2011/10/111-1-bk-bt.html.Google Scholar

2 Eur. Council, Declaration by the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union on the Ratification of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (June 18, 2005), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/85325.pdf.Google Scholar

3 It is debatable whether the term Constitutional Treaty was a hint at statehood. See Paul Berman, From Laeken to Lisbon: The Origins and Negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty, in EU law after Lisbon 3 (Andrea Biondi, Piet Eeckhout & Stefanie Ripley eds., 2012).Google Scholar

4 For instance, the European Foreign Minister was recast as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. See The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C 310).Google Scholar

5 Which dismissed applications against the original Constitutional Treaty, Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], June 18, 2005, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] No. G 62/05, Constitutional Treaty; against the Lisbon Treaty ex ante, Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], Sept. 30, 2009, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] No. SV 2/08, Lisbon I; and against the Lisbon Treaty ex post for lack of a prima facie infringement of rights Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], June 12, 2010, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] SV 1/10, Lisbon II. Google Scholar

6 Which engaged primarily with domestic provisions, Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision no 58/2009, Mar. 19, 2009 (Belg.) and dismissed the second challenge on procedural grounds, Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision no 156/2009, Oct. 17, 2008 (Belg.).Google Scholar

7 Not to be confused with the Conseil d'État, France's highest administrative court and advisory body.Google Scholar

8 Collectively referred to as European Constitutional Courts. Google Scholar

9 Tomuschat, Christian, The Ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 German L.J. 1259 (2009).Google Scholar

10 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1010/08; 2 BvR 1022/08; 2 BvR 1259/08; 2 BvR 182/09, 2009 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT [NJW] 123, (June 30, 2009) [hereinafter German CC, Lisbon]. Google Scholar

11 Ústavní soud České republiky (ÚS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Nov. 26, 2008] Pl. ÚS 19/08: Treaty of Lisbon I, http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=484&cHash=621d8068f5e20ecadd84e0bae0527552 [hereinafter Czech CC, Lisbon I]; Ústavní soud České republiky (ÚS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Nov. 3, 2009] Pl. ÚS 29/09: Treaty of Lisbon II, http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=466&cHash=eedba7ca14d226b879ccaf91a6dcb276 [hereinafter Czech CC, Lisbon II]. Google Scholar

12 Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2004-505DC, Nov. 19, 2004, Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Fr.) [hereinafter French CC, Constitutional Treaty].; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2007-560DC, Dec. 20, 2007 (Fr.) [hereinafter French CC, Lisbon]. Google Scholar

13 Trybunał Konstytucyjny [Constitutional Tribunal] Nov. 24, 2010, K 32/09 (Pol.) [hereinafter Polish CT, Lisbon]. Google Scholar

14 Defined as the power of a body to determine its own powers, adopted from Tobias Lock, Why the European Union is not a State, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 409 (2009).Google Scholar

15 Attempts at clarification are undertaken by Armin von Bogdandy, Europäische und Nationale Identität: Integration durch Verfassungsrecht?, 62 VVDStRL 164 (2003); Jan-Herman Reestman, The Franco-German Constitutional Divide, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 384 (2009); Mattias Wendel, Lisbon Before the Courts: Comparative Perspectives, 7 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 131 (2011).Google Scholar

16 Bieber, Roland, An Association of Sovereign States, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 392 (2009); Peter L. Lindseth, Democratic Legitimacy and the Administrative Character of Supranationalism: the Example of the European Community, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 628, 738 (1999).Google Scholar

17 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 231. This is correctly critiqued as missing an essential component, namely “if and when acting jointly” with the other Member States. See Bieber, supra note 16, at 397.Google Scholar

18 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 216–218.Google Scholar

19 Pernice, Ingolf, Motor or Brake for European Policies? Germany's New Role in the EU After the Lisbon-Judgment of Its Federal Constitutional Court, in Europe's Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case law 372 (José Maria Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

20 Pieroth, Bodo, Art. 79, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar no. 6 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

21 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 224-226; subscribing to Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre 183 (1922).Google Scholar

