An Overview of the Doctrine of Ultra Vires from the Perspective of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Polish Constitutional Court
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2022.2.330Keywords:
Ultra Vires, Review, PSPP, K 3/21, Germany, Poland, Primacy of EU LawAbstract
European Union law is based on a number of principles of application, such as the principle of primacy or the principle of conferral. Over the years of this project's existence, we have witnessed Member States being excessively cautious on the subject of the primacy of European Union law. Among these Member States is Germany, which has for years shown its vigilance towards the proceedings and acts of the European Union, whether through the well-known Solange judgement or the recent judgment in the PSPP case. The Federal Constitutional Court has thus created a controlling competence vis-à-vis the bodies and institutions of the European Union by which it seeks to ensure that its standard of constitutional protection is maintained. The present article focuses on the development of the ultra vires review competence and it analyses the manner in which it has been exercised. It also focuses on the use of the ultra vires review by Poland in the K 3/21 case, which has resonated with both the professional and non-professional public. The article also aims to compare the judgment in the PSPP case and the judgment in K 3/21 and to assess whether the ultra vires review was properly activated by the Polish Constitutional Court.
References
Anagnostaras, G. (2021). Activating Ultra Vires Review: The German Federal Constitutional Court Decides Weiss. European Papers, 6(1), 801-829.
Baroncelli, S. (2016). The Gauweiler Judgment in View of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice on European Central Bank Independence. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23(1), 79-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1602300105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1602300105
Boom, S. (1995). The European Union After the Maastricht Decision: Will Germany Be the "Virginia of Europe?" American Journal of Comparative Law, 43(2), 177-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/840514
Craig, P., and de Búrca, G. (2020). EU law: text, cases, and materials (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198856641.001.0001
Craig, P., and Markakis, M. (2016). Gauweiler and the Legality of Outright Monetary Transactions. European Law Review, 40(1), 4-24.
Dingfelder Stone, H. J. (2016). Agreeing to Disagree: The Primacy Debate between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. Minnesota Journal of International Law, 25, 127-165.
Hinarejos, A. (2015). Gauweiler and the Outright Monetary Transactions Programme: The Mandate of the European Central Bank and the Changing Nature of Economic and Monetary Union. European Constitutional Law Review, 11(3), 563-576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019615000346 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019615000346
Kiššová, S. (2022). Thirty Years of the Concept of National Identity in the Primary Law of the European Union. Balkan Social Science Review, 20, 137-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46763/BSSR2220137k
Lindeboom, J. (2018). Why EU Law Claims Supremacy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(2), 328-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy008
Máčaj, A. (2021). Torpedoing v. Carpet Bombing: Mutual Trust and the Rule of Law. Slovak Yearbook of European Union Law, 1, 9-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2021.1.268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54869/syeul.2021.1.268
Mayer, F. C. (2014). Rebels Without a Cause? A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court's OMT Reference. German Law Journal, 15(2), 111-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220000287X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220000287X
Pliakos, A., and Anagnostaras, G. (2017). Saving Face? The German Federal Constitutional Court Decides Gauweiler. German Law Journal, 18(1), 213-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220002191X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220002191X
Wendel, M. (2020). Paradoxes of Ultra-Vires Review: A Critical Review of the PSPP Decision and Its Initial Reception. German Law Journal, 21(5), 979-994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.62 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.62
Wieland, J. (1994). Germany in the European Union - The Maastricht Decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht. European Journal of International Law, 5(2), 259-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035870 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035870
Court Decisions
BVerfG, Judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of 29. May 1974, case 2 BvL 52/71, BVerfGE 37, 271, 278-285.
BVerfG, Judgement of the Second Senate of 12 December 1993, 2 BvR 2134/920, BverfGE 89, 155.
BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 30 June 2009-2 BvE 2/08, paras. 1-421, Lisbon judgement. Available at: http://www.bverfg.de/e/es20090630_2bve000208en.html (accessed on 29.12.2022).
BVerfG, Order of the Second Senate of 6 July 2010-2 BvR 2661/06, paras. 1-116 Available at: http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20100706_2bvr266106en.html (accessed on 29.12.2022).
BVerfG, Order of the Second Senate of 14 January 2014-2 BvR 2728/13, paras. 1-24. Available at: http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20140114_2bvr272813en.html (accessed on 29.12.2022).
BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 21 June 2016-2 BvR 2728/13, paras. 1-220. Available at: http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20160621_2bvr272813en.html (accessed on 29.12.2022).
BVerfG, Judgment of the Second Senate of 5 May 2020-2 BvR 859/15, paras. 1-237. Available at: http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20200505_2bvr085915en.html (accessed on 29.12.2022).
CJEU, judgement of 14 August 1962, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, C-26/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1
CJEU, judgement of 21 January 1964, Costa v. ENEL, C-6/67, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1964.21.1.0066
CJEU, judgement of 17 December 1970, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, C-11/70, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114
CJEU, judgement of 9 March 1978, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, C-106/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49
CJEU, judgement of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, C-314/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452
CJEU, judgment of 22 November 2005 (Grand Chamber), Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm, Case C-144/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:709.
CJEU, judgement of 16 June 2015 (Grand Chamber), Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag, C-62/14, EU:C:2015:400
CJEU, judgement of 11 December 2018, Weiss and others v. Bundestag, C-493/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1000.
CJEU, judgement of 2 March 2021 (Grand Chamber), A.B. and Others v. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa and Others, C-824/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:153
Czech Constitutional Court decision of 26 November 2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08, Treaty of Lisbon I.
Czech Constitutional Court decision of 31 January 2012, Pl.ÚS 5/12, Slovak pensions.
Danish Supreme Court judgement of 6 December 2015, Case 15/2014, Dansk Industri acting on behalf of Ajos v. The estate left by A, Ajos.
Polish Constitutional Tribunal judgement of 11 May 2005, K 18/04, Accession Treaty.
Polish Constitutional Tribunal judgement of 7 October 2021, K 3/21.
Spanish Constitutional Court declaration of 12 December 2004, 1/2004.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Slovak Yearbook of European Union Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC).
