Lisbon judgment

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logo on the decisions of the Constitutional Court

With the Lisbon judgment , the Second Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) decided on June 30, 2009 on several applications. Both the Lisbon Treaty (or the corresponding German Transformation Act ) and the transposition into German law in the corresponding accompanying law were on the compatibility with the German constitution (constitutionality or unconstitutionality checked).

After this decision, the German accompanying law partially violated the Basic Law. The Treaty of Lisbon was to be reconciled with the Basic Law , but it could only be ratified by Germany if a new accompanying law gave the national parliaments more rights.

background

The Lisbon Treaty was signed between the 27 member states of the European Union on December 13, 2007 under the Portuguese Presidency in Lisbon. The Member States were concerned with pushing ahead with the European unification process. In particular, the Union should be given a uniform structure and legal personality , responsibilities should be better regulated and decision-making efficiency should be increased. In Germany , the Federal Council decided on February 15, 2008, in accordance with Article 76 of the Basic Law, to issue an opinion on the draft law on the Treaty of Lisbon of December 13, 2007, which its committee for questions of the European Union had recommended. On April 24, 2008, the Bundestag voted with 515 votes in favor, 58 against and one abstention in favor of the Lisbon Treaty law. On May 23, 2008 the Federal Council also approved the EU Treaty with 66 votes in favor and three abstentions; 15 countries agreed, Berlin abstained due to the efforts of the co-governing party Die Linke .

Procedure and applicant

In the Lisbon ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court decided on different applications in a total of six proceedings. The member of the Bundestag Peter Gauweiler ( CSU ), who had already sued the European Constitutional Treaty in 2005, applied on the day of ratification by the Federal Council to determine in the organ dispute proceedings that the law on the Treaty of Lisbon violated Art. 20 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2, Art 23 Paragraph 1 and Article 79 Paragraph 3 violate the Basic Law. He also submitted that Article 1 No. 1 and No. 2 of the Act amending the Basic Law ( Art. 23 , Art. 45 and Art. 93 ) of October 8, 2008 and Article 1 § 3 Paragraph 2, § 4 Paragraph 3 No. 3 and paragraph 6 as well as § 5 of the law on the expansion and strengthening of the rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in matters of the European Union violated Article 20 paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, Article 23 paragraph 1 and Article 79 paragraph 3 of the Basic Law. In both cases, the applicant saw his right as a member of parliament under Article 38 (1) of the Basic Law violated. The defendants were also the German Bundestag and the Federal Government in both cases . The application was essentially written and submitted by the constitutional law professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider ; The expert opinion supporting the complaints was written by the constitutional lawyer Dietrich Murswiek from Freiburg , who also represented the complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court.

The parliamentary group of the Left, represented by its chairmen Gregor Gysi and Oskar Lafontaine , also applied for a decision in the organ dispute proceedings that the law of October 8, 2008 on the Treaty of Lisbon violated the rights of the German Bundestag as a legislative organ and therefore incompatible with the Basic Law be. The only opponent in these proceedings was the Bundestag, not the federal government.

In four other proceedings, in addition to Peter Gauweiler, members of the German Bundestag as well as several private individuals applied to the constitutional complaint by means of an individual complaint that the law of October 8, 2008 on the Treaty of Lisbon and the law amending the Basic Law of October 8, 2008, were not in conformity with the constitution be.

The Office of the Federal President announced on June 30th that, at the formal request of the Federal Constitutional Court, Federal President Horst Köhler would not sign the ratification document before the judgment was pronounced. On October 8, 2008, the Federal President signed the Act implementing the Treaty of Lisbon and prepared it; a ratification that was binding under international law was not yet available, as the signature of the Federal President was missing on the ratification document.

The judgment

The oral hearing took place on February 10 and 11, 2009. On June 30, 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court announced its decision. The Treaty of Lisbon and the German Approval Act correspond to the requirements of the Basic Law .

The German law accompanying the Treaty of Lisbon, however, violates Article 38.1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 23.1 of the Basic Law, as the rights of the German Bundestag and Bundesrat to participate have not been designed to the required extent.

Underlying Considerations

The Federal Constitutional Court acknowledges in its judgment that the power to shape the European Union has grown steadily. Nevertheless, it points out that the internal decision-making and appointment procedures are largely carried out in line with international law. It makes it clear that the sovereignty of the individual member states remains fundamentally indispensable; It assigns primary responsibility for integration to the national constitutional organs, whose institutional existence and scope for action are not to be restricted. The principle of limited individual authorization must not be touched by the ongoing unification process, since the democratic deficit of the union of states cannot be resolved from a momentary perspective.

At the same time, however, the Federal Constitutional Court also states that the Treaty of Lisbon “is compatible with the requirements of the Basic Law, in particular with the principle of democracy”. Likewise, precisely because the EU does not have some inherent state competences (for example in the areas of criminal law, monopoly on the use of force, basic fiscal decisions, social welfare state structuring of living conditions, school and education system as well as dealing with religious communities), the (same) right to vote from Article 38 Abs. 1 GG not violated. Although the European Union from the point of view of the Federal Constitutional Court "at the current level of integration [...] has not yet achieved a design that corresponds to the level of legitimation of a state-based democracy", it is sufficiently democratically legitimized as an association of states:

"With the election [...] of members of the European Parliament [...] an opportunity to participate in the European organ system is opened up, which [...] conveys a sufficient level of legitimation."

