After the German Federal Constitutional Court's (FCC) issuance of the Lisbon decision, a judgment that is generally considered to be a verdict critical of European integration as well as a measure to widen the scope of constitutional review of EU acts, many observers wondered what would happen next. Would the German court finally begin to look for an open conflict with the EU, or would the court's bark once again be worse than its bite? This had already seemed to be the case after the Maastricht decision, the slimmer and legally more coherent predecessor of the Lisbon judgment, after which the court deliberately missed the opportunity to take a shot at the Banana conflict between the EU and the WTO.

About one year after the European Court of Justice had handed down its notorious decision on the Data Retention Directive concerning telecommunications traffic data, it was for the German Federal Constitutional Court to take a final decision on the German implementation of the Directive. So far, the latter Court had only issued temporary injunctions restricting data retrieval by the public authorities. Now, the final ruling by the Court has been anxiously awaited since the complainants had not only challenged the German provisions implementing the Directive, but also the Directive itself. Thus, the question was raised whether the Court would finally, for the first time in its history, initiate a preliminary ruling procedure according to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

‘Foreign relations power’ (auswärtige Gewalt) in the Federal Republic of Germany strongly centralised by the Lindau Agreement in 1957 – Although the German Länder still retain some rights to act at an international level, the Federal Government is the dominant player in the foreign relations of the state – Introduction of Länder participation in European Union law-making and policy-making; new opportunities for them to perform a role in external relations – Cooperative character of German federalism confirmed

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

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

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

The Bundesverfassungsgericht was castigated for the Maastricht-Urteil by most European lawyers, especially the Germans among them. But that judgment has placed its stamp on much of the constitutional development of the Union and has allowed theories of constitutional pluralism, polycentrism, multilevel constitutionalism, Verfassungsverbund and the constitution composée to flourish. The German constitutional court is likewise being castigated for its Lissabon-Urteil. Certainly, it has put the questions of democracy, the level at which democracy is to be aggregated and articulated, and the pertaining institutional arrangements in the member states and in the Union higher on the agenda of intellectual and political engagement than they have been over the last decades. Perhaps it will be just as fruitful for European constitutional theory as the Maastricht-Urteil was.

On 3 November 2009 the Czech Constitutional Court gave its second ruling within a year on the Treaty of Lisbon. The Court squarely rejected the complaints against the Treaty. For scholarship the most interesting characteristic of the ruling is the way the Court distanced itself from the Lissabon-Urteil of the Bundesverfassungsgericht in such unequivocal terms that the judgment's central passages deserve a place in this issue, even though we only dispose of a provisional translation by Jan Komárek and cannot make comments available yet. As it did in the previous judgment on the Lisbon Treaty of 28 November 2008, the Czech Court again belies the established idea that eastern European constitutional courts take the Bundesverfassungsgericht as their guide.

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