DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision by the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon (30 June 2009)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision by the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon (30 June 2009) Decision by the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon (30 June 2009) Caption: On 30 June 2009, the German Constitutional Court delivers its verdict following an action brought by a group of complainants who accuse the Treaty of Lisbon of breaching the Basic Law by weakening the prerogatives of the German Parliament and infringing the principle of democracy. The Court’s decision states that the Treaty complies with the German Basic Law. But the accompanying law (Begleitgesetz) that governs the rights of participation of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European affairs is found to violate the Basic Law as it does not give the legislative bodies sufficient rights of participation. The judges rule that it has shortcomings and needs to be improved. Source: Bundesverfassungsgericht – BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1 - 421), [ON-LINE]. [Karlsruhe]: Bundesverfassungsgericht, [01.10.2013]. http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208.html. Copyright: All rights of reproduction, public communication, adaptation, distribution or dissemination via Internet, internal network or any other means are strictly reserved in all countries. The documents available on this Web site are the exclusive property of their authors or right holders. Requests for authorisation are to be addressed to the authors or right holders concerned. Further information may be obtained by referring to the legal notice and the terms and conditions of use regarding this site. URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/decision_by_the_german_constitutional_court_on_the_treaty_of_lisbon_30_june_2009- en-8facbcac-b236-47c8-9db3-e2199d825cfb.html Note: This document has undergone optical character recognition (OCR), so that full text search and copy/paste operations can be carried out. However, the result of the OCR process may vary depending on the quality of the original document. Publication date: 19/12/2013 1 / 75 19/12/2013 Page 1 sur 74 Entscheidungen Zitierung: BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1 - 421), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html Frei für den nicht gewerblichen Gebrauch. Kommerzielle Nutzung nur mit Zustimmung des Gerichts. Headnotes to the judgment of the Second Senate of 30 June 2009 - 2 BvE 2/08 - - 2 BvE 5/08 - - 2 BvR 1010/08 - - 2 BvR 1022/08 - - 2 BvR 1259/08 - - 2 BvR 182/09 - 1. Article 23 of the Basic Law grants powers to take part in and develop a European Union designed as an association of sovereign states ( Staatenverbund ). The concept of Verbund covers a close long-term association of states which remain sovereign, a treaty-based association which exercises public authority, but whose fundamental order is subject to the decision-making power of the Member States and in which the peoples, i.e. the citizens, of the Member States remain the subjects of democratic legitimation. 1. a) In so far as the Member States elaborate treaty law in such a way as to allow treaty amendment without a ratification procedure, whilst preserving the application of the principle of conferral, a special responsibility is incumbent on the legislative bodies, in addition to the Federal Government, within the context of participation which in Germany has to comply internally with the requirements under Article 23.1 of the Basic Law (responsibility for integration) and which may be invoked in any proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. 1. b) A law within the meaning of Article 23.1 second sentence of the Basic Law is not required, in so far as special bridging clauses are limited to subject areas which are already sufficiently defined by the Treaty of Lisbon. However, in such cases it is incumbent on the Bundestag and, in so far as legislative competences of the Länder are affected, the Bundesrat , to assert its responsibility for integration in another appropriate manner. 1. European unification on the basis of a treaty union of sovereign states may not be achieved in such a way that not sufficient space is left to the Member States for the political formation of economic, cultural and social living conditions. This applies in particular to areas which shape the citizens’ living conditions, in particular the private sphere of their own responsibility and of political and social security, protected by fundamental rights, as well as to political decisions that rely especially on cultural, historical and linguistic perceptions and which develop within public discourse in the party political and parliamentary sphere of public politics. 2. The Federal Constitutional Court examines whether legal instruments of the European institutions and bodies keep within the boundaries of the sovereign powers accorded to them by way of conferral (see BVerfGE 58, 1 <30-31>; 75, 223 <235, 242>; 89, 155 <188>: see the latter two concerning legal instruments transgressing the limits), whilst adhering to the principle of subsidiarity under Community and Union law (Article 5.2 ECT; Article 5.1 second sentence and 5.3 of the Treaty on European Union in the version of the Treaty of Lisbon < Lisbon TEU >). Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court reviews whether the inviolable core content of the constitutional identity of the Basic Law pursuant to Article 23.1 third sentence in conjunction with Article 79.3 of the Basic Law is respected (see BVerfGE 113, 273 <296>). The exercise of this review power, which is rooted in constitutional law, follows the principle of the Basic Law’s openness towards European Law ( Europarechtsfreundlichkeit ), and it therefore also does not contradict the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4.3 Lisbon TEU); otherwise, with progressing integration, the fundamental political and constitutional structures of sovereign Member States, which are recognised by Article 4.2 first sentence Lisbon TEU, cannot be safeguarded in any other way. In this respect, the guarantee of national constitutional identity under constitutional and under Union law go hand in hand in the European legal area. 2 / 75 15/10/2013 19/12/2013 Page 2 sur 74 FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT - 2 BvE 2/08 - - 2 BvE 5/08 - - 2 BvR 1010/08 - - 2 BvR 1022/08 - - 2 BvR 1259/08 - - 2 BvR 182/09 - Pronounced 30 June 2009 Herr Registrar of the Court Registry IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE In the proceedings I. on the application to find, in Organstreit proceedings, a) that the Act of 8 October 2008 on the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 (Bundesgesetzblatt - BGBl> 2008 II page 1038) infringes Article 20.1 and 20.2, Article 23.1 and Article 79.3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz - GG) and violates the applicant’s rights under Article 38.1 of the Basic Law, b) that Article 1 number 1 and number 2 of the Act Amending the Basic Law (Articles 23, 45 and 93) ( Gesetz zur Änderung des Grundgesetzes<(i> <Artikel 23, 45 und 93>) of 8 October 2008 (Federal Law Gazette I page 1926) and Article 1 § 3.2, § 4.3 number 3 and § 4.6 as well as § 5 of the Act Extending and Strengthening the Rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union Matters (Gesetz über die Ausweitung und Stärkung der Rechte des Bundestages und des Bundesrates in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union, Bundestag printed paper <Bundestags-Drucksache - BTDrucks> 16/8489) infringe Article 20.1 and 20.2, Article 23.1 and Article 79.3 of the Basic Law and violate the applicant’s rights under Article 38.1 of the Basic Law applicant: Dr. G..., - agents: 1. Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek, 2. Prof. Dr. Wolf-Rüdiger Bub, Promenadeplatz 9, 80333 Munich - respondents: 1. German Bundestag, represented by its President, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, - agent: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Ingolf Pernice, Laehrstraße 17a, 14165 Berlin - 2. Federal Government, represented by the Federal Chancellor, Bundeskanzleramt, Willy-Brandt-Straße 1, 10557 Berlin, - agent: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Christian Tomuschat, Odilostraße 25a, 13467 Berlin - and an application for an interlocutory injunction and an application for any other remedy 3 / 75 15/10/2013 19/12/2013 Page 3 sur 74 - 2 BvE 2/08 -, II. on the application to find, in Organstreit proceedings, that the Act of 8 October 2008 on the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 (Federal Law Gazette 2008 II page 1038) violates the German Bundestag ’s rights as a legislative body and is therefore incompatible with the Basic Law applicant: DIE LINKE parliamentary group in the German Bundestag, represented by its chairmen Dr. Gregor Gysi, Member of the German Bundestag, and Oskar Lafontaine, Member of the German Bundestag, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, - agent: Prof. Dr. Andreas Fisahn, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 10 01 31, 33501 Bielefeld - respondent: German Bundestag, represented by its President, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, - agent: Prof. Dr. Franz Mayer, Lettestraße 3, 10437 Berlin - and an application for an interlocutory injunction - 2 BvE 5/08 -, III. on the constitutional complaint brought by Dr. G..., - agents: 1. Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek, 2. Prof. Dr. Wolf-Rüdiger Bub, Promenadeplatz 9, 80333 Munich - against a) the Act of 8 October 2008 on the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 (Federal Law Gazette 2008 II page 1038), b) Article 1 number 1 and number 2 of the Act Amending the Basic Law (Articles 23, 45 and 93) of 8 October 2008 (Federal Law Gazette I page 1926), c) Article 1 § 3.2, § 4.3 number 3 and § 4.6 as well as § 5 of the Act Extending and Strengthening the Rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union Matters (Bundestag printed paper 16/8489) and an application for an interlocutory injunction and an application for any other remedy - 2 BvR 1010/08 -, IV. on the constitutional complaint 4 / 75 15/10/2013 19/12/2013 Page 4 sur 74 brought by Prof.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1673 of the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and of the COUNCIL of 23 October 2018 on Combating Money Laundering by Criminal Law
    L 284/22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 12.11.2018 DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1673 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 83(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure ( 1 ), Whereas: (1) Money laundering and the related financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal market and the internal security of the Union. In order to tackle those problems and to complement and reinforce the application of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2), this Directive aims to combat money laundering by means of criminal law, enabling more efficient and swifter cross-border cooperation between competent authorities. (2) Measures adopted solely at national or even at Union level, without taking into account international coordination and cooperation, would have very limited effect. The measures adopted by the Union to combat money laundering should therefore be compatible with, and at least as stringent as, other actions undertaken in international fora. (3) Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommen­ dations and instruments of other international organisations and bodies active in the fight against money laun­ dering and terrorist financing.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Recognition in International Finance
