Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The National Identity Criterion in the Crossfire Between European Integration and the Preservation of National Sovereignty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 285))

  • 588 Accesses

Abstract

The national identity criterion has not only come up within the frame of the ECHR but also in the context of the European Union where resistance by national constitutional courts to the decisions of the CJEU is becoming more and more apparent. Yet, while the ECtHR was created as an international court to externally monitor the observance of human rights in its Contracting States without having own political or sovereign power, the starting position in relation to the EU is different. The EU system of fundamental rights protection is an integral part of the rule of law within the EU and thus closer to the system of fundamental rights protection of an EU Member State than to that provided for by the ECHR. Furthermore, the autonomous nature of EU law, which is repeatedly emphasised by the CJEU, necessarily requires coherence, consistence, unity, and effectiveness in its Member States. Although the principle of primacy affects only the applicability of the conflicting national provision and not its validity, Member States cannot get away with non-compliance. Therefore, the struggle in confrontation and cooperation between national constitutional courts and the CJEU is, also with regard to the national identity criterion, somehow sharper than the one between the national constitutional courts and the ECtHR.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See K Lenaerts, The ECHR and the CJEU: Creating Synergies in the Field of Fundamental Rights Protection, Speech at the Solemn hearing for the opening of the Judicial Year, 26 January 2018, p 2, available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Speech_20180126_Lenaerts_JY_ENG.pdf>. See also S Schmahl, ‘Grundrechtsschutz im Dreieck von EU, EMRK und nationalem Verfassungsrecht’ (2008) Europarecht Beiheft 1, 7–40, at 37.

  2. 2.

    Opinion 2/13 Accession of the EU to the ECHR, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2455, para 156.

  3. 3.

    Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 595.

  4. 4.

    Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125.

  5. 5.

    Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629.

  6. 6.

    Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 3.

  7. 7.

    See M Claes, ‘The Primacy of EU Law in European and National Law’ in A Arnull/D Chalmers (eds), The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law (2015), pp 178–211, at 181.

  8. 8.

    For a more recent example, see Case C-399/11 Melloni, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, para 60; further see CJEU, Opinion 2/13 Accession of the EU to the ECHR, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2455, para 176.

  9. 9.

    See Claes (fn 7), pp 178 et seq.

  10. 10.

    Rightly so T Giegerich, ‘Zwischen Europafreundlichkeit und Europaskepsis – Kritischer Überblick über die bundesverfassungsgerichtliche Rechtsprechung zur europäischen Integration’ (2016) Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 3–48, at 14.

  11. 11.

    See the references cited by G Britz, ‘Grundrechtsschutz durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht und den Europäischen Gerichtshof’ (2015) Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 275–281.

  12. 12.

    See Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, paras 32 et seq; Case C-399/11 Melloni ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, paras 47 et seq. But see also Case 206/13 Siragusa ECLI:EU:C:2014:126, paras 20 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 24 April 2013, 1 BvR 1215/07, BVerfGE 133, 277, at 316, with reference to Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para 19.

  14. 14.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 22 October 1986, 2 BvR 197/83, BVerfGE 73, 339, at 387: ‘[…] so long as the European [Union], and in particular the case law of the European Court, generally ensure an effective protection of fundamental rights substantially similar to the protection of fundamental rights required unconditionally by the [German] Constitution, and in so far as they generally safeguard the essential content of fundamental rights’, in: A Oppenheimer (ed), The Relationship between European Community Law and National Law: The Cases (1994), 461–495, at 494. See also Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 7 June 2000, 2 BvL 1/97, BVerfGE 102, 147, at 163–164; settled case law.

  15. 15.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 340, 353–354, 399–401.

  16. 16.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 334 et seq. But see also Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 6 September 2016, 2 BvR 890/16, MN 30 seq, where some restrictions to the nemo tenetur principle provided for by UK law were not considered as constituting a violation of human dignity in the sense of the Basic Law; concurring H Satzger, ‘Mutual Recognition in Times of Crisis – Mutual Recognition in Crisis? An Analysis of the New Jurisprudence on the European Arrest Warrant’ (2018) 8 European Criminal Law Review 317–331, at 328 et seq.

  17. 17.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 337; see also H Sauer, ‘Der novellierte Kontrollzugriff des Bundesverfassungsgerichts auf das Unionsrecht’ (2017) Europarecht 186–205, at 191.

  18. 18.

    The basis for this review was the Maastricht judgment, see Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 October 1993, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, BVerfGE 89, 155, at 188.

  19. 19.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 6 July 2010, 2 BvR 2661/06, BVerfGE 126, 286, at 304 et seq. See also Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 24 April 2013, 1 BvR 1215/07, BVerfGE 133, 277, at 316; Order of 14 January 2014, 2 BvR 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731/13, 2 BvE 13/13, BVerfGE 134, 366, at 392 et seq.

  20. 20.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 401; Order of 6 July 2010, 2 BvR 2661/06, BVerfGE 126, 286, at 304; Order of 14 January 2014, 2 BvR 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731/13, 2 BvE 13/13, BVerfGE 134, 366, at 382 et seq; Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 338 et seq.

  21. 21.

    For more detail see A Proelß, ‘Zur verfassungsmäßigen Kontrolle der Kompetenzmäßigkeit von Maßnahmen der EU’ (2011) Europarecht 241, at 261; H-G Dederer, ‘Die Grenzen des Vorrangs des Unionsrechts – Zur Vereinheitlichung von Grundrechts-, Ultra-vires- und Identitätskontrolle’ (2014) Juristenzeitung 313–322, at 315 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Rightly so M Ludwigs/P Sikora, ‘Der Vorrang des Unionsrechts unter Kontrollvorbehalt des BVerfG’ (2016) Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 121–131, at 127; A Thiele, ‘Die Integrationsidentität des Art. 23 Abs. 1 GG als (einzige) Grenze des Vorrangs des Europarechts’ (2017) Europarecht 367–380, at 373.

  23. 23.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 347, 354, 401; Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 338.

  24. 24.

    Critical assessment by Giegerich (fn 10), pp 34–35.

  25. 25.

    This is also stated by the Federal Constitutional Court itself, see Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 355–366.

  26. 26.

    Correctly so C Schönberger, ‘Anmerkung’ (2016) Juristenzeitung 422–424, at 423.

  27. 27.

    See Schönberger (fn 26), p 424; S Schmahl, ‘Der Beitritt der EU zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention: Wo liegt das Problem?’ (2016) Juristenzeitung 921–928, at 924.

  28. 28.

    See the references cited infra, fn 29, 92 and 93.

  29. 29.

    Recent examples of safeguarding the British national identity are: UK Supreme Court, Judgment of 22 January 2014, R (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Limited) v The Secretary of State for Transport, (2014) UKSC 3, paras 79, 207; Judgment of 25 March 2015, Phan v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2015) UKSC 19, paras 54, 58, 72 et seq. For more detail on this case law and the case law of other Member States, see PM Huber, ‘Europäische Verfassungs- und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Bedrängnis: Zur Entwicklung der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Europa’ (2017) 56 Der Staat 389–414, at 406–408.

  30. 30.

    See Italian Constitutional Court, Referral Order No 24/2017 of 26 January 2017, para 6.

  31. 31.

    See Case C-105/14 Taricco I ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, paras 18 et seq, 34. See also Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, paras 25–26.

  32. 32.

    Case C-105/14 Taricco I ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, paras 37 et seq, in particular, para 47.

  33. 33.

    Case C-105/14 Taricco I ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, paras 49–52. Critical view by M Lochmann, ‘Taricco I - ein Ultra-vires-Akt? Zur Rechtsfortbildung durch den EuGH’ (2019) Europarecht 61–85, at 68 et seq.

  34. 34.

    See Case C-105/14 Taricco I ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, paras 54–57; Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, para 54. Both judgments include several references of the relevant case law of the ECtHR.

  35. 35.

    See P Faraguna, ‘The Italian Constitutional Court in re Taricco: “Gauweiler in the Roman Campagna”’, available at <https://verfassungsblog.de>. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the Italian Constitution in fact guarantees a higher standard of fundamental rights protection than European law (but so D Burchardt, ‘Belittling the Primacy of EU Law in Taricco II’ available at <https://verfassungsblog.de>). After all, there is a common interest in not allowing tax-related criminal offenses to become excessively early time-barred.

  36. 36.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Referral Order No 24/2017 of 26 January 2017, para 6. Critical assessment by Faraguna (fn 35), who rightly points to the fact that the principle of legality in criminal matters may certainly be included among the fundamental principles of the constitutional order but that it may be however questionable whether limitation periods do fall within the essential core of the legality principle.

  37. 37.

    See Italian Constitutional Court, Decision of 18 December 1973, No 183/1973, Frontini, Il Foro Italiano 1974, I, 314, paras 4–9; Decision of 8 June 1984, No 170/1984, Granital, Il Foro Italiano 1984, I, 2062, at 2074; Decision of 21 April 1989, No 232/1989, Fragd, Il Foro Italiano 1990, I, 1855, at 1861–1862; Decision of 18 April 1991, No 168/91, Giampaoli, Il Foro Italiano 1992, I, 660, at 666.

  38. 38.

    Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, paras 30–39.

  39. 39.

    See Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, paras 41–45, 61. But see also Directive (EU) 2017/1371, of 5 July 2017, on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ 2017 L 198, 29), according to which Member States will have to comply by 6 July 2019 with harmonised minimum rules on limitation periods for EU-fraud, including VAT fraud. As regards the content of this Directive see F Meyer, ‘Anmerkung’ (2018) JuristenzZeitung, 304–308, at 307; L Staffler, ‘Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der Union mittels Strafrecht’ (2018) Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung, 52–65.

  40. 40.

    Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, para 40. For more detail see M Bassini/O Pollicino, ‘The Taricco Decision: A Last Attempt to Avoid a Clash between EU Law and the Italian Constitution’, available at <https://verfassungsblog.de>.

  41. 41.

    Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, paras 41–42, 61.

  42. 42.

    Correctly so Lenaerts (fn 1), p 8; L Staffler, ‘Verfassungsidentität und strafrechtliche Verjährung. Das (vorläufige) Ende des Konflikts zweier Höchstgerichte in der Rechtssache Taricco’ (2018) Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 613–619, at 616. Different assessment by C Peristeridou/J Ouwerkerk, ‘A Bridge over Troubled Water – A criminal Lawyers‘ Response to Taricco II’, available at https://verfassungsblog.de; M Klein, ‘Friedensgrüße aus Luxemburg: Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Grundrechteverbund’ (2018) Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 605–612, at 609.

  43. 43.

    See Lenaerts (fn 1), p 8; similarly S Pilz, ‘Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urteil vom 5.12.2017 – C-42/17’ (2018) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 221; Lochmann (fn 33), p 67. Different assessment by A Epiney, ‘Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH im Jahr 2017: Europäisches Verfassungsrecht’ (2018) Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 775–784, at 783.

  44. 44.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 18 July 2017, Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:564, paras 156–168.

  45. 45.

    Similarly C Rauchegger, ‘National constitutional rights and the primacy of EU law: M.A.S.’ (2018) 55 Common Market Law Review 1521–1547, at 1532 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Case C-234/04 Kapferer (2006) ECR I-2585, para 22; Case C-2/08 Olimpiclub ECLI:EU:C:2009:506, para 24, settled case law. For more detail see S Schmahl/M Köber, ‘Durchbrechung der Rechtskraft nationaler Gerichtsentscheidungen zugunsten der Effektivität des Unionsrechts?’ (2010) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 927–932.

  47. 47.

    Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, paras 32 et seq.

  48. 48.

    See Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, paras 44–45. – The conclusion presented by D Burchardt, ‘Kehrtwende in der Grundrechts- und Vorrangrechtsprechung des EuGH?‘ (2018) Europarecht 248–263, at 255, according to whom every national standard of human rights protection could prevail over the Charter, is inaccurate.

  49. 49.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment No 269/2017 of 7 November 2017, para 5.2: ‘Fermi restando i principi del primato e dell’effetto diretto del diritto dell’Unione europea come sin qui consolidatisi nella giurisprudenza europea e costituzionale […]’. The reasoning of the judgment was only published on 14 December 2017, i.e. after the pronouncement of the CJEU’s Taricco II decision.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    Similarly P Faraguna, ‘Constitutional Rights First: The Italian Constitutional Court fine-tunes its “Europarechtsfreundlichkeit”’, available at <https://verfassungsblog.de>.

  52. 52.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Order 115/2018 of 31 May 2018.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, paras 10 et seq. Critical assessment by C Amalfitano/O Pollicino, ‘Two Courts, two Languages? The Taricco Saga Ends on a Worrying Note’ available at <https://verfassungsblog.de>; L Staffler, ‘Towards a New Chapter of the Taricco Saga’ (2019) 9 European Criminal Law Review 59–80, at 75 et seq.

  54. 54.

    See C Schönberger, ‘Identitäterä: Verfassungsidentität zwischen Widerstandsformel und Musealisierung des Grundgesetzes’ (2015) 63 Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 41–62, at 44. Different accents by A von Bogdandy/S Schill, ‘Die Achtung der nationalen Identität unter dem reformierten Unionsvertrag’ (2010) 70 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 701–734, at 705, 718–719.

  55. 55.

    Similarly, and with more detail, E Cloots, National Identity in EU Law (2015), pp 36 et seq; 82 et seq.

  56. 56.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 October 1993, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, BVerfGE 89, 155, at 181.

  57. 57.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 October 1993, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, BVerfGE 89, 155, at 211.

  58. 58.

    For a fuller account see M Claes, ‘National Identity: Trump Card or Up for Negotiation’ in A Saiz Arnaiz/C Alcoberro Llivina (eds), National Constitutional Identity and European Integration (2013), pp 109–140, at 115 et seq.

  59. 59.

    The list of essential tasks of the Member States as part of national identity, which was initially proposed in the drafting of Article I-5(1) TCE (see CONV 375/02, 10 et seq), could not prevail even then. There was fear that such a list would limit too much the autonomy of the Member States, see CONV 400/02, 13.

  60. 60.

    See D Simon, ‘L‘identité constitutionnelle dans la jurisprudence de l’Union européenne’ in L Burgorgue-Larsen (ed), L’identité constitutionnelle saisie par les juges en Europe (2011), pp 27–43, at 33–34.

  61. 61.

    See Claes (fn 58), p 125.

  62. 62.

    See R Streinz, ‘Art. 4 EUV’ in R Streinz (ed), EUV/AEUV, Kommentar (3rd edn 2018), MN 14. For more detail see E Di Salvatore, L’identità costituzionale dell’Unione europea e degli Stati membri (2008), pp 35 et seq; Cloots (fn 55), pp 165 et seq.

  63. 63.

    von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), pp 714, 716.

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), p 711; Claes (fn 7), p 205; Klein (fn 42), p 611; Rauchegger (fn 45), p 1542; A Haratsch, ‘Nationale Identität aus europarechtlicher Sicht‘ (2016) Europarecht 131–146, at 134.

  65. 65.

    See L Besselink, ‘Respecting Constitutional Identity in the EU’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 671–693, at 678; F van der Schyff, ‘The Constitutional Relationship between the European Union and its Member States: The Role of National Identity in Article 4 (2) TEU’ (2012) 37 European Law Review 563–584, at 565.

  66. 66.

    Rightly so Claes (fn 58), pp 111, 122; see also Claes (fn 7), p 205. – In contrast, the Hungarian Constitutional Court’s Decision 22/2016 of 30 November 2016 which considers Article 4(2) TEU as an exception to primacy is not convincing and risks de-legitimizing the European legal order. See G Halmai, ‘Abuse of constitutional identity: The Hungarian Constitutional Court on interpretation of Article E) (2) of the Fundamental Law’ (2018) Review of Central and East European Law 23–42; B Bakó, ‘The Zauberlehrling Unchained? The Recycling of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Case Law on Identity-, Ultra Vires- and Fundamental Rights Review in Hungary’ (2018) 78 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 863–902, at 866 et seq.

  67. 67.

    von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), p 715.

  68. 68.

    See Claes (fn 58), pp 112, 122.

  69. 69.

    See C Schönberger, ‘Stiftet die Unionsbürgerschaft europäische Identität? ’ in P Müller-Graff (ed), Der Zusammenhalt Europas – In Vielfalt geeint (2009), pp 55–71; D Sarmiento, ‘The EU’s Constitutional Core’ in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 177–204, at 181 et seq.

  70. 70.

    See R Schuetze, From Dual to Cooperative Federalism (2009), passim.

  71. 71.

    See G N Toggenburg, ‘“United in Diversity”: Searching for the Regional Dimension in the Context of the Somewhat Foggy Constitutional Credo’ in R Toniatti/M Dani/F Palermo (eds), An Ever More Complex Union (2004), pp 27–54.

  72. 72.

    Schönberger (fn 54), p 49.

  73. 73.

    See Claes (fn 58), pp 110, 113.

  74. 74.

