Historische Zäsur für den Rechtsstaat

Die zweitägige mündliche Verhandlung zu den Klagen von Ungarn und Polen gegen den sog. „Rechtsstaatsmechanismus“ war eine Zäsur für den europäischen Rechtsstaat und die Geschichte Europas: Die gesamte Verhandlung stand im Schatten des jüngsten „Urteils“ des „polnischen Verfassungsgerichts“, das sich weigert, Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs umzusetzen. Noch nie hat Polen die Geltung der Grundsätze der Rechtsstaatlichkeit mit solcher Vehemenz und solchem Eigensinn bestritten, wie es im Verlauf dieser Verhandlung sichtbar wurde. Man konnte der Europäischen Union bei ihrem Zerriss zuschauen.

A Closing of Ranks

On 11 and 12 October the Court of Justice of the European Union sat in Full Court composition (a rarity) to hear Hungary’s and Poland’s challenge of the legality of the rule of law conditionality regulation. Its ruling will follow (hopefully shortly) the Advocate-General’s Opinion announced for 2 December 2021. It will most likely reconfirm that the Union legal order is based on clear and binding rule of law norms, and that these must, of legal necessity, apply across all EU policy fields, including the EU budget. It will be a judgment of great significance about the very nature and purpose of the EU.

In the Courts the CJEU does not Trust?

In last week’s long-awaited judgment, the CJEU had the opportunity to revisit its case law concerning the national courts’ obligation to refer preliminary questions. The Court largely maintained its strict approach and thereby, at first sight, admits of little trust in the national courts’ handling of EU law. Upon closer inspection, however, an alternative reading of the judgment seems possible.

Statement of Retired Judges of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal

On 7 October 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal issued a judgment in case K 3/21 concerning the place of EU law in the Polish legal order. The judgment caused great public concern due to its foreseeable devastating consequences for the position of the Republic of Poland as a Member State of the European Union. The retired judges of the Constitutional Tribunal fully share this concern. In addition, however, they consider it their duty to correct the many false assertions contained in the judgment, its oral reasoning and the comments of representatives of political power.

The Writing is on the Wall

On 6 October 2021, Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe published his Opinion in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz. Six Schengen countries (Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have reintroduced border controls over the past years. If the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) were to follow the AG’s Opinion, they would need to seriously rethink their practices in this regard. New evidence-based procedures and serious reasons, capable of passing a proportionality test, would be necessary to introduce border controls within the Schengen Zone.

Resisting Membership Fatalism

While we fully agree with the main thrust of the editorial ‘The Exit Door’ on Verfassungsblog last Friday, we would like to warn against its seemingly fatalistic mindset. Yes, a Polexit from the EU is not on the table until the Polish government itself pushes the Article 50 TEU button, but the other EU Member States do not have to idly wait ‘hoping’ for a resolution to the crisis.

Wer Karlsruhe mit Warschau gleichsetzt, irrt sich gewaltig

Im polnischen, partiell aber auch im deutschen Diskurs wird das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 5.5.2020 zur partiellen Verfassungswidrigkeit des PSP-Programms der EZB als qualitativ vergleichbar mit dem Urteil des polnischen Verfassungsgerichts vom 7.10.2021 eingestuft. Das polnische Urteil knüpfe insoweit lediglich an die gefestigte Rechtsprechung des BVerfG an. Dem ist aus juristischer Sicht aus verschiedenen Gründen deutlich zu widersprechen.