Until recently, the recognition to the European Union of the capacity to borrow from capital markets for spending purposes was considered almost inconceivable without a treaty amendment. When borrowing for spending was authorized under the Next Generation EU program to support the recovery of member states from the unprecedented consequences of the coronavirus, it was immediately faced with the suspicion that the pandemic was being used as a pretext to promote the creation of a fiscal and transfer union by the back door in violation of the principle of conferral. In its NGEU judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the authorization to borrow under the program could not be considered ultra vires. However, the ambiguous and controversial reasoning of the Constitutional Court gives rise to uncertainty as to whether the funding and financing model introduced by the recovery program could be used again in the future, beyond the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. At the same time, it appears that, in this case, the Constitutional Court applied a considerably more restrained version of its ultra vires review compared to its recent case law on the asset purchase programs of the European Central Bank.

The commentary, especially from abroad, on the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment concerning the bond-buying programme undertaken by the European Central Bank (ECB) conveys the impression that something unimaginable has occurred. The German court has refused to follow the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thereby setting “a bomb under the EU legal order.”1 Yet there is nothing new about the risk of conflict between the two courts. It came about when the Court of Justice of the European Union implicitly presumed, in 1963,2 and explicitly declared, in 1964,3 that European law takes precedence over domestic law, even over domestic constitutional law. This view was by no means without alternative, given that the Treaties of Rome do not address the precedence of Community law. The Member States involved in the dispute denied having agreed to any such precedence in the Treaties. Even the CJEU’s Advocate General was unable to find any basis in the Treaties for the precedence of European law.4 The CJEU derived the precedence of European law from the purpose of the European Economic Community.5 It argued that there could be no common market if each Member State applied and interpreted European law however it saw fit.