22 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 344-345.Google Scholar

23 Id. at para. 346.Google Scholar

24 Doukas, Dimitrios, The Verdict of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty: Not Guilty, but Don't Do It Again!, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 886 (2009). For similar criticism on the preceding Maastricht Judgment, see Joseph H. Weiler, The State “Uber Alles”: Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision (Eur. Univ. Inst. Working Paper No. 95/19, 1995), http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/95/9506ind.html; and Julio Baquero Cruz, The Legacy of the Maastrict-Urteil and the Pluralist Movement, 14 Eur. L.J. 389, 411 (2008). On more flexible notions, see Robert Schütze, On the “Federal” Ground: The European Union As an (Inter)national Phenomenon, 46 Common Mkt. l. Rev. 1069 (2009). On origins of the debate in general, see Frederico Mancini, Europe: The Case for Statehood, 4 Eur. L.J. 29 (1998); Joseph H. Weiler, Europe: The Case Against the Case for Statehood, 4 Eur. L.J. 43 (1998); Paul Craig, The Nature of the Community: Integration, Democracy and Legitimacy, in The Evolution of EU law 23 (Paul Craig & Gráinne de Bùrca eds., 1999).Google Scholar

25 Lock, , supra note 14, at 408. See also, Ulrike Liebert, More Democracy in the European Union?! Mixed Messages from the German Lisbon Ruling, in The German Constitutional Court‘s Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives 79, 80 (Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Christian Joerges & Arndt Wonka eds., 2010); Daniel Thym, From Ultra-Vires-Control to Constitutional Identity Review: The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, in Europe‘s Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts—Lisbon and Beyond 36 (Jose Maria Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

26 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 225.Google Scholar

27 Id. at para. 329.Google Scholar

28 As a right to withdrawal from an existing federation is typically limited under International Law to the right of self-determination in the context of decolonization, see Susanna Mancini, Rethinking the Boundaries of Democratic Secession: Liberalism, Nationalism, and the Right of Minorities to Self-Determination, 6 Int'l J. Const. L. 553 (2008).Google Scholar

29 Lock, , supra note 14, at 414.Google Scholar

30 Lock, , supra note 14, at 414; Christoph Möllers, Pouvoir Constituant – Constitution – Constitutionalisation, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 201, 202 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2006).Google Scholar

31 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 100–101.Google Scholar

32 Id. at para. 209.Google Scholar

33 Czech, CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at para. 147. See also, Jan Komárek, The Czech Constitutional Court's Second Decision on the Lisbon Treaty, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 345, 350 (2009); Ingolf Pernice, The Treaty of Lisbon: Multilevel Constitutionalism in Action, 15 Colum. J. Eur. L. 375 (2009).Google Scholar

34 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, para. 107.Google Scholar

35 Id. at para. 108.Google Scholar

36 Id. at para. 106.Google Scholar

37 Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

38 Id. at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

39 Id. Google Scholar

40 Id. Google Scholar

41 Id. Google Scholar

42 Id. Google Scholar

43 Id. at para. 2.2.Google Scholar

44 French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at para. 9.Google Scholar

45 This was preceded by the earlier concept of an “express contrary provision of the Constitution.” See Reestman, supra note 15, at 386; Chloé Charpy, The Status of (Secondary) Community Law in the French Internal Order: The Recent Case-Law of the Conseil Constitutionnel and the Conseil d'Etat, 3 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 436 (2007); Bertrand Mathieu, Les Rapports Normatifs Entre le Droit Communautaire et le Reestman Droit National. Bilan et Incertitudes Relatifs aux Evolutions Récentes de la Jurisprudence des Juges Constitionnel et Administrative Français, RFDC 675 (2007).Google Scholar

46 Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2006-540DC, Nov. 19, 2004, para. 19, Société de l'information (Fr.) [hereinafter French CC, Société de l'information]; French CC, Constitutional Treaty, supra note 12, at para. 13.Google Scholar

47 Though it has been suggested as limited to those principles specific to the French constitutional order. See Conseil d'Etat, Assemblée - Arrêt du 8 février 2007 (req. 257341 et 257534), Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine et autres, Conclusions de Mattias Guyomar et Note de Paul Cassia, “Le droit Communautaire dans et sous la Constitution Française,” 43 Q. Rev. Eur. L. 378, 385 (2007).Google Scholar

48 Jacqueline Dutheil de la Rochère, French Conseil Constitutionnel: Recent Developments, in Europe's Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts: Lisbon and Beyond 18, 21 (José Marian Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

49 Lerche, Peter, Die Europäische Staatlichkeit und die Identität des Grundgesetzes, in Rechtsstaat zwischen Sozialgestaltung und Rechtsschutz, Festschrift für Konrad Redeker 131 (Bern Bender, Rüdiger Breuer, Fritz Ossenbühl & Horst Sendler eds., 1993).Google Scholar

50 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2134/92; 2 BvR 2159/92; (Oct. 12, 1993) 89 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 155 [hereinafter German CC, Maastricht].Google Scholar

