Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:10:02.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lisbon Case of 30 June 2009 - A Comment from the European Law Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Matthias Niedobitek

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.

In its 30 June 2009 judgment on the Treaty of Lisbon, the German Federal Constitutional Court stated that “there are no decisive constitutional objections to the Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon,” but only as long as “the provisos that are specified in the grounds” are taken into account. Thus, in conformity with the terms of the judgment, the Court has made the constitutionality of the Act Approving the Lisbon Treaty dependent on an amendment of the Act Extending and Strengthening the Rights of the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) and the Bundesrat (German Federal Council of States) in European Union Matters. One could also put it another way: The Act Approving the Lisbon Treaty is unconstitutional as long as the constitutional concerns specified in the judgment are not met.

Type
Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2009 , pp. 1267 - 1276
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html‥Google Scholar

2 Id. at paras. 207, 420 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

3 See BVerfGE 92, 203.Google Scholar

4 See Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 320, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

5 Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 [hereinafter TEU], art. 12.Google Scholar

6 See id. at art. 48 para. 7Google Scholar

7 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 319, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html‥Google Scholar

8 See TEU, supra note 5, at art. 48, para. 7.Google Scholar

9 See TEU, supra note 5, at art. 12.Google Scholar

10 See Niedobitek, Matthias, Zur “Europatauglichkeit” des deutschen Bundesstaates nach der Föderalismusreform, in Europäische Forschungsperspektiven—Elemente einer Europawissenschaft 201 (Peter Jurczek & Matthias Niedobitek eds., 2008).Google Scholar

11 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, paras. 318, 320, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 241.Google Scholar

13 Id. at paras. 216, 228.Google Scholar

14 Grundgesetz (GG) (Basic Law or Constitution) art. 79, para. 3.Google Scholar

15 Id. at art. 146.Google Scholar

16 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 216, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

17 Id. at para. 298.Google Scholar

18 Id. at para 217.Google Scholar

19 Verfassung der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg (Constitution) art. 3, para. 1 (Hamburg).Google Scholar

20 Verfassung des Freistaats Thüringen (Constitution) art. 44, para. 1 (Thuringia).Google Scholar

21 See Niedobitek, Matthias, Fundamental Rights in the Constitutions of the German Länder, in Fundamental Rights in Europe and North America (Albrecht Weber ed., 2001).Google Scholar

22 See generally Niedobitek, Matthias, Constitutional Law—Sub-national Constitutional Law—Germany, in International Encyclopaedia of Laws para. 56 (Roger Blanpain, André Alen, G. Alan Tarr, Robert F. Williams eds., 2006).Google Scholar

23 C. Gaz. 3/01 at 323.Google Scholar

24 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 277, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

25 Id. at para. 240.Google Scholar

26 Id. at para. 340.Google Scholar

27 BVerfGE 89, 155. See also Das Maastricht-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 12. Oktober 1993—Dokumentation des Verfahrens mit Einführung 751 (Ingo Winkelmann ed., 1994) (giving an English translation).Google Scholar

28 Id. at 186.Google Scholar

29 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 252, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

30 Id. Google Scholar

31 Id. at para. 182 (regarding the principle of the social state).Google Scholar

32 BVerfGE 189, 155 (185).Google Scholar

33 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 289, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

34 Id. at para. 278.Google Scholar

35 Id. at para. 262.Google Scholar

36 Id. at para. 236.Google Scholar

37 Id. at para. 320.Google Scholar

38 Id. at para. 231.Google Scholar

39 Id. at para. 298.Google Scholar

40 Id. at para. 301.Google Scholar

41 Id. at para. 343.Google Scholar

42 Id. Google Scholar

43 Id. at para. 240. See also Lüder Gerken, Volker Rieble, Günter H. Roth, Torsten Stein & Rudolf Streinz, “Mangold” als ausbrechender Rechtsakt (2009), available at http://www.cep.eu/analysen-zur-eu-politik/sonstige-themen/mangold-gutachten/.Google Scholar

44 See Kumm, Mattias, Who is the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality in Europe? (Jean Monnet Program, Working Papers No. 10, 1998) available at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/98/98-10-.html.Google Scholar

45 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 334, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

46 Interestingly, the German Federal Constitutional Court refers to the Lisbon judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court of 26 November 2008. See Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 338, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html. The Czech Constitutional Court on its part made reference to the jurisprudence of the German Court. See nález Ústavního soudho cj. 19 / 2008 / Sbírka nálezu a usnesení Ústavního soudu (decision of the Czech Constitutional Court docket 19 / 2008 / Collection of Court Decisions of the Constitutional Court), para. 116 (Nov. 26 2008), available at http://angl.concourt.cz/angl_verze/doc/pl-19-08.php.Google Scholar

47 See generally Offene Staatlichkeit - Wissenschaft vom Verfassungsrecht, Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum vol. II (Armin von Bogdandy, Pedro Cruz Villalón & Peter M. Huber, eds., 2008) (with several national reports).Google Scholar

48 See Niedobitek, Matthias, Der Vorrang des Unionsrechts, in Continuing the European Constitutional Debate - German and Czech Contributions from a Legal Perspective / Deutsche und tschechische Beiträge aus rechtlicher Sicht 61–104 (Matthias Niedobitek & Jirí Zemánek, eds., 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 See Classen, Claus Dieter, Art.24, para.17, in Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, vol. 2 (Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein & Christian Starck, eds. 5th ed. 2005). See also Niedobitek, supra note 48, at 70.Google Scholar

50 See BVerfGE 111, 307 (319) (“Selbst die weit reichende supranationale europäische Integration, die sich für den aus der Gemeinschaftsquelle herrührenden innerstaatlich unmittelbar wirkenden Normanwendungsbefehl öffnet …”).Google Scholar

51 Treaty on European Union (February 7, 1992), art. 308.Google Scholar

52 Id. Google Scholar

53 TEU, supra note 5, at art.352.Google Scholar

54 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, cases 2 BvE 2/08 and others from 30 June 2009, para. 327, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html.Google Scholar

55 Id. Google Scholar

56 See Niedobitek, Matthias, The Cultural Dimension in EC Law 297 (1997).Google Scholar

57 See TEU, supra note 5, at art. 352.Google Scholar

58 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt am Main) July 16, 2009, at 1.Google Scholar

59 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt am Main) July 1, 2009, at 2.Google Scholar