Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Risks in the Relation Between National Constitutional Law and EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Risks in EU Law

  • 670 Accesses

Abstract

Already at the beginning of the existence of the EU Communities, the ECJ introduced direct effect and primacy of EU law as two fundamental principles of the EU legal order. These principles were based on a need for uniform and effective application of EU law. This development had a great impact on the organization of national constitutional orders, among other things, on the role of ordinary courts in the judicial architecture and the position of national constitutional courts. This chapter investigates potential legal risks for the national and EU legal orders and concludes that although not materialized, legal risks have shaped the relation between EU law and national law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for an overview on reactions from national courts Claes (2006).

  2. 2.

    Opinion 2/13 [2014] para. 157.

  3. 3.

    Opinion 2/13, para. 166.

  4. 4.

    Article 6(3) TEU.

  5. 5.

    Opinion 2/13, para. 170.

  6. 6.

    Case C-402/05, Kadi Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR I-06351, para. 284.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., para. 285.

  8. 8.

    Opinion 2/13, para. 176.

  9. 9.

    Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 00001.

  10. 10.

    Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585 and for a classic see also Stein (1964–1965), pp. 491–518.

  11. 11.

    Case C-106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629. For an extensive analysis on these issues see Claes (2006).

  12. 12.

    Case C-103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano [1989] ECR I-1839 and as a further example Case C-224/97, Erich Ciola v Land Vorarlberg [1999] ECR I-2517.

  13. 13.

    Case C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1970] ECR-1125.

  14. 14.

    Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v Ministero Fiscal [2013] ECR nyr. See also Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten [2010] ECR I-08015; Case C-416/10, Križan and Others [2013] published in electronic reports of cases.

  15. 15.

    De Witte (2011), p. 327.

  16. 16.

    Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 00001.

  17. 17.

    Van Gend en Loos, p. 6.

  18. 18.

    Halberstam (2010), p. 28.

  19. 19.

    Halberstam (2010), p. 28.

  20. 20.

    Halberstam (2010), p. 29.

  21. 21.

    Halberstam (2010), p. 29.

  22. 22.

    Halberstam (2010), p. 29.

  23. 23.

    Claes (2006), pp. 97–102.

  24. 24.

    Case C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1970] ECR I-1125. In this case, the referring German Court asked the Court of Justice about the validity of the system of import and export licenses as established by two regulations, of the Council and the Commission respectively. The referring Court based the allegation on the invalidity of such Community Acts on the grounds that these acts were against some fundamental principles of the German Basic Law.

  25. 25.

    Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v Ministero Fiscal [2013] ECR nyr. For a comment see De Boer (2013), pp. 1083–1104.

  26. 26.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States [2002].

  27. 27.

    Art. 4a(1) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

  28. 28.

    Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v Ministero Fiscal [2013] ECR nyr, para. 59.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para. 60.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para. 61.

  31. 31.

    Spanish Constitutional Court, STC 26/2014 [2014].

  32. 32.

    For an extensive analysis see Besselink (2014), pp. 531–552.

  33. 33.

    Claes (2006), p. 102.

  34. 34.

    Prechal (2007), p. 54.

  35. 35.

    Case C-314/85, Foto Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR I-4199.

  36. 36.

    Ferreres Comella (2004), pp. 477 et seq.

  37. 37.

    Ferreres Comella (2004), pp. 477 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v Ministero Fiscal [2013] ECR nyr, para. 63.

  39. 39.

    For an elaboration on this see Piqani (2010). See also Kumm (2005); Alter (2001); De Witte (2001) in Kellermann, de Zwaan, Czuczai 2001.

  40. 40.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 1 BvR 248/63 and 216/67 [1967], in Oppenheimer (1994), p. 410.

  41. 41.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 2 BvR 225/69 [1971], in Oppenheimer (1994).

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Case 183/73 Frontini [1973] in Oppenheimer (1994), p. 629.

  44. 44.

    See the discussion below on Case C-399/09, Landtová [2011] ECR I-05573 and the response by the Czech Constitutional Court, Case Pl. ÚS 5/12 Holubec [2012] at http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37&cHash=f5c96e0e4789a7fc3b2eecaca01bc6b3. Accessed 20 August 2015.

  45. 45.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Case No. 232/1989 Fragd [1989] in Oppenheimer (2003), pp. 653–662.

  46. 46.

    See Article 88-I of the French Constitution and cases such as French Constitutional Council, Decision no. 2006-540 Loi relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la societe de l’information [2006], at www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr, and for an overview Millet (2014), pp. 195–218.

  47. 47.

    Czech Constitutional Court, Case Pl. ÚS 50/04 Sugar Quotas [2006], part A-3 of the judgment.

  48. 48.

    Czech Constitutional Court, Case Pl. US 66/04 European Arrest Warrant [2006], para. 53.

  49. 49.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 2 BvL 52/71 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Gmbh v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Solange I) [1974] in Oppenheimer (1994), p. 447 and German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 2 BvR 197/83 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II) [1986] in Oppenheimer (1994), p. 462.

  50. 50.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 2 BvR 197/83 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II) [1986] in Oppenheimer (1994), p. 494.

  51. 51.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case No. 2 BvR 2134 and 2159/92 Maastricht Treaty 1992 Constitutionality Case [1993] para. C/I/3 of the judgment in Oppenheimer (1994), pp. 555–556.

  52. 52.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case 2 BvE 2/08, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 1022/08, 1259/08, 182/09 Lisbon Treaty [2009] https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2009/06/es20090630_2bve000208en.html. Accessed 25 September 2015.

  53. 53.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case 2 BvR 2661/06 Honeywell [2010] at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2010/07/rs20100706_2bvr266106en.html. Accessed 25 September 2015. For an analysis see Payandeh (2011), pp. 9–38.

  54. 54.

    Case C-144/04, Mangold [2005] ECR I-09981.

  55. 55.

    Case 2 BvR 2661/06 Honeywell [2010].

  56. 56.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, Case 2 BvR 2728/13 [2014]. For a short comment on the ECJ case see Piqani (2015), at http://jog.tk.mta.hu/blog/2015/07/the-ecj-upholds-the-ecbs-bond-buying-programme. Accessed 25 September 2015.

  57. 57.

    Case 2 BvR 2728/13 para. 36–42.

  58. 58.

    Case C-62/14, Gauweiler [2015] n.y.r.

  59. 59.

    Case Pl. ÚS 5/12 Holubec [2012].

  60. 60.

    Case C-399/09, Landtová [2011] ECR I-05573.

  61. 61.

    For an excellent analysis and background see Bobek (2014), pp. 54–90.

  62. 62.

    Bobek (2014), p. 57.

  63. 63.

    Bobek (2014), p. 58.

  64. 64.

    Case C-399/09, Landtová [2011] ECR I-05573, para. 41–49.

  65. 65.

    Case Pl. ÚS 5/12 Holubec [2012].

  66. 66.

    Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 of the Council on the Application of Social Security Schemes to Employed Persons and their Families Moving within the Community [1971].

  67. 67.

    Case Pl. ÚS 5/12 Holubec [2012] part VII.

  68. 68.

    Case Pl. ÚS 5/12 Holubec [2012] part VII.

  69. 69.

    Bobek (2014), pp. 63–66.

  70. 70.

    Bobek (2014), p. 67.

  71. 71.

    Case C-112/00, Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-0000.

  72. 72.

    Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen-und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-0000.

  73. 73.

    Claes (2007), p. 11.

  74. 74.

    See, for instance, cases such as Case C-208/09, Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein [2010] ECR I-13693; Case C-391/09, Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v. Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija and Others [2011] ECR I-03787; Case C-202/11, Anton Las v. PSA Antwerp NV [2013].

References

  • Alter K (2001) Establishing the supremacy of European law – the making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Besselink L (2014) Parameters of constitutional conflict after Melloni. Eur Law Rev 39:531–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobek M (2014) Landtova, Holubec, and the problem of an uncooperative court: implications for the preliminary rulings procedure. Eur Const Law Rev 10:54–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claes M (2006) The National Constitutional Mandate in the European Constitution. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Claes M (2007) The Europeanization of national constitutions in the constitutionalization of Europe: some observations against the background of the constitutional experience of the EU-15. Croat Yearb Eur Law Policy 3:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer N (2013) Addressing rights divergences under the Charter: Melloni. Common Mark Law Rev 50:1083–1104

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B (2001) Constitutional aspects of European Union membership in the original six member states: model solutions for the applicant countries? In: Kellermann A, de Zwaan JW, Czuczai J (eds) EU enlargement: the constitutional impact at EU and national level. TMS Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B (2011) Direct effect, primacy and the nature of the legal order. In: Craig P, De Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 327

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreres Comella V (2004) The European model of constitutional review of legislation: toward decentralization? ICON 2:461–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D (2010) Pluralis, in Marbury and Van Gend. In: Maduro M, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2005) The jurisprudence of constitutional conflict: constitutional supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty. Eur Law J 11:262–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Millet F-X (2014) How much lenience for how much cooperation? On the first preliminary reference of the French Constitutional Council to the Court of Justice. Common Mark Law Rev 51:195–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer A (1994) The relationship between European Community Law and National Law: the cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 410

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer A (2003) The relationship between European Community Law and National Law: the cases, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 653–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Payandeh M (2011) Constitutional review of EU law after Honeywell: contextualizing the relationship between the German Constitutional Court and the EU Court of Justice. Common Mark Law Rev 48:9–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Piqani D (2015) Supremacy of EU law and the jurisprudence of constitutional reservations in Central Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans: towards a ‘Holistic’ constitutionalism, PhD Thesis, European University Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2007) Direct effect, indirect effect, supremacy and the evolving constitution of the European Union. In: Barnard C (ed) The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 54

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein E (1964–1965) Toward supremacy of Treaty-Constitution by judicial fiat: on the margin of the Costa Case. Mich Law Rev 63:491–518

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Darinka Piqani

Authors
  1. Darinka Piqani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darinka Piqani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Emilia Mišćenić

  2. Law Faculty, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France

    Aurélien Raccah

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Piqani, D. (2016). Legal Risks in the Relation Between National Constitutional Law and EU Law. In: Mišćenić, E., Raccah, A. (eds) Legal Risks in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28595-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28596-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation