Constitutionalism Beyond the State

  • Ondrej HamuľákEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Law book series (BRIEFSLAW)


The supranational character of the European Union or supranationality itself represents a methodological basis for EU constitutionalization. This model of cooperation manifests the utilitarian and functionalist understanding of European integration, which emphasizes the efficiency of achieving the outlined goals of cooperation (Craig, The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, New York, 1999). This concept favours decision-making and the regulation of specific activities, which are confined to an independent administration, which unlike political representation, can more rapidly and effectively react to emerging problems, and to common desires of all involved entities.


Member State Legal System National Court Legal Order Fundamental Freedom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aalto, P. (2011). Public liability in EU law. Brasserie, Bergaderm and beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Agnew, J. (2009). Globalization and sovereignty. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Alter, K. (2001). Establishing the supremacy of European law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Avbelj, M. (2011). Supremacy or primacy of EU law—(Why) does it matter? European Law Journal, 17(6), 744–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avbelj, M., & Komárek, J. (Eds.). (2012). Constitutional pluralism in the European union and beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bárány, E. (2007). Pojmy dobrého práva [The notion of goof law]. Bratislava: Eurokódex.Google Scholar
  7. Barents, R. (2004). The autonomy of community law. Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  8. Betlem, G. (2002). The doctrine of consistent interpretation—Managing legal uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22(3), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bobek, M. (2014). The effects of EU law in the national legal systems. In C. Barnard & S. Peers (Eds.), European union law (pp. 140–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bobek, M., Bříza, P., & Komárek, J. (2011). Vnitrostátní aplikace práva Evropské unie [Domestic application of EU law]. Praha: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  11. Breuer, M. (2004). State liability for judicial wrongs and community law: The case of Gerhard Köbler v. Austria. European Law Review, 29(1), 243–254.Google Scholar
  12. Corrias, L. (2011). The passivity of law. Competence and constitution in the European court of justice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Craig, P. (1999). The nature of the community: Integration, democracy and legitimacy. In P. Craig & G. De Búrca (Eds.), The evolution of EU law (pp. 1–54). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Craig, P. (2010). The lisbon treaty. Law, politics and treaty reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Craig, P., & De Búrca, G. (2011). EU law—Text, cases and materials (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Búrca, G. (2013). After the EU charter of fundamental rights: The court of justice as a human rights adjudicator? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 20(2), 168–184.Google Scholar
  17. De Búrca, G., & Weiler, J. H. H. (Eds.). (2012). The worlds of European constitucionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. De Witte, B., & Imamović, Š. (2015). Opinion 2/13 on accession to the ECHR: Defending the EU legal order against a foreign human rights court. European Law Review, 40(5), 683–705.Google Scholar
  19. Dougan, M. (2004). National remedies before the Court of Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Douglas-Scott, S. (2006). A tale of two courts: Luxembourg, strasbourg and the growing European human rights acquis. Common Market Law Review, 43(3), 629–665.Google Scholar
  21. Dutheil de la Rochère, J., & Pernice, I. (2003). European Union law and national constitutions. In M. Andenas & J. Usher (Eds.), The treaty of nice and beyond. Enlargement and constitutional reform (pp. 47–105). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Fontanelli, F. (2014). Implementation of EU Law through domestic measures after Fransson: The Court of Justice Buys Time and “non-preclusion” Troubles Loom Large. European Law Review, 39(5), 782–800.Google Scholar
  23. Forejtová, M. (2011). Evropská unie jako subjekt mezinárodního práva veřejného [The European Union as a subject of international law]. In Evropské právo [European Law]. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.Google Scholar
  24. Forejtová, M. (2013). Diskriminace jako referenční kritérium v judikatuře evropských soudů [Discrimination as a reference in the case law of the European courts]. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.Google Scholar
  25. Forejtová, M. (2014). Občanství v judikatuře Soudního dvora Evropské unie v Evropském roce aktivního občanství [Citizenship by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Year of Active Citizenship]. Acta Universitatis Carolinae - Iuridica, 60(2), 45–55.Google Scholar
  26. Forejtová, M. (2015). Recognition and enforcement of judgements within the EU—Or is it really so easy to achieve them? The Lawyer Quarterly, 5(1), 59–72.Google Scholar
  27. Forejtová, M., & Tronečková, M. (2011). Evropské právo v praxi [European law in practice]. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.Google Scholar
  28. Frowein, J. (1988). Solange II, (BVerfGE 73, 339) constitutional complaint Firma W. Common Market Law Review, 25(1), 201–206.Google Scholar
  29. Grabenwarter, Ch., & Pabel, K. (2013). Commentary on article 6 TEU. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mamgiameli (Eds.), The treaty on European union. A commentary (pp. 287–348). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Gragl, P. (2013). The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation. Political essays. (M. Pensky, trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hamuľák, O. (2014). Idolatry of rights and freedoms—Reflections on the autopoietic role of fundamental rights within constitutionalization of the European Union. In T. Kerikmäe (Ed.), Protecting human rights in the EU. Controversies and challenges of the charter of fundamental rights (pp. 187–198). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Hancox, E. (2013). The meaning of “implementing” EU law under Article 51(1) of the charter: Åkerberg Fransson. Common Market Law Review, 50(5), 1411–1431.Google Scholar
