The state of the judicial dialogue after the PSPP judgement

Paweł  Bącal

The state of the judicial dialogue after the PSPP judgement

Data publikacji: 06.2022

Przegląd Konstytucyjny, 2022, Numer 1 (2022), s. 95 - 110

https://doi.org/10.4467/25442031PKO.22.004.15730

Autorzy

Pobierz pełny tekst

PDF

drukuj

Tytuły

The state of the judicial dialogue after the PSPP judgement

Abstrakt

The issue of the relations between the European Court of Justice and the constitutional courts of the Member States is a topic of great importance. The latest proof of that is the PSPP judgement of the German Constitutional Court. It has also shown what might happen if judicial dialogue is abandoned. The aim of the paper is to consider the consequences of the PSPP judgement as well as to analyse the conditions for the restoration and development of trust between the courts. The author presents the concept of ultra vires which has been used by the German Constitutional Court. In subsequent parts of the paper, the discussion focuses on the PSPP judgement and the surrounding scholarly debate and points out the consequences for both sides of the dispute. In the author’s opinion, the PSPP saga may, under some conditions, have positive implications for judicial dialogue.

Słowa kluczowe

European Court of Justice, constitutional courts, ultra vires, PSPP, judicial dialogue

Bibliografia

Pobierz bibliografię

Anagnostaras G., Activation of the Ultra Vires Review: The Slovak Pensions Judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court, „German Law Journal” 2013, vol. 14(7).

Avbelj M., Constitutional Pluralism and Authoritarianism, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Avbelj M., The Right Question about the FCC Ultra Vires Decision, „VerfBlog” 2020, 6 May, < https://verfassungsblog.de/the-right-question-about-the-fcc-ultra-vires-decision/ >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Bast J., Don’t Act Beyond Your Powers: The Perils and Pitfalls of the German Constitutional Court’s Ultra Vires Review, „German Law Journal” 2014, vol. 15(2).

Biernat S., How Far Is It from Warsaw to Luxembourg and Karlsruhe: The Impact of the PSPP Judgment on Poland, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Bobić A., Constitutional Pluralism Is Not Dead: an Analysis of Interactions Between Constitutional Courts of Member States and the European Court of Justice, „German Law Journal” 2017, vol. 18(6).

Bonelli M., The Taricco Saga and the Consolidation of Judicial Dialogue in the European Union: CJEU, C-105/14 Ivo Taricco and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:555; and C-42/17 M.A.S., M.B., ECLI:EU:C:2017:936 Italian Constitutional Court, Order no. 24/2017, „Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 2018, vol. 25(3).

Claes M., Reestman J., The Protection of National Constitutional Identity and the Limits of European Integration at the Occasion of the Gauweiler Case, „German Law Journal” 2015, vol. 16(4).

Craig P., The ECJ, National Courts And The Supremacy of Community Law, in: The European Constitution in the Making, ed. I. Smyth, Oxford 2004.

Delaney E., Managing In a Federal System Without an “Ultimate Arbiter”: Kompetenz-Kompetenz In the EU And the Ante-Bellum United States, „Regional & Federal Studies” 2005, vol. 15(2).

Dermine P., The Ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht in PSPP – An Inquiry into its Repercussions on the Economic and Monetary Union: Bundesverfassungsgericht 5 May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15 and others, PSPP, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2020, vol. 16(3).

ECJ, Press Release Following the Judgement of the German Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020, 8 May 2020, no. 58/20, < https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/ 2020-05/cp200058en.pdf >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

European Commission, June Infringements Package: Key Decisions, 9 June 2021, INF/21/2743, < https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/EN/INF_21_2743 >, accessed: 7 June 2021.

European Commission, Statement by President Von der Leyen, 10 May 2020, Statement/20/846, < https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_846 >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Faraguna P., Constitutional Identity in the EU–A Shield or a Sword?, „German Law Journal” 2017, vol. 18(7).

Fichera M., Pollicino O., The Dialectics Between Constitutional Identity and Common Constitutional Traditions: Which Language for Cooperative Constitutionalism in Europe?, „German Law Journal” 2019, vol. 20(8).

Gärditz K., Beyond Symbolism: Towards a Constitutional Actio Popularis in EU Affairs? A Commentary on the OMT Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, „German Law Journal” 2014, vol. 15(2).

Grimm D., A Long Time Coming, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Haket S., The Danish Supreme Court’s Ajos judgment (Dansk Industri): Rejecting a Consistent Interpretation and Challenging the Effect of a General Principle of EU Law in the Danish Legal Order, „Review of European Administrative Law” 2017, vol. 10(1).

Herzog R., Gerken L., Stop the European Court of Justice, „EUobserver” 2008, 10 September, < https://euobserver.com/opinion/26714 >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Höpner M., Proportionality and Karlsruhe’s ultra vires verdict: Ways out of constitutional pluralism?, MPIfG Discussion Paper, no. 21/1, Köln 2021.

Komárek J., Playing With Matches: The Czech Constitutional Court’s Ultra Vires Revolution, „VerfBlog” 2012, 22 February, < https://verfassungsblog.de/playing-matches-czech-constitutional-courts-ultra-vires-revolution/ >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Kovács K., The Rise of an Ethnocultural Constitutional Identity in the Jurisprudence of the East Central European Courts, „German Law Journal” 2017, vol. 18(7).

