We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
In the 2009 judgment dealing with the Treaty of Lisbon, the German Federal Constitutional Court urges to modify a domestic statute in order to guarantee the rights of the internal rule-making power and also provides a reasoning on the role of the European Union (EU) as an international organization, the principle of sovereignty and the relations between European Institutions and Bodies and the EU Member States. According to the German Court the Treaty of Lisbon does not transform the European Union into a Federal State (Staatsverband), but into a Confederation of States (Staatenverbund). In spite of the 1993 landmark judgment, the so-called “Maastricht Urteil”, the Court steps forward and focuses also the subject-matters that necessarily have to pertain to the Member States jurisdiction, the so-called “domain reserve”. The German Federal Constitutional Court decision on the Lisbon Treaty arouses the reflection on the core of State sovereignty and on the boundaries of the EU legal system and focuses on the force of the right to vote of every citizen, the basis of democracy.
Furthermore, the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court highlights the well-known issue of the EU's identity and the balancing between EU democracy and Member State sovereignty. In the light of the German Constitutional Court statements, the present work aims to understand which could be actually the EU's identity and how could be approached “democratic deficit” of the EU.
1 Only one of the eight judges dissented.Google Scholar
2 Lisbon case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, available at: http://www.BVerfG.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208.html, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
3 Maastricht case, BVerfGE 89, 155, BVerfG - Judgment of the Maastricht Treaty of 12 October 1993, International Legal Matters (ILM) 395, 418 (1994).Google Scholar
4 Official English translation available at: http://www.bundesregierung.de/static/pdf/GG_engl_Stand_26_07_02.pdf, last accessed 27 March 2010, Articles 38.1 and 23.1.Google Scholar
5 Urteilsverkündung in Sachen “Lissabon-Vertrag”, 29 Bundesverfassungsgericht BverfGE Press Release number 55/2009 (May 2009) available at: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-055.html, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
6 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 273.Google Scholar
7 See, supra, note 4, Articles 23, 45, and 93 GG.Google Scholar
8 See, Luisa Cassetti, Il “sì, ma” del tribunale costituzionale Federale tedesco sulla ratifica del trattato di Lisbona tra passato e futuro dell'integrazione europea, 14 Federalismi.it (2009), available at: http://www.federalismi.it, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
9 Treaty of the European Union (TEU), 7 February 1992, Article 48.6, Vol. 51, 2008, 41, 42 (consolidated version after Lisbon Treaty).Google Scholar
10 See, supra, note 9, Articles 31.3 and 48.7 TEU, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 25 March 1957, Articles 81.3 (2) (3), 153.2(4), 192.2(2), 312.2(2), 333.2, Vol. 51, 2008, (consolidated version after Lisbon Treaty).Google Scholar
11 See, supra, note 2, paragraph nos. 243, 309 328, 406 419.Google Scholar
12 Article 4 of the Italian Legge Buttiglione 11/2005 of 15 February 2005 introduced a retention of Parliament reading (riserva di esame parlamentare). Pursuant to this provision, whenever the Italian government sustains that a European statute deals with important political, economic, social issues, it can put the retention of Parliament reading before the EU Council. According to Emilio Castorina, Le “dimensioni” della rappresentanza politica (crisi della sovranità nazionale e nuovi percorsi istituzionali), 2 Teoria del diritto e dello Stato 279, 300 (2005) the retention aims to confer centrality to the national Parliament, as a consequence of the development of the vertical dimension of the political representation in the European legal system, in order to cast the national sovereignty outside the State borders. Therefore, the retention procedure could be a solution aiming to fill in the “blank” authorization, even if its enforcement is dependant on the government decision.Google Scholar
13 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 307.Google Scholar
14 Christoph Schönberger, Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht's Epigones At Sea, 10 German Law Journal (GLJ) 1201, 1202 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1155, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
15 Magdalena Suszycka-Jasch & Hans Christian Jasch, The participation of the German Länder in formulating German EU-policy, 10 GLJ 1215, 1216 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1169, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
16 In order to achieve these purposes, on September 2009 the Bundestag and Bundesrat approved four statutes: Gesetz über die Ausweitung und Stärkung der Rechte des Bundestages und des Bundesrates in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union (about the enforcement and enhancement of the Bundestag and Bundesrat rights on European issues); Gesetz zur Umsetzung der Grundgesetzänderungen für die Ratifizierung des Vertrags von Lissabon (about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty); Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit von Bundesregierung und Deutschem Bundestag in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union (about the collaboration between the Federal Government and the Parliament on the European issues); and Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und Ländern in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union (about the collaboration between Federation and Länder on the European issues), available at: http://www.bundesrat.de/, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
17 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 262.Google Scholar