51 Lenaerts, Koen, De Rome à Lisbonne, la Constitution Européenne en Marche?, 44 C.D.E. 229, 241 (2009); Koen Lenaerts & Marlies Desomer, New Models of Constitution-Making in Europe: The Quest for Legitimacy, 39 Common Mkt. l. Rev. 1243 (2002).Google Scholar

52 Schütze, supra note 24, at 1069.Google Scholar

53 Dougan, Michael, The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winnings Minds, not Hearts, 45 Common Mkt. l. Rev. 692, 698 (2008).Google Scholar

54 Which are still dominated by inter-governmental action. Franz Cromme, Eine Konsequenz aus der Krise: Fortentwicklung der EU als Staatenverbund?, 6 Die öffentliche Verwaltung [DÖV] 212 (2012). On the current state of the CFSP, see Piet Eeckhout, The EU's Common and Foreign and Security Policy after Lisbon: From Pillar Talk to Constitutionalism, in EU Law after Lisbon 265 (Andrea Biondi, Piet Eeckhout & Stefanie Ripley eds., 2012).Google Scholar

55 On the rich debate in this area, see Florence Chaltiel, La souveraineté de l'Etat et l'Union Européenne, l'exemple français (2000); Neil MacCormick, Questioning Sovereignty (1999); Anne Peters, Elemente einer Theorie einer Verfassung Europas 163 (2001); Utz Schliessky, Die Weiterentwicklung von Begriffen der Staatslehre und des Staatsrechts im europäsichen Mehrebenensystem (2004); Sovereignty in Transition (Neil Walker ed., 2006).Google Scholar

56 Grimm, Dieter, Defending Sovereign Statehood Against Transforming the European Union into a State, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 366 (2009); Armin Steinbach, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 11 German L.J. 372 (2010). The approach has tentatively featured in the preceding Maastricht ruling, which was heavily criticized. See Meinhard Schröder, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als Hüter des Staates im Prozeß der Europäischen Integration - Bemerkungen zum Maastricht-Urteil, 6 DVBl 318 (1994); Hermann-Josef Blanke, Der Unionsvertrag von Maastricht, 46 DÖV 421 (1993).Google Scholar

57 Thym, , supra note 25, at 42. Similarly, but referring to the specific difficulty in determining if a shift of an individual power to the EU has occurred, see Gunnar Beck, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict Between Right and Right in Which There is no Praetor, 17 Eur. L.J. 482 (2011).Google Scholar

58 Grimm, , supra note 56, at 367.Google Scholar

59 See Soverereignty Lost, Soverereignty Regained? The European Integration Project and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Eur. Univ. Inst. Working Paper No. 2001/31, 2001).Google Scholar

60 Thym, , supra note 25, at 33.Google Scholar

61 See Saladin, Peter, Wozu noch Staaten? (1995).Google Scholar

62 Bieber, , supra note 16, at 398.Google Scholar

63 Id. at 400 (rejecting the use of this term in a European context).Google Scholar

64 Lebeck, Carl, National Constitutionalism, Openness to International Law and Pragmatic Limits of European Integration – European Law in the German Constitutional Court from EEC to the PJCC, 7 German L.J. 907 (2006).Google Scholar

65 Halberstam, Daniel & Möllers, Christoph, The German Constitutional Court Says “Ja zu Deutschland!”, 10 German L.J. 1241, 1250 (2009); Doukas, supra note 24, at 882.Google Scholar

66 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 240.Google Scholar

67 Id. at paras. 252–260; Rike U. Krämer wonders whether even these matters can be adequately dealt with in national isolation, see Looking through Different Glasses at the Lisbon Treaty: The German Constitutional Court and the Czech Constitutional Court, in The German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives 18 (Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Christian Joerges & Arndt Wonka eds., 2010).Google Scholar

68 Fabio, Udo Di, Some Remarks on the Allocation of Competences between the European Union and its Member States, 39 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1289, 1297 (2002).Google Scholar

69 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 236–239.Google Scholar

70 Id. at para. 233.Google Scholar

71 Herdegen, Matthias, Article 79, in Grundgesetz-Kommentar para. 63 (Theodor Maunz & Günter Dürig eds., 67th ed. 2013).Google Scholar

72 Herbst, Tobias, Legale Abschaffung des Grundgesetzes nach Art. 146 GG?, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 33, 35 (2012).Google Scholar

73 See id. at 35; see also Mathias Jestaedt, Warum in die Ferne schweifen, wenn der Maßstab liegt so nah? Verfassungshandwerkliche Anfragen an das Lissabon-Urteil des BVerfG, 48 Staat 505 (2009); see also Dieter Grimm, Das Grundgesetz als Riegel vor einer Verstaatlichung der Europäischen Union. Zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 48 Staat 490 (2009).Google Scholar

74 See Beck, supra note 57, at 481.Google Scholar

75 Bodin, Jean, 10 Les six livres de la République ch. XX (10th ed. 1986) (1583) (describing it as the “marque de souvergineté”). See also Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, The Road to Monetary Union in Europe 35 (1994).Google Scholar

76 See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 126; see also Arnold Schönberger, Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht's Epigones at Sea, 10 German L.J. 1209 (2009).Google Scholar

77 See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 392.Google Scholar

78 See Beck, , supra note 57, at 483; see also Christian Wohlfahrt, The Lisbon Case: A Critical Summary, 10 German L.J. 1285 (2009).Google Scholar

79 See Schorkopf, Frank, The European Union as An Association of Sovereign States, 10 German L.J. 1230 (2009).Google Scholar

80 See Kirchhof, Paul, Die Wahrnehmung von Hoheitsgewalt durch Mitgliedstaaten und Gemeinschaftsorgane, Humboldt Forum Recht 13 (1997).Google Scholar

81 Ústavní soud České republiky 08.03.2006 (ÚS) [Czech Constitutional Court decision of Mar. 8, 2006], PL. ÙS 50/04 (hereinafter Czech CC, Sugar Quotas).Google Scholar

82 Briza, Petr, The Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty, Decision of 26 November 2008, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev 148 (2009).Google Scholar

83 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at para. 130.Google Scholar

84 Id. at para. 111 (showing that applicants evidently had the German CC's ruling in mind when making this request).Google Scholar

85 See Briza, , supra note 82, at 152.Google Scholar

86 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at para. 146.Google Scholar

87 Id. at para. 113.Google Scholar

88 See id. at para. 109; see also Czech CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at para. 111.Google Scholar

89 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at para. 109.Google Scholar

90 Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

91 Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

92 See id. at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

93 See id. at paras. 2.1, 2.5.Google Scholar

94 See id. at paras. 2.1, 2.6.Google Scholar

95 Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision No. 92-308 DC, Apr. 9, 1992, para. 14 [hereinafter French CC, Maastricht I].Google Scholar

96 French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at para. 20.Google Scholar

97 French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at paras. 18, 19.Google Scholar

98 See Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision No. 2003-469 DC, Mar. 26, 2003, paras. 2, 3 (hereinafter French CC, L'organisation décentralisée de la République); See Reestman, supra note 15, at 389; French CC, 92-313 DC, Maastricht Treaty III, paragraph 2 (hereinafter French CC, Maastricht Treaty III); Jacques Ziller, Sovereignty in France: Getting Rid of the Mal de Bodin, in Sovereignty in Transition 271 (Neil Walker ed., 2003).Google Scholar

99 See Lock, , supra note 14, at 411.Google Scholar

100 Id. Google Scholar

101 For a comparative analysis, see Phillip Kiiver, German Participation in EU Decision-Making after the Lisbon Case: A Comparative View on Domestic Parliamentary Clearance Procedures, 10 German L.J. 1287 (2009).Google Scholar

102 See Lock, supra note 14, at 411 (seeming to acknowledge that this is not an obvious example).Google Scholar

103 Kiiver, Phillip, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court: A Court-Ordered Strengthening of the National Legislature in the EU, 5 Eur. L.J. 580, 587 (2010).Google Scholar

104 German, CC, Lisbon, at para. 328.Google Scholar

105 See Lock, , supra note 14, at 412; see also Grimm, supra note 56, at 369.Google Scholar

106 Comm'n v. Council, CJEU Case 22/70, 1971 E.C.R. 263.Google Scholar

107 Cremona, Marise, Defining competence in EU external relations: lessons from the Treaty reform process, in Law and Practice of EU External Relations - Salient Features of a Changing Landscape 61 (Alan Dashwood & Marc Maresceau eds., 2008)Google Scholar

108 See Lock, , supra note 14, at 413, 415.Google Scholar

109 Jochen Abr. Forwein, Das Maastricht Urteil und die Grenzen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, 54 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 7 (1994); Udo Di Fabio, Der neue Art.23 des Grundgesetzes, 13 Staat 197 (1993).Google Scholar

110 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2134/92, 89 BVerfGE 155 (Oct. 12, 1993).Google Scholar

111 See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 403.Google Scholar

112 See Eriksen, Erik Oddvar & Fossum, John Erik, Bringing European Democracy Back In – Or How to Read the German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Treaty Ruling, 17 Eur. L.J. 153 (2011) (discussing possible conceptions).Google Scholar

113 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 276–281.Google Scholar

114 Habermas, Jürgen, Why Europe Needs a Constitution, 11 New Left Rev. 5 (2001).Google Scholar

115 See Doukas, , supra note 24, at 873; see also Tomuschat, supra note 9, at 1260; see also Schorkopf, supra note 79, at 1224.Google Scholar

116 The tolerance of the 5 percent hurdle (Sperrklausel) alone attests to that.Google Scholar

117 See Grimm, Dieter, Souveränität – Herkunft und Zukunft eines Schlüsselbegriffs 123 (2009) (“Souveränität ist heute auch Demokratieschutz” [“These days, sovereignty also safeguards democracy”]).Google Scholar

118 See Scharpf, Fritz Wilhelm, Demokratie in der transnationalen Politik, in Politik der Globalisierung 228, 236 (Ulrich Beck ed., 1998); see also Michael Zürn, Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates 9 (1998).Google Scholar

119 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 287.Google Scholar

120 Id. at para. 288.Google Scholar

121 Id. at para. 285.Google Scholar

122 See Wohlfahrt, , supra note 78, at 1279.Google Scholar

123 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 286.Google Scholar

124 See Schönberger, supra note 76, at 1207; see also Bieber, supra note 16, at 402.Google Scholar

125 See Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom's Law – The Moral Reading of the American Constitution 15 (1996) (critiquing extensively).Google Scholar

126 See Tomuschat, , supra note 9, at 1261.Google Scholar

127 See Haack, Stefan, Demokratie mit Zukunft? Zwei Alternativen der Neukonzeption einer Staatsform, 67 Juristenzeitung 753 (2012); see also Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and its critics 193 (1989); see also David Held, Models of Democracy 337 (1996); see also Angela Augustin, Das Volk der Europäischen Union (2000); Peter Häberle, Europäische Verfassungslehre (2007); see also Utz Schliessky, Souveränität und Legitimität von Herrschaftsgewalt: Die Weiterentwicklung von Begriffen der Staatslehre und des Staatsrechts im europäsichen Mehrebenensystem (2004); see also Anne Peters, European Democracy after the 2003 Convention, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 37 (2004); see also Giadomenico Majone, Europe's Democratic Deficit: The Question of Standards, 4 Eur. L.J. 5 (1998).Google Scholar

128 Scharpf, Fritz Wilhelm, Demokratietheorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung (1970); Fritz Wilhelm Scharpf, Democratic policy in Europe, 2 Eur. L.J.136 (1996); Martin Nettesheim, Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union und Europäisierung der Demokratietheorie – Wechselwirkungen bei der Herausbildung eines europäischen Demokratieprinzips, in Demokratie in Europa (Hartmut Bauer, Peter M. Huber & Karl Peter Sommermann eds., 2005).Google Scholar

129 See Stefan Oeter Federalism and Democracy, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 55, 56 (Armin v. Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2009); see also Schönberger, supra note 76, at 1211, 1212; see also Halberstam & Möllers, supra note 65, at 1248; see also A. Moravcsik, In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union, 40 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 603 (2002).Google Scholar

130 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 262.Google Scholar

131 See Blauberger, Michael, Reinforcing the Asymmetries of European Integration, in The German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives, 49 (Andreas Fischer Lescano, Christian Joerges & Arndt Wonka eds., 2010).Google Scholar

132 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 250–251.Google Scholar

133 Id. at para. 287.Google Scholar

134 See Halberstam, & Möllers, supra note 65, at 1242, 1249; see also Christofer Lenz, Ein einheitliches Verfahren für die Wahl des Europäischen Parlaments 279, 280 (1995).Google Scholar

135 The discussion is in fact much older than the Lisbon Judgment. See Dieter Grimm, Does Europe need a Constitution?, 1 Eur. L.J. 282, 295 (1995); see also Mancini, supra note 24, at 35.Google Scholar

136 For a critical analysis see Tom Eijsbouts, Wir sind das Volk: Notes about the Notion of “The People” as Occasioned by the Lissabon-Urteil, 6 Eur. Const. L. Rev 199 (2010).Google Scholar

137 Peter Van Elsuwege and Anneli Albi, The EU Constitution, national constitutions and sovereignty: an assessment of a “European constitutional order”, 29 Eur. L.J. 757 (2004).Google Scholar

138 For instance the United Kingdom and France, see Howard Richards, Understanding the Global Economy 344 (2004).Google Scholar