  34. Hinarejos, A. (2008). On the legal effects of framework decisions and decisions: Directly applicable, directly effective, self-executing, supreme? European Law Journal, 14(5), 620–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holländer, P. (2009). Základy všeobecné státovědy [The essentials of the general theory of state]. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobs, F. G. (2007). The sovereignty of law: The European way. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jakab, A. (2006). Neutralizing the sovereignty question; compromise strategies in constitutional argumentations before European integration and since. European Constitutional Law Review, 2(3), 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelsen, H. (1944). The principle of sovereign equality of states as a basis for international organization. The Yale Law Journal, 53(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kiiver, P. (2012). The early warning system for the principle of subsidiarity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Kirchhof, P. (1999). The balance of powers between national and european institutions. European Law Journal, 5(3), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klokočka, V. (2006). Ústavní systémy evropských států [Constitutional systems of the European states]. Praha: Linde.Google Scholar
  42. Komárek, J. (2014). Why national constitutional courts should not embrace EU fundamental rights. London School of Economics.–23_Komarek.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2016.
  43. Králová, J. (2011). Comments on the draft agreement on the accession of the European union to the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law, 2(1), 127–142.Google Scholar
  44. Lebeck, C. (2006). National constitutionalism, openness to international law and pragmatic limits of European integration—European Law in the German Constitutional Court from the EEC to PJCC. German Law Journal, 7(11), 907–945.Google Scholar
  45. Leczykiewicz, D. (2009). Constitutionalising the third pillar. Centre for European Legal Studies. Accessed November 21, 2015.
  46. Lenaerts, K., & Cambien, N. (2009). The democratic legitimacy of the EU after the treaty of lisbon. In J. Wouters (Ed.), European constitutionalism beyond Lisbon (pp. 185–207). Antverps: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  47. Lenaerts, K., & Gutiérrez-Fons, J. A. (2014). The place of the charter in the EU constitutional edifice. In S. Peers & T. Hervey, T. (Eds.), The EU charter of fundamental rights. A commentary (pp. 1600–1637). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Lenaerts, K., & Van Nuffel, P. (2005). Constitutional law of the European Union. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  49. Lenaerts, K., & Van Nuffel, P. (2011). European Union Law (3rd ed.). London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  50. Mac Amhlaigh, C. (2011). The European Union’s constitutional mosaic: Big ‘C’ or small ‘c’, Is that a question? In N. Walker, J. Shaw, & S. Tierney (Eds.), Europe’s constitutional mosaic (pp. 21–47). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. MacCormick, N. (1999). Questioning sovereignty. Law, state, and nation in the European Commonwealth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mazák, J. (2011). Locus standi v konaní o neplatnosť: od Plaumannovho testu k regulačným aktom [Locus Standi in the legality review—From the Plaumann test towards regulatory acts), Právník, 150(3), 209–231.Google Scholar
  53. Nanopoulos, E. (2015). Killing two birds with one stone? The Court of Justice’s Opinion on the EU’s Accession to the ECHR. The Cambridge Law Journal, 74(2), 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neacsu, E. D. (2001). The Draft of the EU charter of fundamental rights: A step in the process of legitimizing EU as a political entity, and economic-social rights as fundamental human rights. Columbia Journal of European Law, 1(1), 141–146.Google Scholar
  55. Niedobitek, M. (2009). Přednost práva EU a Lisabonská smlouva [Primacy of EU law and the treaty of Lisbon]. Jurisprudence, 18(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
  56. Panke, D. (2010). The effectiveness of the European Court of Justice. Why reluctant states comply (329 p). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty. A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pirker, B. (2014). Case C-206/13 Siragusa: A Further Piece for the Åkerberg Fransson Jigsaw Puzzle. European law blog Accessed May 14, 2016.
  59. Prechal, S. (2007). Direct effect, indirect effect, supremacy and the evolving constitution of the European Union. In C. Barnard (Ed.), The fundamentals of EU Law revisited. Assessing the impact of the constitutional debate (pp. 35–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Přibáň, J. (2010). Multiple sovereignty: On Europe’s self-constitutionalization and legal self-reference. Ratio Juris, 23(1), 41–64.Google Scholar
  61. Schönlau, J. (2005). Drafting the EU Charter—Rights, legitimacy and process. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schütze, R. (2014). Constitutionalism and the European Union. In C. Barnard & S. Peers (Eds.), European Union law (pp. 71–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sehnálek, D. (2009). Effet utille a jeho projevy při interpretaci komunitárního práva [Effet utile and its expressions within the implementation of community law]. Právník, 148(8), 785–808.Google Scholar
  64. Šišková, N. (2008). The process of constitutionalisation of the EU and related issues. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Spaventa, E. (2015). A very fearful court? The protection of fundamental rights in the European Union after opinion 2/13. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law., 22(1), 35–56.Google Scholar
  66. Stein, E. (1981). Lawyers, judges, and the making of a transnational constitution. The American Journal of International Law, 75(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  67. Stein, E. (2005). The magic of the C-Word. EUSA Review, 18(3), 1–5.Google Scholar
  68. Torres Pérez, A. (2009). Conflict of rights in the European Union. A theory of supranational adjudication. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weatherill, S. (2010). Cases and materials on EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2401–2483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weiler, J. H. H. (1999). The constitution of Europe. ‘Do the new clothes have an Emperor?’ and other essays on European integration. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wintr, J. (2004). Právně-politická metoda evropské integrace a návrh evropské ústavy [Legal and political method of European integration and proposal of constitution for Europe]. České právo na prahu Evropské unie (pp. 31–43). Karolinum: Praha.Google Scholar
  73. Witte, B. (1999). The past and future of the European court of justice in the protection of human rights. In P. Alston (Ed.), The EU and human rights (pp. 859–897). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations