Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:14:52.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case: Germany's “Sonderweg” - An Outsider's Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Alfred Grosser

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.

There is no cause for celebration: Instead, the judgement coming out of Karlsruhe must be seen as an expression of the Federal Constitutional Court Justices' fear of subjecting themselves to the European Court of Justice. Indeed, the judgment raises questions about Germany's commitment to Europe.

Type
Special Section: The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2009 , pp. 1263 - 1266
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 BVerfGE 46, 160. See Christoph J.M. Safferling, Terror and Law: German Responses to 9/11, 4 J. Intl Crim. Just. 1152 (2006).Google Scholar

2 BVerfGE 115, 118. See also Wolf-Rüdiger Schenke, Besprechung zu BVerfG Urt. v. 15.02.2006 1BvR 357/05, 59 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 736 (2006); Hartleb, Torsten, Der neue § 14 III LuftSiG und das Grundrecht auf Leben, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1397 (2005); Hase, Friedhelm, Das Luftsicherheitsgesetz: Abschuss von Flugzeugen als ‘Hilfe bei einem Unglücksfall'?, 59 Die oeffentliche Verwaltung (DöV) 213 (2006); Baumann, Karsten, Das Urteil des BVerfG zum Luftsicherheitsgesetz der Streitkräfte, 27 JURA 447 (2006); Hirsch, Burkhard, Zum Verbot des Rettungstotschlags, 60 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1188 (2007); Pestalozza, Christian, Inlandstötungen durch die Streitkräfte - Reformvorschläge aus ministeriellem Hause, 60 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 492 (2007); Hecker, Wolfgang, Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Luftsicherheitsgesetz, 39 Kritische Justiz 179 (2006); Palm, Ulrich, Der wehrlose Staat? Der Einsatz der Streitkräfte im Innern nach der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Luftsicherheitsgesetz, 132 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 93 (2007); Wiefelspütz, Dieter, Änderung des Art. 35 GG, »Quasi-Verteidigungsfall« oder Neuordnung der Wehrverfassung, 22 Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung (ZG) 97 (2007); Lepsius, Oliver, Human Dignity and the Downing of Aircraft: The German Federal Constitutional Court Strikes Down a Prominent Antiterrorism Provision in the New Air-Transport Security Act, 7 German Law Journal 761 (2006); Lepsius, Oliver, Das Luftsicherheitsgesetz und das Grundgesetz, in Festschrift Burkhard Hirsch 47, 68–72 (F. Roggan ed., 2006).Google Scholar

3 See Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, December 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306)1 and arts. 23–46 TEU (Article numbering as amended by the consolidated version of the Treaties, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115)1). In particular see: Art. 24.1 TEU - “1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.(…)”; and Art. 42.1-2 TEU - “1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States. 2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.(…)” See generally, Richard Whitman and Ana Juncos, The Lisbon Treaty and the Foreign, Security and Defence Policy: Reforms, Implementation and the Consequences of (Non-)Ratification, 14 European Foreign Affairs Review 25 (2009).Google Scholar

4 See Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, EU law: Text, Cases and Materials 1–37 (4th ed. 2007); Stefaan van den Bogaert, Qualified Majority Voting in the Council: First Reflections on the New Rules, 15 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 97 (2008); Dougan, Michael, The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning Minds, Not Hearts, 45 Common Market Law Review 627 (2008); Hagemann, Sara & Julia de Clerck-Sachse, Decision-Making in the Enlarged Council of Ministers: Evaluating the Facts, 119 Centre for European Policy Studies [CEPS] Policy Brief 1–8 (2007), available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1349087; Achim Hurrelmann & Joan Debardeleben, Democratic dilemmas in EU multilevel governance: untangling the Gordian knot, 1 European Political Science Review 229–247 (2009).Google Scholar

5 Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 3, Preamble (emphasis added).Google Scholar