139 See White, Phillip, Globalization and Mythology of the Nation State, in Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local 257 (Anthony Hopkins ed., 2006) (listing Belgium, Spain, Finland and Switzerland as examples).Google Scholar

140 The EU Motto, European Union, http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/motto/index_en.htm. (last visited May 31, 2014).Google Scholar

141 See Bieber, , supra note note 16, at 400.Google Scholar

142 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 224.Google Scholar

143 Kirchhof, Paul, Die Identität der Verfassung in ihren unabänderlichen Inhalten, in 1 Handbuch des Staatsrechts der bundesrepublik deutschland 775 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof eds., 1987).Google Scholar

144 See Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/. (last visited May 31, 2014) (displaying the English translation).Google Scholar

145 See Jarass, Hans D., Art. 116, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar para. 4a. (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012) (explaining that German Basic Law limits the attribute “German” to those with German nationality or so-called Status-Deutsche [status Germans], which, inter alia, require a vaguely defined deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit [German ethnic origin], supposedly expressed through descent, language, upbringing, and culture).Google Scholar

146 On this historical debate between a Großdeutsche [grand German] or Kleindeutsche [small German] solution, see Hans-Christof Kraus, Kleindeutsch – Großdeutsch – Gesamtdeutsch? Eine Historikerkonktroverse der Zwischenkriegszeit, in Deutsche Kontroversen – Festschrift für Eckhard Jesse 71 (Alexander Gallus, Thomas Schubert & Tom Thieme eds., 2013); The Frankfurt Assembly in fact excluded the German speaking parts of the Austrian Empire in a failed attempt to secure overall Prussian leadership under a constitutional monarchy.Google Scholar

147 Though it must be added in fairness that the German Basic Law was intended as a provisional constitution to be replaced in the event of reunification. See Hans D. Jarass, Einleitung, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar para. 1 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

148 See German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 261–264, 278.Google Scholar

149 See Doukas, , supra note 24, at 886; see also Halberstam & Möllers supra note 65, at 1252.Google Scholar

150 See Grimm, , supra note 56, at 365.Google Scholar

151 See Thym, , supra note 25, at 39, 40.Google Scholar

152 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 240.Google Scholar

153 See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 110; see also Halberstam & Möllers, supra note 65, at 1256; Bieber, supra note 16, at 396; see also Christian Tomuschat, Die Europäische Union unter der Aufsicht des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, EuGRZ 489 (1993).Google Scholar

154 See Lock, , supra note 14, at 418. There is significant debate as to whether Germany could thusly join a European Federal State. See Hans D. Jarass, Art. 146, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar no. 3 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

155 See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 402.Google Scholar

156 Though plainly that leaves the task of politically engaging European voters, see Giadomenico Majone, The Common Sense of European Integration, 13 J. Eur. Pub. Pol. 607 (2006).Google Scholar

157 See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 402.Google Scholar

158 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 236.Google Scholar

159 On the complicated interactions between national parliaments and the EP, see Richard Corbett, The Evolving Roles of the European Parliament and of National Parliaments, in EU Law After Lisbon 248 (Andrea Biondi, Piet Eeckhout & Stefanie Ripley eds., 2012).Google Scholar

160 Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Communities art. 48, para. 7, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306).Google Scholar

161 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 352, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

162 Id. art. 48, para. 2; id. art. 82, para. 3; id. art. 83, para. 3.Google Scholar

163 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 307–321.Google Scholar

164 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 388.Google Scholar

165 Ruffert, Mathias, Nach dem Lissabon Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – zur Anatomie einer Debate, 7 ZSE 388 (2010); Claus Dieter Classen, Legitime Stärkung des Bundestages oder verfassungsrechtliches Prokrustesbett? Zum Urteil des BVerfG zum Vertrag von Lissabon, JZ 881, 886 (2009).Google Scholar

166 Czech, CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at paras. 134–139.Google Scholar

167 Czech, CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at para. 140.Google Scholar

168 Id. at para. 139.Google Scholar

169 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 174–175. See also Jini Zemánek, The Two Lisbon Judgments of the Czech Constitutional Court, in Europe's Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts – Lisbon And Beyond 57 (José Marian Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

170 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 153, 165–167.Google Scholar

171 Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.6.Google Scholar

172 French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at paras. 18, 19, 26.Google Scholar

173 Id. at paras. 23, 27.Google Scholar

174 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2134/92, 89 BVerfGE 155 (Oct. 12, 1993).Google Scholar

175 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 240, 338.Google Scholar

176 Id. at para. 240.Google Scholar

177 Which could lead to infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU. See Wendel supra note 15, at 129.Google Scholar

178 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2661/06, 126 BVerfGE 286 (July 6, 2010).Google Scholar

179 Mangold v. Helm, ECJ Case No. C-144/04 (Nov. 22, 2005).Google Scholar

180 Id. at para. 75.Google Scholar

181 Id. at para. 78.Google Scholar

182 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2661/06, 126 BVerfGE 286, paras. 60–61 (July 6, 2010).Google Scholar

183 Id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

184 There is debate as to whether a previous decision may also be qualified as ultra vires review, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BVR 687/85, 75 BVerfGE 223 (Apr. 8, 1987).Google Scholar

185 See Wendel, supra note 15, at 129 (particularly criticized by Judge Landau in his dissent); see also Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2661/06, 126 BVerfGE 286, paras. 94– 116 (July 6, 2010).Google Scholar

186 Möllers, Christoph, Constitututional Ultra Vires Review of European Acts Only Under Exceptional Circumstances, Case Note to Decision of July 6, 2010, 2 BvR 2661/06, 7 EuConst 166 (2011).Google Scholar

187 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13; 2 BvR 2729/13; 2 BvR 2730/13; 2 BvR 2731/13; 2 BvE 13/13 (Jan. 14, 2014), available at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen.html.Google Scholar

188 Möllers, note 186, at 161; Joseph H. Weiler, Editorial. “The Lisbon Urteil” and the Fast Food Culture, 20 EJIL 505 (2009); Schönberger, supra note 76, at 1201.Google Scholar

189 Möllers, supra note 186, at 166; Thym, supra note 25, at 38.Google Scholar

190 Id. at 165Google Scholar

191 Id. at 167 (describing it as an unnecessary detour that has yielded little fruit).Google Scholar

192 See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 128.Google Scholar

193 See Grimm, , supra note 56, at 357.Google Scholar

194 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, para. 139.Google Scholar

195 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, paras. 120, 139.Google Scholar

196 Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament & Council, 2000 E.C.R. 1-8149; Opinion Pursuant to Article 300(6) EC, Opinion 1/03, 2006 E.C.R. 1-01145.Google Scholar

197 The subsequent, Case C-380/03, Germany v. Parliament & Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-11573, arguably expanded EU competences.Google Scholar

198 See Briza, , supra note 82, at 154.Google Scholar

199 Trybunał Konstytucyjny [Constitutional Tribunal], Case No. K 18/04, para. 15 (May 11, 2005) (Pol.) [hereinafter Polish CT, Accession Treaty].Google Scholar

200 Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2004-498DC, July 29, 2004, paras. 4–7 (Fr.); see also Reestman, supra note 15, at 390; Anne C. Becker, Vorrang versus Vorherrschaft, EUR 355 (2005); see also Tribunal Constitucional de España [Constitutional Tribunal of Spain] Case No. 1/2004, Dec. 13, 2004, para. II-3 (Sp.) [hereinafter Spanish CT, Constitutional Treaty]; Castillo de la Torre, Case Note, in 42 CMLR 1169 (2005).Google Scholar

201 Literally: “As long as.”Google Scholar

202 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 337.Google Scholar

203 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvL 52/71, 37 BVerfGE 271, 279 (May 29, 1974).Google Scholar

204 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 197/83, 73 BVerfGE 339, 375 (Oct. 22, 1986).Google Scholar

205 Id. at 339, 387.Google Scholar

206 Voßkuhle, Andreas, Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts, 6 EuConst 175 (2010); Monika Polzin, Das Rangverhältnis von Verfassungs- und Unionsrecht nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung des BVerfG, 52 Juristische Schulung 1, 3 (2012).Google Scholar

207 The draft Accession Agreement has been finalized, see Council of Europe, Final Report to the CDDH (2013), http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/accession/Meeting_reports/47_1%282013%29008rev2_EN.pdf, and is currently being considered by the ECJ under the procedure provided by Article 218, paragraph 11 TFEU.Google Scholar

208 See Czech, CC, Sugar Quotas, supra note 81.Google Scholar

209 Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 196, 197.Google Scholar

210 Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.2.Google Scholar

211 French, CC, Loi relative à la bioéthique, supra note 200, at paras. 4–7.Google Scholar

212 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens art. 11 (1789).Google Scholar

213 See Reestman, , supra note 15, at 387.Google Scholar

214 Mayer, Franz C., Rashomon in Karlsruhe – A Reflection on Democracy and Identity in the European Union 33 (5/10 Jean Monnet Program, Working Paper No. 05/10, 2010).Google Scholar

