Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T05:48:20.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht's Epigones At Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christoph Schönberger

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.

On 30 June 2009, the Second Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court handed down its long-awaited decision on the compatibility of the Treaty of Lisbon with the German Constitution, the Basic Law. It was no surprise that the Court upheld the constitutionality of the treaty. Even the plaintiffs could not have imagined in their wildest dreams that the Court would actually say “no”. What is more than disturbing, however, is the tortuous way in which the Court's vast and verbose opinion purports to be justifying the approval of the treaty. There is probably no other judgment in the history of the Karlsruhe Court in which the argument is so much at odds with the actual result. To the point of perplexity and bewilderment, the reader of the opinion is hardly able to find any reasons supporting the outcome of the case. At the moment when the Court approves the most far-reaching revision of the European founding treaties since Maastricht, it does not present any serious argument supporting the conclusion it has reached, except sketchy evocations of a principle of “openness towards European law” it finds enshrined in the Basic Law and brief solemn reminders of a murderous past. Instead, the main thrust of the argument is a ringing indictment of European integration based on a certain idea of egalitarian and majoritarian parliamentary democracy that the Court derives from the Basic Law. Unfortunately, this standard of democratic legitimacy can only describe certain centralized states; it is unable to account for federal States, including Germany, and cannot be made to fit the federal system of the European Union.

Type
Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2009 , pp. 1201 - 1218
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630.Google Scholar

2 Id. at para. 207.Google Scholar

3 Id. at paras. 243, 309–328, 406–419.Google Scholar

4 Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law provides: “Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their general participation in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.”Google Scholar

5 On the background, see Horst Dreier, Art. 79 (3), in 2 Grundgesetz paras. 4–7 (Horst Dreier ed., 2d ed. 2006). For an account of the debates in the Parliamentary Council see 1 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts 579 (1951).Google Scholar

6 See Art. 23 (1) [3] of the Basic Law: “The establishment of the European Union, as well as changes in its treaty foundations and comparable regulations that amend or supplement this Basic Law, or make such amendments or supplements possible, shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 79.”Google Scholar

7 BVerfGE 89, 155 (171).Google Scholar

8 Art. 38 (1) [1] of the Basic Law provides: “Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections.”Google Scholar

9 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, para. 176, available at: http://www. bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630.Google Scholar

10 Id. at para. 177.Google Scholar

11 Id. at para. 211.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 213.Google Scholar

13 Id. at paras. 214–215, 283.Google Scholar

14 Id. at paras. 219, 225.Google Scholar

15 Id. at paras. 231, 233.Google Scholar

16 Id. at paras. 236–239.Google Scholar

17 Id. at para. 240.Google Scholar

18 Id. at para. 241.Google Scholar

19 Id. at para. 249.Google Scholar

20 Id. (with specifications in paragraphs 252–260).Google Scholar

21 Id. at paras. 261–262.Google Scholar

22 BVerfGE 89, 155 (181, 184, 185). It might be translated approximately by “union of states” or “association of states”.Google Scholar

23 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, paras. 262, 271, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630.Google Scholar

24 See especially id. at para. 280.Google Scholar

25 Id. at para. 284.Google Scholar

26 Id. at para. 288.Google Scholar

27 Id. at para. 296.Google Scholar

28 Id. at para. 277.Google Scholar

29 Id. at para. 264.Google Scholar

30 BVerfGE 89, 155.Google Scholar

31 See, e.g., BVerfGE 30, 1; BVerfGE 94, 49 (103).Google Scholar

32 See supra note 5.Google Scholar

33 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, paras. 211, 217, available at: http//www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630.Google Scholar

34 BVerfGE 89, 155 (188).Google Scholar

35 On the different positions, see Dreier, supra note 5, at paras. 55–57.Google Scholar

36 See infra at Section V.Google Scholar

37 See infra at Section IV 1b, 2.Google Scholar

38 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, paras. 252, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630.Google Scholar

39 Id. at para. 249Google Scholar

40 Id. at para. 256.Google Scholar

41 Id. at para. 280.Google Scholar

42 See Articles 63, 67, 68, 43 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar

43 For a short presentation of proportional representation under German electoral law, see Donald P. Kommers, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany 192 (2d ed. 1997).Google Scholar

44 For a list of the important number of bills still requiring approval of the Bundesrat, see Thomas Mann, Art. 77, in Grundgesetz para. 14 (Sachs ed., 5th ed. 2009). For a general overview of the recent federalism reform, see Hans-Werner Rengeling, Föderalismusreform und Gesetzgebungskompetenzen, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1537 (2006).Google Scholar

45 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, para. 288, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630.Google Scholar

46 The classical account of this problem for the German context remains Gerhard Lehmbruch's seminal book on party competition in the federal state. Gerhard Lehmbruch, Parteienwettbewerb im Bundesstaat (1976).Google Scholar

47 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, para. 277, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630 (“gestaltungskräftige[] Mehrheitsherrschaft”).Google Scholar

48 Id. at para. 286.Google Scholar

49 Id. at para. 277.Google Scholar

50 Id. at para. 276.Google Scholar

51 BVerfGE 89, 155 (186).Google Scholar

52 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, para. 288, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630288.Google Scholar

53 Id. at para. 289.Google Scholar

54 See, e.g., id. at paras. 219, 262, 267, 279.Google Scholar

55 Id. at para. 288.Google Scholar

56 Id. at para. 286.Google Scholar

57 See Christoph Schönberger, Unionsbürger 503 (2005).Google Scholar

58 U. S. Const. art. 1 § 2 Cl. 3.Google Scholar

59 On the strong federal elements in the U.S. Presidential election, see Judith Best, The Case Against Direct Election of the President. A Defence of the Electoral College (1975). For a critique, see, e.g., Note - Rethinking the Electoral College Debate. The Framers, Federalism and One Person, One Vote, 114 Harvard Law Review 2526 (2001).Google Scholar

60 Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, from 30 June 2009, paras. 215, 269, available at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630288.Google Scholar

61 Id. at paras. 271, 268, 217.Google Scholar

62 Id. at paras. 277, 280.Google Scholar

63 Solange I, BVerfGE 37, 271; Solange II, BVerfGE 73, 339. Solange II was confirmed by the Court in the Banana Market Case, BVerfGE 102, 147.Google Scholar

64 Lawrence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Chapter 2.LX, p. 224 (2004).Google Scholar

65 I borrow the metaphors from Thomas Oppermann, Den Musterknaben ins Bremserhäuschen! -Bundesverfassungsgericht und Lissabon-Vertrag, 20 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 473 (2009).Google Scholar