    Schönberger (fn 54), p 50. Similarly, with regard to US law, H Wechsler, ‘The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government’ (1954) 54 Columbia Law Review 543–560. See also D Halberstam, ‘Of Power and Responsibility: The Political Morality of Federal Systems’ (2004) 90 Virginia Law Review 731–834, at 732 et seq.

  75. 75.

    Different assessment by G Martinico, ‘What Lies Behind Article 4(2) TEU?’ in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 93–108, at 96–97.

  76. 76.

    In the same vein see Simon (fn 60), pp 32–33; L Burgorgue-Larsen, ‘L’identité constitutionnelle en question(s)’ in L Burgorgue-Larsen (fn 60), pp 155–168, at 166–167. More sceptical assessment by Cloots (fn 55), pp 8 et seq.

  77. 77.

    See Case 379/87 Groener [1989] ECR 3967, paras 18 et seq; Case C-473/93 Commission v Luxembourg [1996] ECR I-3207, para 35.

  78. 78.

    Case 208/09 Sayn-Wittgenstein [2010] ECR I-13718, paras 81 et seq.

  79. 79.

    For a fuller account see L Burgorgue-Larsen, ‘A Huron at the Kirchberg Plateau or a Few Naive Thoughts on Constitutional Identity in the Case-law of the Judge of the European Union’ in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 275–304.

  80. 80.

    Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, paras 31 et seq.

  81. 81.

    See, e.g., Case 379/87 Groener [1989] ECR 3967, paras 18 et seq; but see also Case C-160/03 Spain v Eurojust [2005] ECR I-2077.

  82. 82.

    See, e.g., Case C-288/89 Stichting Collective Antennevoorziening Gouda [1991] ECR I-4007, paras 23 et seq; Case C-148/91 Vereniging Veronica Omroep Organisatie [1993] ECR I-487, paras 9 et seq; Case C-391/09 Runevic-Vardyn and Wardyn [2011] ECR I-3787, paras 84 et seq; Case C-202/11 Las ECLI:EU:C:2013:239, paras 25 et seq.

  83. 83.

    See Cases C-428/06 to C-434/06 UGT Rioja [2008] ECR I-6747, paras 65 et seq.

  84. 84.

    See Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, paras 38–41 as well as para 61.

  85. 85.

    See von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), pp 725–726; Claes (fn 7), p 205.

  86. 86.

    See, e.g., I Pernice, ‘Der Schutz nationaler Identität in der Europäischen Union’ (2011) 136 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 185–221, at 194 et seq; C Walter, ‘Europäische und nationale Identität in der Wechselwirkung: Überlegungen zur Integration durch Verfassungsrecht am Beispiel des Staatskirchenrechts’ in W Kluth (ed), Europäische Integration und nationales Verfassungsrecht (2007), pp 65–84, at 75; M Wendel, Permeabilität im europäischen Verfassungsrecht (2011), pp 576 et seq.

  87. 87.

    See L Viellechner, ‘Responsiver Rechtspluralismus’ (2012) 51 Der Staat 559–580, at 570; A Ingold, ‘Die verfassungsrechtliche Identität der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Karriere – Konzept – Kritik’ (2015) 140 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 1–30, at 25–26.

  88. 88.

    Very clearly on this point: Case C-42/17 MAS and MB (Taricco II) ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, para 22. See also Schönberger (fn 54), p 53; Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina, ‘Why Constitutional Identity Suddenly Matters: A Tale of Brave States, a Mighty Union and the Decline of Sovereignty’, in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 1–16, at 13.

  89. 89.

    Lucid view by Claes (fn 58), p 123.

  90. 90.

    Simon (fn 60), p 41.

  91. 91.

    See Claes (fn 7), pp 188 et seq.

  92. 92.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 22 October 1986, 2 BvR 197/83, BVerfGE 73, 339, at 375–376; Judgment of 12 October 1993, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, BVerfGE 89, 155, at 190; Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 398; Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 336. See also PM Huber, ‘Das Verständnis des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom Kompetenzgefüge zwischen der EU und den Mitgliedstaaten’ in T Möllers/F-C Zeitler (eds), Europa als Rechtsgemeinschaft – Währungsunion und Schuldenkrise (2013), pp 229–243, at 230 et seq.

  93. 93.