- Federal Constitutional Court : Lisbon judgment, para. 274

Examination scale

For the Federal Constitutional Court, the primary criterion for examining the Act of Consent to the Treaty of Lisbon is the right of citizens of the member states to democratic self-determination, to free and equal participation in the state powers exercised in the member states as well as the right to compliance with the principle of democracy. From the court's point of view, these principles cannot be weighed up and in this respect do not permit any changes to the Basic Law. The authorization to transfer sovereign rights to the European Union must remain characterized by the principle of a sovereign constitutional state and the principle of limited individual powers . A general constitutionally secured authorization of the German state organs to transfer sovereign rights is not available, the transfer of competence to the European union of states is denied by the constitution . The Federal Constitutional Court stated that European unification must not be achieved in such a way that there is no longer sufficient space in the member states to shape economic, cultural and social living conditions politically. This applies in particular to areas that shape the living conditions of citizens, especially their private space, which is protected by basic rights , as well as to political decisions that are particularly dependent on cultural, historical and linguistic preconceptions, and that are part-political and parliamentary organized space of a political public would unfold discursively .

Subsumption

The court emphasized that when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, the Federal Republic of Germany will remain a sovereign state , whose state authority is essentially protected. The Basic Law and thus also the Federal Constitutional Court are open to a controlled and responsible transfer of sovereign rights to the European Union.

Requirements and new accompanying laws

In the implementation of the legal requirements, (new) accompanying laws were created, which extensively supplement and specify the European article:

  • Law on the assumption of responsibility for integration of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in matters of the European Union [Integration Responsibility Act - IntVG]
  • new: Law on the cooperation between the Federal Government and the German Bundestag in matters of the European Union [EUZBBG]
  • new: Law on cooperation between the federal and state governments in matters relating to the European Union [EUZBLG].

Relativization by the Mangold decision

In the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 6, 2010 on the so-called Mangold decision of the ECJ, the first comments are seen as a U-turn of the Lisbon judgment. The judgment contains numerous statements that are diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Lisbon decision.

Earlier decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court

The Federal Constitutional Court had already commented on the relationship between the Basic Law and European law in earlier decisions and judgments. Reference is made to:

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e BVerfG, judgment of June 30, 2009 , Az.BvE 2/08, 2 BvE 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 2 BvR 1022/08, 2 BvR 1259/08 and 2 BvR 182 / 09, full text, BVerfGE 123, 267 = NJW 2009, 2267.
  2. ^ Draft of a law on the Treaty of Lisbon of December 13, 2007 by the Federal Government, printed matter 928/07, December 20, 2007
  3. ↑ Committee for Questions of the European Union ( Memento of the original from February 10, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the Federal Council @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundesrat.de
  4. ↑ Recommendations of the Committee on European Union Issues of the Federal Council, printed matter 928/1/07, February 4, 2008; Application from the states of Bavaria, Saarland, Baden-Württemberg , printed matter 928/2/07, February 14, 2008
  5. ↑ www.heute.de  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.heute.de  
  6. ^ Dietrich Murswiek, The Treaty of Lisbon and the Basic Law . Legal opinion on the admissibility and justification of constitutional remedies against the Act of Approval to the Treaty of Lisbon and the accompanying German legislation, 2nd edition 2008, full text .
  7. ↑ Der Spiegel online: German yes to EU reform stopped , June 30, 2008.
  8. ↑ After the Federal President had issued it, the implementation law was published in the Federal Law Gazette ( Federal Law Gazette II p. 1038 ). To conclude the ratification process, however, the signature of the Federal President on the ratification document is required, see Art. 6 of the final provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, Federal Law Gazette 2008 II pp. 1038, 1092.
  9. ↑ a b c d e Federal Constitutional Court - Press Office: Act of Approval to the Treaty of Lisbon compatible with the Basic Law; Accompanying law unconstitutional insofar as legislative bodies have not been granted sufficient participation rights. In: Press Release No. 72/2009. June 30, 2009, accessed on July 1, 2009 : “The Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided today that the Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon is compatible with the Basic Law. On the other hand, the law on the expansion and strengthening of the rights of the Bundestag and Bundesrat in matters of the European Union violates Article 38.1 in conjunction with Article 23.1 of the Basic Law, as the Bundestag and Bundesrat in the context of European legislative and contract amendment procedures were not granted sufficient participation rights. The ratification document of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Treaty of Lisbon may not be deposited as long as the constitutionally required legal arrangement of the parliamentary participation rights has not come into force. The result of the decision is unanimous, with 7: 1 votes regarding the reasons (on the issue see press releases No. 2/2009 of January 16, 2009 and No. 9/2009 of January 29, 2009). [...] "
  10. ↑ Law on the expansion and strengthening of the rights of the Bundestag and Bundesrat in matters relating to the European Union BT-Drs. 16/8489 (planned German law accompanying the Lisbon Treaty)
  11. ↑ by Arnauld / Hufeld (ed.), Systematic Commentary on the Lisbon Accompanying Laws, IntVG I EUZBBG I EUZBLG, 1st edition Baden-Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-5339-3
  12. ↑ BVerfG, decision of July 6, 2010 , Az. 2 BvR 2661/06, full text and press release No. 69/2010 of August 26, 2010.
  13. ↑ Joachim Wuermeling : What remains of the Lisbon judgment? (PDF; 69 kB) Europa-Union Deutschland Europa-Professionell, August 30, 2010, accessed on August 30, 2010 : “... to the exercise of the ultra vires control established by the Lisbon judgment, and the was a central stumbling block, demands are hardly achievable ... The style, the line of thought and the language to Europe in the new decision stand in sharp contrast to the Lisbon judgment. The court also cites quite different legal scholars in quotes than in the ruling from last year. Anyone who has read both judgments can hardly believe that they come from the same court - and even from the same Senate. "