    VOLUME 52, NUMBER 1, WINTER 2011 Mutual Recognition in International Finance Pierre-Hugues Verdier TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. .................................................. 56 1. MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN THEORY . ...................... 60 A. Internationalfinancial regulation and the limits of networks . 60 B. The concept of mutual recognition ....................... 63 C. Designing institutions for mutual recognition .............. 67 11. MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN PRACTICE .. .................... 71 A. Multilateral mutual recognition: The EU model ........... 71 1. The evolution of the European approach ............... 72 2. The European politics of mutual recognition ........... 78 B. Bilateral mutual recognition: The SEC-Australia arrangement ..................................... 82 1. The Tafara-Peterson article and the SEC-Australia arrangement .................... .............. 82 2. The bilateralpolitics of mutual recognition ............ 88 III. REEXAMINING MUTUAL RECOGNITION .................... 92 A. Mechanics ....................................... 92 B. Effects . ......................................... 96 C. Future .. ........................................ 100 1. Transatlantic regulatory cooperation .................. 101 2. Toward mutual recognition in Southeast Asia? ........ 104 IV. CONCLUSION ....... ......................................... 107 56 Harvard InternationalLaw journal / Vol. 52 Mutual Recognition in International Finance Pierre-Hugues Verdier* In recent years, scholars have devoted considerable attention
    [Show full text]
  • Eucrim 1/2016
    eucrim 2016 /1 THE EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW ASSOCIATIONS‘ FORUM Focus: Procedural Rights and Cooperation – New Tendencies Dossier particulier: Droits procéduraux et coopération – nouvelles tendances Schwerpunktthema: Verfahrensgarantien und Zusammenarbeit – neue Tendenzen The Directive on the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Be Present at Trial Steven Cras and Anže Erbežnik The Directive on the Presumption of Innocence. A Missed Opportunity for Legal Persons? Stijn Lamberigts Inaudito reo Proceedings, Defence Rights, and Harmonisation Goals in the EU Prof. Dr. Stefano Ruggeri Paving the Way for Improved Mutual Assistance in the Context of Customs Fraud Emilia Porebska Können die Regelungen über die Zusammenarbeit der EU-Mitgliedstaaten bei der Strafverfolgung kurzerhand aufgehoben werden? Ulrich Schulz Vollstreckungshilfe zwischen Deutschland und Taiwan auf neuer Grundlage Dr. Ralf Riegel and Dr. Franca Fülle 2016 / 1 ISSUE / ÉDITION / AUSGABE The Associations for European Criminal Law and the Protection of Financial Interests of the EU is a network of academics and practitioners. The aim of this cooperation is to develop a European criminal law which both respects civil liberties and at the same time protects European citizens and the European institutions effectively. Joint seminars, joint research projects and annual meetings of the associations’ presidents are organised to achieve this aim. Contents News* Articles European Union Procedural Rights and Cooperation – New Tendencies Foundations Procedural Criminal Law 25 The Directive on the Presumption of 2 Fundamental Rights 13 Procedural Safeguards Innocence and the Right to Be Present at 2 Area of Freedom, Security 13 Data Protection Trial. Genesis and Description of the New and Justice 15 Ne bis in idem EU-Measure 3 Schengen Steven Cras and Anže Erbežnik Cooperation 36 The Directive on the Presumption of In- Institutions 16 European Arrest Warrant nocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanatçıların Sosyal Haklara Ulaşımındaki Güçlükler
    Sanatçıların Sosyal Haklara Ulaşımındaki Güçlükler Sanatçıların Sosyal Haklara Ulaşımındaki Güçlükler Selcan PEKSAN* Fatma TOSUN** Özet: Bu çalışma, sanatçıların sosyo-ekonomik durumlarını, sosyal haklar açısından incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Sanatçıların çalışma hayatlarına ilişkin genel özellikler incelendiğinde, aralıklı ve düzensiz çalıştıkları ve bu sebeple ücretleri ile eserlerinin satışlarından veya telif haklarından elde ettikleri gelirlerinin genellikle yetersiz ve öngörülemez olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca sanatçılık uzun bir eğitim sürecini gerektirdiği gibi, kariyerlerinin gelişmesi de uzun yıllar içinde mümkün olur. Üstelik sanatçıların başarıları, toplum tarafından beğenilmelerine bağlıdır. Bu beğeninin sürekli yenilenmesi gerektiğinden sanatçıların kendilerini yenilemeleri gerekir. Buna karşın sanatsal faaliyetlerinin karşılığında yeterli gelir elde edemedikleri; çoğu sanatçının ikinci işte çalıştıkları bilinmektedir. Dahası, aynı düzeyde eğitim alan diğer mesleklere göre gelirlerinin daha düşük olduğu; sanatçıların kendileri arasındaki gelir eşitsizliğinin de diğer mesleklere oranla daha yüksek olduğu belirtilmektedir. Diğer taraftan, sanatçıların, işlerinin işçi tanımına uygun bir bağımlılık unsurunu taşımamakla birlikte, aslında birçok yönden menajerlere, yayımcılara, yapımcılara, galeri sahiplerine ve diğer aracılara bağlılıklarının olması; tanımsal farklılık sebebiyle yüksek oranda serbest meslek sahibi olarak çalışmaları ve dolayısıyla sosyal politikanın temel aracı olan iş hukuku korumasından faydalanamamaları; işçi
    [Show full text]
  • Cyprus Police Academy
    CONFERENCE ON ACCESSION Brussels, 11 January 2002 TO THE EUROPEAN UNION - CYPRUS - CONF-CY 4/02 Document provided by Cyprus PUBLIC Chapter 24: Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs ACTION PLAN FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE SCHENGEN ACQUIS (Revised December 2001) A. BORDER CONTROL A.(I) External Border Control (I) Current Situation (a) Legislative transposition Cyprus΄ legislation is considerably aligned with the Schengen acquis. The current legislation empowers the Police and other law enforcement authorities, to carry out the function of border control. In the framework of Cyprus’ harmonization process, the Carriers Liability Law was enacted on 23.3.2000 in accordance with SCH/Com-ex (p8) 37 def. “Action Plan to Combat illegal immigration”. The Law will enter into force upon accession. (b) Implementation and enforcement of the Schengen acquis Cyprus has two international airports, two main seaports and four small seaports. The organizations responsible for immigration and border control issues, are the The Services involved in border control are the Police, (the Ports and Marine Police, the Police Airwing and the Police Aliens and Immigration Department) the Department of Customs and Excise, the Aliens and Immigration Service of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Interior, the Civil Aviation Department and the Cyprus Ports Authority. These Services cooperate with each other and with foreign law enforcement agencies (in compliance with the Schengen acquis SCH/COM-ex(93) 9-14.12.93) in a satisfactory manner and coordinate their actions through a number of coordination mechanisms which bring together two or more of these Services for discussion of border control issues and for policy decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Theory of Copyright Contracts
    2010 (04) The Relationship Between Copyright and Contract Law Research commissioned by SABIP Providing Government with strategic, independent and evidence-based advice on intellectual property policy Research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy, and carried out by Martin Kretschmer Professor of Information Jurisprudence, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (www.cippm.org.uk), Bournemouth University, [email protected] Estelle Derclaye Associate Professor & Reader in Intellectual Property Law, School of Law, University of Nottingham, [email protected] Marcella Favale Postdoctoral researcher, University of Nottingham, [email protected] Richard Watt Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Canterbury University (NZ), [email protected] CONTENTS SUMMARY CHAPTER ............................................................................................................ 1-15 THE DIGITAL SHIFT ........................................................................................................................... 1 STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE REPORT .................................................................. 2 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................ 3 CREATOR CONTRACTS ............................................................................................................ 3 Creator contracts .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 104 | Issue 1 Article 5 2016 An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris Temple University Beasley School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Harris, Donald P. (2016) "An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 104 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol104/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris' "[B]y virtually ignoring the central purpose of the Copyright/Patent Clause ... the Court has quitclaimed to Congress its principal responsibility in this area of the law. Fairly read, the Court has stated that Congress' actions under the Copyright/Patent Clause are, for all intents and purposes, 2 judicially unreviewable." INTRODUCTION On July 15, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, held one of a number of hearings reviewing the Copyright Act.3 This particular hearing focused, among other things, on the copyright term (the length over which copyrights are protected).4 While it is not surprising that Congress is again considering the appropriate term for copyrights- Congress has reviewed and increased the copyright term many times since the first Copyright Act of 1791 5-it is troubling because Congress has unfettered discretion in doing so.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer*
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 34 Article 5 Issue 3 2001 The urE opean Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brewer, Mark Killian (2001) "The urE opean Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 34: Iss. 3, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol34/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The European Union and Legitimacy: Time for a European Constitution Mark Killian Brewer* Introduction ..................................................... 555 I. Background .............................................. 558 A. The Emergence of Neoconstitutionalism ............... 558 B. The Components of Neoconstitutionalism .............. 560 1. The European Treaties Lack the Form of Traditional Constitutional Law ................................. 560 2. The European Treaties Lack the Authority of Traditional Constitutional Law ...................... 562 3. The Communities Lack a Demos .................... 563 C. The Doctrine of Supremacy and German Resistance .... 564 D. The German Legal Framework ........................ 565 E.
    [Show full text]
  • José Manuel Martínez Sierra The
    Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung Center for European Integration Studies Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn D i s c José Manuel Martínez Sierra u s The Spanish Presidency Buying more than it can s i choose? o n P a ISSN 1435-3288 ISBN 3-936183-12-0 p Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung e Center for European Integration Studies Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn r Walter-Flex-Straße 3 Tel.: +49-228-73-1880 D-53113 Bonn Fax: +49-228-73-1788 C 112 Germany http: //www.zei.de 2002 Prof. Dr. D. José Manuel Martínez Sierra, born 1971, is Professor Titular in Constitutional Law at Complutense University of Madrid since February 2002. After studies of Law, Political and Social sci- ence at Madrid, Alcalá and Amsterdam, Martínez Sierra wrote a LL.M dissertation on the European Parliament and a PhD dissertation on the structural problems in the Political System of the EU. He was a trainee at the Council of the EU and lecturer at La Laguna University (2000-2002). His recent publications include: El procedimiento legislativo de la codecisión: de Maastricht a Niza, Valencia 2002; (with A. de Cabo) Constitucionalismo, mundialización y crisis del concepto de sober- anía, Alicante 2000; La reforma constitucional y el referéndum en Irlanda: a propósito de Niza, Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, n° 7 2001; El debate Constitucional en la Unión Europea, Revista de Estudios Políticos, nº 113 2001; El Tratado de Niza, Revista Espa- ñola de Derecho Constitucional, nº 59 2001; Sufragio, jueces y de- mocracia en las elecciones norteamericanas de 2000, Jueces para la democracia, n° 40 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • “HARMONISATION of NATIONAL LEGISLATION with the ACQUIS COMMUNAUTAIRE” by Ms Tamara CAPETA
    Strasbourg, 1st July 2010 CDL-UDT(2010)017 Engl. Only T-06-2010 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) UNIDEM CAMPUS TRIESTE SEMINAR “THE QUALITY OF LAW” Trieste, Italy Palazzo del Ferdinandeo, MIB School of Management Largo Caduti di Nasirya n° 1 tel: +39 040 918 8111 14 – 17 June 2010 REPORT “HARMONISATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION WITH THE ACQUIS COMMUNAUTAIRE” by Ms Tamara CAPETA (Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int - 2 - CDL-UDT(2010)017 1. The aim of this lecture/workshop This lecture/workshop has the aim of explaining what is required from national legislators (either Parliament or Government) when harmonizing domestic legislation with the legal norms of the EU legal order. In the first part, I shall give short overview of what does the EU legal order (or acquis communautaire) refers to. Thus, we shall talk about how the EU legal norms are created, what is their legal nature, and what do they require from Member States legislators. The requirements stemming from EU legal norms for national legislator are different depending on which type of EU norms is at issue. As the most complicated task is the correct transposition of Directives, we shall look more closely into this type of EU legal instrument. In the workshop part, we shall look into one Directive, and you will be asked to identify the provisions that leave choice to a national legislator, and make such choices. Then, we shall look into a case decided by the European Court of Justice, in which the Court interpreted the directive at issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Arrest Warrant Conflicts Between European and German
    The European Arrest Warrant ─ Conflicts between European and German Constitutional Law? by Beate Hoppe, Kai Werner and Jan Asmus Bischoff, Hamburg (Germany) I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 II. The European Arrest Warrant under the Treaty of Nice ............................................... 2 1. Third pillar as the legal basis for the EAW 3 2. Provisions of the EAW 4 3. Aims and Benefits of the EAW 6 III. The German Implementation Legislation and the Judgment by the Federal Constitutional Court ................................................................................................................ 7 1. The European Arrest Warrant Act of 21 July 2004 8 2. Federal Constitutional Court Judgment of 18 July 2005 8 3. Changes in Legislation and their Constitutionality 12 IV. The Treaty of Lisbon ....................................................................................................... 15 1. Legislative Competences under the Treaty of Lisbon in the field of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters 15 2. Legislative Acts and their effect in the Member States’ legal orders 17 3. Consequences for the Arrest Warrant 18 V. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 19 I. Introduction More than ever before, the European Union influences national criminal law and national criminal procedure. Actual trends include ever closer harmonization
    [Show full text]