    See, e.g., Italian Constitutional Court (fn 37); Conseil Constitutionnel, Decision of 27 July 2006, Loi relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information, déc no 2006-540 DC, JORF, 3 August 2006, 11541; Trybunał Konstytucyjny, Judgment of 11 May 2005, K 18/04, para 10(2), and Decision of 24 November 2010, K 32/09, paras 2(1)-2(2). For more detail see S Schmahl, ‘Grundrechtsschutz im föderalen Europa’ in I Härtel (ed), Handbuch Föderalismus vol. IV (2012), pp 411–447, at 421–428; J Rideau, ‘The Case-Law of the Polish, Hungarian and Czech Constitutional Courts on National Identity and the “German Model”’ in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 243–261.

  94. 94.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 348, 350.

  95. 95.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 October 1993, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, BVerfGE 89, 155, at 190. See also Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 349, 381, 398; Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 338.

  96. 96.

    See fn 37.

  97. 97.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 339.

  98. 98.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 338. The Lisbon verdict is already on the same line, see Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 347, 354, 401.

  99. 99.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 344, 353–354; Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 336.

  100. 100.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 29 May 1974, BvL 52/71, BVerfGE 37, 271, at 279–280. The decision is discussed in more detail by M Hilf, ‘Europäische Union und nationale Identität der Mitgliedstaaten’ in Gedächtnisschrift Eberhard Grabitz (1995), pp 157–170, at 163.

  101. 101.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 22 October 1986, 2 BvR 197/83, BVerfGE 73, 339, at 375–376.

  102. 102.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 October 1993, 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, BVerfGE 89, 155, at 189, 211, 213.

  103. 103.

    See F-X Millet, ‘The Respect for National Constitutional Identity in the European Legal Space: An Approach to Federalism as Constitutionalism’ in L Azoulai (ed), The Question of Competence in the European Union (2014), pp 253–266, at 260.

  104. 104.

    Conseil Constitutionnel, Decision of 27 July 2006, Loi relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information, déc. no. 2006-540 DC, JORF, 3 August 2006, 11541, Considérant 19. As to the subsequent judgments of the French Constitutional Council see D Rousseau, ‘L’identité constitutionnelle, bouclier de l’identité nationale ou branche de l’étoile européenne? ’ in Burgorgue-Larsen (fn 60), pp 89–100.

  105. 105.

    Tribunal Constitucional, Declaration of 13 December 2004, DTC 1/2004. See also F Castillo de la Torre, ‘Tribunal Constitucional (Spanish Constitutional Court) Opinion 1/2004 of 13 December 2004, on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe’ (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 1169–1202; R Alonso García, ‘Constitución española y Constitución europea’ (2005) 14 Revue des Affaires Européennes 105–118; A Saiz Arnaiz, ‘Identité nationale et droit de l’Union européenne dans la jurisprudence constitutionnelle espagnole’ in Burgorgue-Larsen (fn 60), pp 101–131, at 115 et seq.

  106. 106.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 340, 353–354, 399–401.

  107. 107.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 357–358.

  108. 108.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 358.

  109. 109.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 340, 343. See also Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 7 September 2011, 2 BvR 987, 1485, 1099/10, BVerfGE 129, 124, at 177; Judgment of 12 September 2012, 2 BvR 1390, 1421, 1438, 1439, 1440/12, 2 BvE 6/12, BVerfGE 132, 195, at 238; Order of 14 January 2014, 2 BvR 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731/13, 2 BvE 13/13, BVerfGE 134, 366, at 384; Judgment of 18 March 2014, 2 BvR 1390, 1421, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1824/12, 2 BvE 6/12, BVerfGE 135, 317, at 399; Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 336–337.

  110. 110.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 332, 349.

  111. 111.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 353–354.

  112. 112.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 354–355.

  113. 113.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 354, 400.

  114. 114.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 354.

  115. 115.

    See, e.g., von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), pp 706, 728 et seq; Dederer (fn 21), p 320; Wendel (fn 86), pp 572 et seq.

  116. 116.

    Ingold (fn 87), pp 26 et seq, and Schönberger (fn 54), p 51, share the view presented here.

  117. 117.

    See Wendel (fn 86), p 582; B Guastaferro, ‘Beyond the Exceptionalism of Constitutional Conflicts: The Ordinary Functions of the Identity Clause’ (2012) 31 Yearbook of European Law 263–318, at 310.

  118. 118.

    See the landmark decision Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125, para 3.

  119. 119.

    See fn 38.

  120. 120.

    Clearly so Claes (fn 7), 206.

  121. 121.

    See Walter (fn 86), 72; Schönberger (fn 54), 53.

  122. 122.

    Schönberger (fn 54), 54. Different assessment by Klein (fn 42), 611.

  123. 123.

    See T Konstadinides, ‘Constitutional Identity as a Shield and as a Sword: The European Legal Order within the Framework of National Constitutional Settlement’ (2011) 13 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 195–218, at 218. See also Claes (fn 58), 135: ‘mirror concept’.

  124. 124.

    See the references cited in fn 27.

  125. 125.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 18 July 2017, Case C-42/17, MAS and MB (Taricco II), ECLI:EU:C:2017:564, para 179.

  126. 126.

    Rightly so Schönberger (fn 54), 55; similarly Ingold (fn 87), 29, and, also with respect to other national constitutional case law, Claes (fn 58), 129.

  127. 127.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 January 2014, 2 BvR 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731/13, 2 BvE 13/13, BVerfGE 134, 366, at 386–387.

  128. 128.

    See Conseil Constitutionnel, Decision of 27 July 2006, Loi relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information, déc. no 2006-540 DC, JORF, 3 August 2006, 11541, Considérant 19: «… sauf à ce que le constituant y ait consenti». See also A Viala, ‘Le concept d’identité constitutionnelle: Approche théorique’ in Burgorgue-Larsen (fn 60), 7, at 10–11.

  129. 129.

    See J-H Reestman, ‘The Franco-German Constitutional Divide: Reflection on National and Constitutional Identity’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 374–390, at 388–389; Claes (fn 7), p 197.

  130. 130.

    See Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 350.

  131. 131.

    Critical assessment also by FC Mayer, ‘L’identité constitutionnelle dans la jurisprudence constitutionnelle allemande’ in Burgorgue-Larsen (fn 60), pp 63–84, at 72; T Rademacher, ‘Die “Verfassungsidentität” als Grenze der Kompetenzübertragung auf die Europäische Union?’ (2018) Europarecht 140–158, at 142 et seq.

  132. 132.

    See C Tomuschat, ‘The Defence of National Identity by the German Constitutional Court’ in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 205–219, at 205.

  133. 133.

    Schönberger (fn 54), p 58.

  134. 134.

    See H Steiger, ‘Staatlichkeit und Mitgliedstaatlichkeit – Deutsche staatliche Identität und Europäische Integration’ (2010) Europarecht, Beiheft 1, 57–79, at 78 et seq; Pernice (fn 86), pp 200 et seq.

  135. 135.

    Schönberger (fn 54), p 59; Rademacher (fn 131), pp 148 et seq. In this sense see already W Heun, ‘Eine verfassungswidrige Verfassungsgerichtsentscheidung – Der Vorlagebeschluss des BVerfG vom 14.1.2014’, (2014) Juristenzeitung 331–337, at 332.

  136. 136.

    Similarly von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), p 724; Ingold (fn 87), p 27.

  137. 137.

    See P Häberle, ‘Verfassungsrechtliche Ewigkeitsklauseln als verfassungsstaatliche Identitätsgarantien’, in Festschrift Hans Haug (1986), pp 81–108; H Dreier, Gilt das Grundgesetz ewig? (2009); P Kirchhof, ‘Die Identität der Verfassung’ in J Isensee/P Kirchhof (eds), Handbuch des Staatsrechts, vol II (3rd edn 2004), § 21.

  138. 138.

    See Federal Law Gazette, BGBl. 2019 I, p 404.

  139. 139.

    Similar assessment by M Nettesheim, ‘Die Karlsruher Verkündigung: Das BVerfG in staatsrechtlicher Endzeitstimmung’ (2010) Europarecht, Beiheft 1, 101–122, at 113–114; Mayer (fn 131), p 81. Different assessment by Kirchhof (fn 137), § 21 MN 64 et seq, who puts the accent rather on constitutional continuity through development than on constitutional change; see also Dreier (fn 137), pp 45, 58 et seq.

  140. 140.

    See U Volkmann, Grundzüge einer Verfassungslehre der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2013), 218 et seq; Ingold (fn 87), 21.

  141. 141.

    See, e.g., M Herdegen, ‘Die Belastbarkeit des Verfassungsgefüges auf dem Weg zur Europäischen Union’, (1992) Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 589–594, at 592.