Kube H., A Relieving Decision: The Interim Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Procedure against the 2020 Own Resources Decision, „VerfBlog” 2021, 27 April, < https://verfassungsblog.de/a-relieving-decision/ >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Łętowska E., The Honest (though Embarrassing) Coming-out of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, „VerfBlog” 2021, 29 November, < https://verfassungsblog.de/thehonest-though-embarrassing-coming-out-of-the-polish-constitutional-tribunal/ >, accessed: 1 December 2021.

Madsen M.R., Olsen H.P., Šadl U., Legal Disintegration? The Ruling of the Danish Supreme Court in AJOS, „VerfBlog” 2017, 30 January, < https://verfassungsblog.de/legal-disintegration-the-ruling-of-the-danish-supreme-court-in-ajos/ >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Mahlmann M., The Politics of Constitutional Identity and its Legal Frame – the Ultra Vires Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, „German Law Journal” 2010, vol. 11(12).

Mayer F., Rebels Without a Cause? A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court’s OMT Reference, „German Law Journal” 2014, vol. 15(2).

Mayer F., To Boldly Go Where No Court Has Gone Before. The German Federal Constitutional Court’s ultra vires Decision of May 5, 2020, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Nguyen H.T., Chamon M., The Ultra Vires Decision of the German Constitutional Court-Time to Fight Fire With Fire?, Hertie School Jacques Delors Centre Policy Paper, Berlin 2020.

On Courts of Last Resort and Lenders of Last Resort, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2015, vol. 11(2).

Orešković L., Clash of the Titans: The Impact of Weiss on the Future of Judicial Conflicts in the EU, „Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy” 2020, vol. 16(1).

Petersen N., Karlsruhe’s Lochner Moment? A Rational Choice Perspective on the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Relationship to the CJEU After the PSPP Decision, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Pliakos A., Anagnostaras G., Blind Date Between Familiar Strangers: The German Constitutional Court Goes Luxembourg!, „German Law Journal” 2014, vol. 15(2).

Pliakos A., Anagnostaras G., Saving Face? The German Federal Constitutional Court Decides Gauweiler, „German Law Journal” 2017, vol. 18(1).

Poli S., Cisotta R., The German Federal Constitutional Court’s Exercise of Ultra Vires Review and the Possibility to Open an Infringement Action for the Commission, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Sarmiento D., Weiler J.H.H., The EU Judiciary After Weiss: Proposing A New Mixed Chamber of the Court of Justice, „VerfBlog” 2020, 2 June, < https://verfassungsblog.de/the-eu-judiciary-after-weiss/ >, accessed: 1 July 2021.

Schönberger C., Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht’s Epigones At Sea, „German Law Journal” 2009, vol. 10(8).

Selejan-Gutan B., Who’s Afraid of the „Big Bad Court”?, „VerfBlog” 2022, 10 January, < https://verfassungsblog.de/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-court/ >, accessed: 11 January 2022.

Simon S., Rathke H., “Simply not comprehensible.” Why?, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Thiele A., Friendly or Unfriendly Act? The “Historic” Referral of the Constitutional Court to the ECJ Regarding the ECB’s OMT Program, „German Law Journal” 2014, vol. 15(2).

Thym D., In the Name of Sovereign Statehood: A Critical Introduction to the Lisbon judgment of the German Constitutional Court, „Common Market Law Review” 2009, vol. 46(6).

Viterbo A., The PSPP Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court: Throwing Sand in the Wheels of the European Central Bank, „European Papers. A Journal on Law and Integration”, 2020, vol. 5(1).

Voβkuhle A., Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2010, vol. 6(2).

Vranes E., German Constitutional Foundations of, and Limitations to, EU Integration: A Systematic Analysis, „German Law Journal” 2013, vol. 14(1).

Wendel M., Paradoxes of Ultra-Vires Review: A Critical Review of the PSPP Decision and Its Initial Reception, „German Law Journal” 2020, vol. 21(5).

Wohlfahrt C., The Lisbon Case: A Critical Summary, „German Law Journal” 2009, vol. 10(8).

Wyrzykowski M., Constitutional Borrowings, Not Hegemony, „VerfBlog” 2020, 12 October, < https://verfassungsblog.de/constitutional-borrowings-not-hegemony/ >, accessed: 11 January 2022.

Ziller J., The Conseil d’Etat Refuses to Follow the Pied Piper of Karlsruhe, „VerfBlog” 2021, 24 April, < https://verfassungsblog.de/the-conseil-detat-refuses-to-follow-the-piedpiper-of-karlsruhe/ >, accessed: 11 January 2022.

Informacje

Informacje: Przegląd Konstytucyjny, 2022, Numer 1 (2022), s. 95 - 110

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/25442031PKO.22.004.15730

Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy

Tytuły:

Polski:

The state of the judicial dialogue after the PSPP judgement

Angielski:

The state of the judicial dialogue after the PSPP judgement

Autorzy

Paweł Bącal

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3362-646X

College of Interdisciplinary Individual Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Warsaw

Publikacja: 06.2022

Status artykułu: Otwarte

Licencja: CC BY

Udział procentowy autorów:

Paweł Bącal (Autor) - 100%

Korekty artykułu:

Języki publikacji:

Angielski

Liczba wyświetleń: 416

Liczba pobrań: 541

<p> The state of the judicial dialogue after the PSPP judgement</p>

Pobierz xml