215 German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 240.Google Scholar

216 Bogandy, Armin von & Schill, Stephan, Die Achtung der nationalen Identität unter dem reformierten Unionsvertrag, ZaöRV 711, 727 (2010).Google Scholar

217 A phenomenon that to Pedro Cruz Villalón attributes to globalization and Europeanization. Pedro Cruz Villalón, Grundlagen und Grundzüge staatlichen Verfassungsrecht: Vergleich, in 1 Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum 772 (Armin von Bogdandy et al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

218 The full question was: “What does being French mean to you?” See Besson relance le débat sur l'identité nationale, Le Monde (Oct. 25, 2009), http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/25/besson-relance-le-debat-sur-l-identite-nationale_1258628_823448.html.Google Scholar

219 Risse, Thomas & Engelmann-Martin, Daniela, Identity Politics and European Integration: The Case of Germany, in The Idea of Europe: from Antiquity to the European Union 289 (Anthony Pagden ed., 2002). See Reestman, supra note 15, at 379.Google Scholar

220 Referring to the old provision: Albert Bleckmann, Die Wahrung der “nationalen Identität” im Unions-Vertrag, JZ 265 (1997); Ernst Steindorff, Mehr Staatliche Identität, Bürgernähe und Subsidiarität in Europa?, ZHR 395 (1999).Google Scholar

221 See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 135.Google Scholar

222 European Convention, Final Report of Working Group V 11 (2002).Google Scholar

223 See Mayer, , supra note 214, at 38.Google Scholar

224 See Reestman, , supra note 15, at 380.Google Scholar

225 Case C-6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585. See Alfred Grosser, The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case: Germany's “Sonderweg” – An Outsider's Perspective, 10 German L.J. 1264 (2009); Case C-314/85, Foto-Frost, 1987 E.C.R. 4199.Google Scholar

226 See Thym, , supra note 25, at 36.Google Scholar

227 See Beck, , supra note 57, at 480.Google Scholar

228 See, for example, the back and forth between the Spanish Constitutional Court and the ECJ: Aida Torres Perez, Constitutional Dialogue on the European Arrest Warrant: The Spanish Constitutional Court Knocking on Luxembourg's Door, 8 EuConst 105 (2012).Google Scholar

229 See Beck, , supra note 57, at 485.Google Scholar

230 See Daniel Thym, In the Name of Sovereign Statehood: A Critical Introduction to the Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, 46 CML Rev. 1795 (2009) (describing how the author sees room for, “tangible judicial conflicts”). Similarly bleak is Wolfgan Münchau, Berlin Has Dealt a Blow to European Unity, Financial Times (July 12, 2009). See also Beck, supra note 57, at 480.Google Scholar

231 See Voßkuhle, supra note 206, at 175; see also Ferdinand Kirchhof, Die Kooperation zwischen Bundesverfassungericht und Europäischem Gerichtshof, in Staatsrecht und Politik: Festschrift für Roman Herzog zum 75. Geburtstag 155 (Matthias Herdegen et al. eds., 2009).Google Scholar

232 E.g., Choudhry, Sujit, Migration as a New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law, in The Migration of Constitutional Ideas 1 (Sujit Choudhry ed., 2007).Google Scholar

233 See Möllers, supra note 186, at 167.Google Scholar

234 See Beck, , supra note 57, at 478; Grosser, supra note 225, at 1263; Matthias Niedobitek, The Lisbon Case of 30 June 2009 – A Comment From the European Law Perspective, 10 German L.J. 1269 (2009); see Christopher Klotz, Die Machtbalance zwischen Politik und verfassungsgerichtlicher Rechtsprechung, ZRP 5 (2012) (discussing the current balance of power between the German CC and the other branches of German government).Google Scholar

235 See Tomuschat, , supra note 9, at 1259 (deeming the Lisbon Judgment a “political manifesto”).Google Scholar

236 A recent example is the equal treatment of same sex couples in tax matters. See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 909/06, 2 BvR 1981/06, 2 BvR 288/07, 2013 NJW 2257 (May 7, 2013).Google Scholar

237 See Möllers, Christoph, Was ein Parlament ist, entscheiden die Richter, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 16, 2009.Google Scholar

238 See Grosser, , supra note 225, at 1263 (attesting the German CC a general loss of self-restraint altogether).Google Scholar

239 See Favoreu, Louis, La Politique Saisie par le Droit 30 (1988).Google Scholar

240 Adapted from: Peter Bucher, Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948–1949. Akten und Protokolle, Volume 2, in Der Verfassungskonvent auf Herrenchiemsee 580 (1981).Google Scholar