  142. 142.

    Similar criticism by Ingold (fn 87), pp 15, 21.

  143. 143.

    See S Schmahl ‘Art. 146’ in H Sodan (ed), Grundgesetz, Kommentar (4th ed 2018), MN 5 with further references. Similarly: Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 182/09, BVerfGE 123, 267, at 331–332. For a fuller account see P Cramer, Art. 146 Grundgesetz zwischen offener Staatlichkeit und Identitätsbewahrung (2014), pp 147 et seq.

  144. 144.

    See Nettesheim (fn 139), p 113; C Walter, ‘Integrationsgrenze Verfassungsidentität’ (2012) 72 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 177–200, at 191; M Polzin, ‘Constitutional Identity as a Constructed Reality and a Restless Soul’ (2017) 18 German Law Journal, 1595–1616, at 1602. For an even more far-reaching view see Tomuschat (fn 132), p 219: ‘The loss of national identity through the European integration process is a chimera’.

  145. 145.

    Schönberger (fn 54), p 47. See also N Walker, ‘Late Sovereignty in the European Union’ in N Walker (ed), Sovereignty in Transition (2006), pp 3–32, at 21.

  146. 146.

    See V Breda, ‘Constitutional Identities in a Liquid Society’ in J Pribán (ed), Liquid Society and its Law (2007), pp 153–173.

  147. 147.

    Millet (fn 103), pp 17 et seq: ‘norme de résistance’. See also Schönberger (fn 54), pp 48, 55.

  148. 148.

    See Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 88), p 4.

  149. 149.

    See, e.g., JHH Weiler, ‘On the power of the Word: Europe’s constitutional iconography’ (2005) 3 International Journal of Constitutional Law 173–190, at 184; Viala (fn 128), p 7; Schönberger (fn 54), p 48.

  150. 150.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 4 November 2009, 1 BvR 2150/08, BVerfGE 124, 300, at 321, 328.

  151. 151.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 2 March 2010, 1 BvR 256, 263, 586/08, BVerfGE 125, 260, at 324.

  152. 152.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 7 September 2011, 2 BvR 987, 1485, 1099/10, BVerfGE 129, 124, at 179–180. See also Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 12 September 2012, 2 BvR 1390, 1421, 1438, 1439, 1440/12, 2 BvE 6/12, BVerfGE 132, 195, at 240, 269; and most recently, Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 18 July 2017, 2 BvR 859/15 et al. (2017) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 2894, paras 128 et seq.

  153. 153.

    Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 14 January 2014, 2 BvR 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731/13, 2 BvE 13/13, BVerfGE 134, 366, at 418–419.

  154. 154.

    See Lenaerts (fn 1), p 8; M Polzin, Verfassungsidentität (2018), pp 190 et seq. Differently: Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, at 337.

  155. 155.

    See the references cited in fn 86.

  156. 156.

    R Bustos Gisbert, ‘National Constitutional Identity in European Constitutionalism: Revisiting the Tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes in Spain?’ in Saiz Arnaiz/Alcoberro Llivina (fn 58), pp 75–91, at 91. See also von Bogdandy/Schill (fn 54), pp 729–730; Walter (fn 86), p 73; Ingold (fn 87), p 26.

  157. 157.

    See Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment No 269/2017 of 7 November 2017, para 5.2; Order 115/2018 of 31 May 2018, paras 11 et seq.

  158. 158.

    As to the importance of dialogue for developing the values of constitutionalism at the European level see M Cartabia, ‘Europe and Rights: Taking Dialogue Seriously’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 5–31.

  159. 159.

    R Holdgaard/D Elkan/G Krohn Schaldemose, ‘From Cooperation to Collision: The ECJ’s Ajos ruling and the Danish Supreme Court’s Refusal to Comply’ (2018) 55 Common Market Law Review 17–53, at 18.

  160. 160.

    See Case C-441/14 Ajos ECLI:EU:C:2016:278, paras 22 et seq, on the one hand, and Danish Supreme Court, Judgment of 6 December 2016, Case 15/2014 (Ajos) on the other hand.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Stefanie Schmahl

Authors
  1. Stefanie Schmahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Schmahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Marten Breuer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg 2019

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmahl, S. (2019). The National Identity Criterion in the Crossfire Between European Integration and the Preservation of National Sovereignty. In: Breuer, M. (eds) Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 285. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58985-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58986-1

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation