Ultimate arbiter debate and CEE Constitutional Courts

One of the central constitutional disputes between the EU and its Member States has revolved around the issue of whether EU law takes precedence over national constitutions. As the European Court of Justice established in the cases of Simmenthal and Internationale Handeslgesellschaft, EC law is supreme even over fundamental norms of national constitutions. This so-called EU-centred approach is based on the concerns of uniform application and effectiveness of Community law by national courts, as well as on the argument that, on the basis of the delegation clauses in the national constitutions, the Member States have delegated the power to strike down EC law to the ECJ. The national constitutional courts, although in principle recognising the supremacy of EC law, have, however, made reservations in respect of fundamental constitutional principles, and retain to themselves the right to review whether EU bodies exceed competences conferred upon them or violate fundamental constitutional principles. This state-centred view has been established most famously by the German Constitutional Court in the cases of Solange I and II and Maastricht, the Italian Constitutional Court in the cases of Granital and Frontini and by the Danish Supreme Court in the Maastricht case.