18 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 284.Google Scholar
19 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 286.Google Scholar
20 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 284.Google Scholar
21 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 292.Google Scholar
22 Pietro Faraguna, Limiti e controlimiti nel Lissabon-Urteil del Bundesverfassungsgericht: un peso, due misure?, 30 Quaderni Costituzionali 75, 94 (2010).Google Scholar
23 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 113.Google Scholar
24 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 228.Google Scholar
25 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 277.Google Scholar
26 See, supra, note 2, paragraphs nos. 233, 299, 329, 330.Google Scholar
27 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 246.Google Scholar
28 Matthias Niedobitek, The Lisbon Case of 30 June 2009 – A Comment from the European Law Perspective, 10 GLJ 1267, 1271 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1160, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
29 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 260.Google Scholar
30 Pursuant to international law, the concept of domestic jurisdiction signifies an area of internal State authority that is beyond the reach of international law. Exactly, international law is what is left over after the State determines the boundaries of its domestic jurisdiction. The most common provision of domestic jurisdiction is contained in Article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter which establishes that the norms of international law would constitute the boundaries of domestic jurisdiction. See Anthony D'Amato, Domestic Jurisdiction, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law 1090 (1992).Google Scholar
31 Although from 1787 until 1913, the U.S. Constitution specified that State legislatures would elect U.S. senators. Article 1, Section 3, read: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years […]”. The XVII Amendment, introduced in 1913, giving the electoral power to the people, instead, states: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years […].”Google Scholar
32 James Madison, Federalist Paper no. 62 (“The Senate”), in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist Papers, 375 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003). However, according to the editors, it is unsure that the Federalist Paper no. 62 has been written properly by James Madison.Google Scholar
33 Id., 376.Google Scholar
34 See, supra, note 2, paragraphs nos. 274 and 286.Google Scholar
35 Exactly see, supra, note 3, the Court stated: “If the Federal Republic of Germany becomes a member of a community of States which is entitled to take sovereign action in its own right, and if that community of States is entrusted with the exercise of independent sovereign power (both of which the GG expressly permits for the realisation of a unified Europe, Article 23, paragraph 1, GG), then democratic legitimation cannot be effected in the same way as it can be within a State regime which is governed uniformly and conclusively by a State constitution. If sovereign rights are granted to supranational organisations, then the representative body elected by the people, i.e. the German Federal Parliament, and with it the enfranchised citizen, necessarily lose some of their influence upon the processes of decision-making and the formation of political will. Accession to an inter-governmental community has the consequence that any individual member of that community is bound by decisions made by it. Of course, a State, and with it its citizens, which is a member of such a community also gains opportunities to exert influence as a consequence of its participation in the process of forming political will within the community for the purpose of pursuing common (and with those, individual) goals. The fact that the outcome of these goals is binding upon all Member States necessarily assumes that each Member State acknowledges the fact that it is bound.”Google Scholar
36 Christian Wohlfahrt, The Lisbon case: a critical summary, 10 GLJ 1277, 1279 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1161, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
37 Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), Article 189, Vol. 50, 2007.Google Scholar
38 Giuseppe Guarino, Ratificare Lisbona? 114 (2008).Google Scholar
39 See supra, note 3, 419.Google Scholar
40 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 233.Google Scholar
41 Thus, in the Lissabon-Urteil the BVerfG developed two bases for own constitutional review: the ultra vires review and the identity review. In the first place, the ultra vires review, whether legal instruments of the European Institutions and Bodies, adhering to the principle of subsidiarity, do not keep within the boundaries of the sovereign powers accorded to them by way of conferred powers. This is a remarkable change from the approach in Solange I judgment, 2 Common Market Law Review (CMLR) 540 (1974) and Solange II judgment, 3 CMLR 225 (1987), when the Court affirmed the well-known formula that the BVerfG would no longer examine the compatibility of European secondary law with German fundamental rights exists on the European level, comparable to the secured ones by the German Basic Law. Instead, in the Lisbon case the Court states that any European legal act can be scrutinized for its conformity with the German Basic Law regarding “obvious” transgressions of the boundaries of competences and identity, id est the so-called “domain réservé”. See Frank Shorkopf, The European Union as an association of sovereign States: Karlsruhe's ruling on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 GLJ 1219, 1232 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1156, last accessed 22 March 2010. In the second place, the other type of review fixed by the Court is the identity review, whether the inviolable core content of the constitutional identity of the GG pursuant to Article 23.1, sentence 3, GG in conjunction with Article 79.3 GG is not respected.Google Scholar
