Corona Constitutional #28: EuGH, der vertraute Unbekannte

Das umstrittene EZB-Urteil hat mal wieder ein Schlaglicht auf das komplizierte Verhältnis der Karlsruher Richterinnen und Richter zum EuGH geworfen. Auf der Beziehung lastet unter anderem, dass die beiden Institutionen sehr unterschiedlich arbeiten. Aber wie arbeitet der EuGH überhaupt? Darüber unterhält sich Alexander Melzer im heutigen Podcast mit CHRISTOPH KRENN von der Universität Wien.

Squaring the PSPP Circle

The PSPP judgment made a core problem of the European Union painfully visible as the supremacy of EU law clashed with national constitutional identity. There is, however, a possibility to square this circle: national apex courts could be empowered to issue ‘declarations of incompatibility’ under Article 4(2) TEU as an alternative to the disapplication of EU law.

Law or Politics?

Why should a proportionality assessment of an instrument of monetary policy, which no one doubts is at least in part designed to increase money supply and combat deflation, examine that instrument’s effect on economic policy? There are two different answers—one under EU law, the other under German law.

Verfassungsrichter in der Defensive

Huber, Voßkuhle, Lenaerts – drei Richter des BVerfG bzw. EuGH haben sich in der Presse zu Wort gemeldet, um ihre jeweiligen Urteile im Streit um die Ultra-Vires-Entscheidung zu verteidigen. Diese Reaktionen sind nicht nur rechtlich problematisch, sie drohen auch genau das zu verspielen, was die Richter zu bewahren suchen: das öffentliche Vertrauen und ihre Autorität.

From Dialogue to Trialogue

The current clash between the Federal Constitutional Court and the ECJ should not obscure the fact that none of the two courts fits the cliché they are often turned into. A view at some ECJ decisions regarding criminal law makes this clear. Nonetheless, the dynamic between the courts must change – maybe the European citizen can step in and offer help.

When is a Court a Court?

The PSPP decision is not the first time a national court objected the CJEU. In Ajos, for example, the Danish Supreme Court rebelled against conform interpretation. The PSPP decision is nonetheless different: It is a challenge on a whole new level.

Why Egenberger Could Be Next

Soon, the Federal Constitutional Court will decide on the Egenberger case that raises important questions at the intersection of anti-discrimination law and religious policy. The decision is an opportunity to address critical questions to the European Court of Justice – a court that lacks dogmatic subtlety and sensitivity with regard to religion and cultural policy as an analysis of its case law shows.

Very Unkind Things about the German Constitutional Court’s Rebellion against the ECJ in the Quantitative Easing Case.

Much has been written about the recent German Constitutional Court (GCC) ruling which has essentially dismantled the 2018 judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the legality of the ECB Quantitative Easing Program. Much more will be written. I will limit myself here in analysing what I believe is the “macroeconomic” essence of the ruling.