42 Steve J. Boom, The European Union after the Maastricht decision: is Germany the Virginia of Europe?, (1995) available at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
43 See, supra, note 3, 424.Google Scholar
44 See, supra, note 3, 395.Google Scholar
45 See, supra, note 5.Google Scholar
46 See, Article 1 to 20 GG.Google Scholar
47 See, supra, note 2, paragraphs nos. from 208 to 210 and Francesca Liberati, La sentenza del Tribunale costituzionale tedesco sulla compatibilità del Trattato di Lisbona con il Grundgesetz: una guida alla lettura, 14 Federalismi.it (2009), available at: 14 http://www.federalismi.it, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
48 Stephan Leibfried & Karin van Elderen, “And they shall Beat their Swords into Plowshares” – The Dutch Genesis of a European Icon and the German Fate of the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 GLJ 1297, 1303 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1163, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
50 See, supra, note 3, 421.Google Scholar
51 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 231.Google Scholar
52 See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 233.Google Scholar
53 See supra, note 28, 1280.Google Scholar
54 Joseph H. Weiler, The State “über alles” Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, (1995) available at: http://ww.jeanmonnetprogram.org, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
55 Peter L. Lindseth, Democratic legitimacy and the administrative character of supranationalism: the example of the European Community, 99 Columbia Law Review 628, 738 (1999).Google Scholar
56 In this direction Renzo Dickmann, Costituzione e democrazia in Europa. Verso (e dopo) il referendum irlandese, 18 Federalismi.it (2009), available at: http://www.federalismi.it, last accessed 22 March 2010. To Dickmann, the European Union could not become a (Federal) State because a people legitimizing its evolution as democratic and constitutional State does not exist, even if the institutional instruments could be apt to reach this purpose. Indeed, in the European Union could not be faced the constitutional issue as settled by the Member States, because the European Union is not a State and in Europe there is not a unitary people feeling the urge of a Constitution. Afterwards, there is no constituent power asking for a constitutional issue.Google Scholar
57 Renzo Dickmann, Integrazione europea e democrazia parlamentare secondo il Tribunale Costituzionale Federale tedesco, 14 Federalismi.it (2009), available at: http://www.federalismi.it, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
58 Shorkopf (note 41), 1220.Google Scholar
59 Id., 1219, 1221.Google Scholar
60 Pursuant to Article 7 TEU on a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, referred to Article 2 TEU. According to the opinion of Stelio Mangiameli, Integrazione europea e diritto costituzionale, Annuario di diritto tedesco 25, 71 (2000), Article 7 procedure, although is an example of a widespread praxis of the international organization, represents a certain sign of Federalization of the European Union legal system. In fact, the suspension is not an instrument targeted to the exclusion of the defaulter Member State, such as the procedures ruled by international law, but it is the corroboration of a provision aimed at the effective application of the principle of democracy and of the rule of law in the European Union.Google Scholar
61 Antonio Padoa-Schioppa, La Germania e l'Europa, 4 L'Unità europea 1 (2009). The scholar affirms also that the procedures, pursuant to Article 48 TEU Lisbon, give a further democratic element to the European Union, considering that the Parliament and the Convention represent the people and accordingly expression of democracy.Google Scholar
62 For the role of the Member States Regions in the European integration process see, supra, note 60 (Mangiameli) 79.Google Scholar
63 Nicoletta Parisi, L'apporto delle regioni italiane al procedimento di elaborazione di politiche ed atti comunitari, in Regioni, Costituzione e rapporti internazionali. Relazioni con la Comunità Europea e cooperazione transfrontaliera 161, 167 (Istituto Regionale di Ricerca per la Lombardia ed., 1995).Google Scholar
64 Agatino Cariola, Responsabilità politica, in Dizionario di Diritto Pubblico 5161, 5169 (Sabino Cassese ed., 2006).Google Scholar
65 See, supra, note 9, Articles 14.1 and 17.7.Google Scholar
66 Regulation EC No. 2004/2003 of 4 November 2003, O.J. 2003 L 297, dealing with the rules governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their fundings.Google Scholar
67 Regulation EC No. 1524/2007 of 18 December 2007 (amending Regulation EC No. 2004/2003), O.J. 2007 L 343, dealing with the rules governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding.Google Scholar
68 About the close relationship between the political parties financing system and democracy see, Bruce Ackerman, Ian Ayres, Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance (2002).Google Scholar
69 Adriana Ciancio, I partiti politici europei e il processo di democratizzazione dell'Unione, 11 (2009) available at: http://www.lex.unict.it/cde/quadernieuropei, last accessed 22 March 2010.Google Scholar
70 Cariola (note 64).Google Scholar
71 Giandomenico Majone, The Common Sense of European Integration, 13 Journal of European Public Policy (JEPP) 607 (2006).Google Scholar
72 In the opinion of Polybius the Roman Republic Constitution portrayed a balance of powers system among the public authorities so perfect to force them to a perfect collaboration also in dangerous conditions. See, Polybius, The Histories, vol. III, Book VI, 18, 309 (W. R. Paton, transl., 1966).Google Scholar
73 Giandomenico Majone, Deficit democratico, istituzioni non-maggioritarie ed il paradosso dell'integrazione europea, 67 Stato e mercato 3, 24 (2003). See, also Robert Dahl, Democracy and its critics (1989).Google Scholar
You have
Access
