¹ Judgement on 30 June 2009, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08.Google Scholar

² At the same time, however, the Court urged the German Parliament to take responsibility for the process, to undertake preparations and discussions, and to vote on the bill that must accompany the ratification process so as to clarify the role of the Parliament in the process of the EU integration.Google Scholar

³ Judgement on 26 November 2008, Ústavní soud, decision No. Pl. ÙS 19/08. The English translation is available at: http://angl.concourt.cz/angl_verze/doc/pl-19-08.php (last accessed 21 March 2010).Google Scholar

⁴ Joseph Weiler, Federalism and Constitutionalism: Europe's Sonderweg, in The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the US and the EU, 54, Kalypso Nicolaidis and Robert Howse eds., 2001); Jakob Kellenberger, Federalism in Foreign Relations, in Federalism in a Changing World: Learning from Each Other, 192 Raoul Koller and Arnold Blindenbacher eds., 2003).Google Scholar

⁵ For a general discussion of the fundamental principles governing the exercise of competence by the EU, see Alan Dashwood, The Relationship between the Member States and the European Union/European Community, 41 Common Market Law Review 355 (2004).Google Scholar

⁶ Judgement on 12 October 1993, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfGE 89, 155, 207.Google Scholar

⁷ For the Czech Republic, see decision No. Pl. ÙS 19/08, supra, note 3, paras. 93, 96 and 114; for France, see, decision on 9 April 1992, Conseil Constitutionnel, décision No. 92-308 DC, para 14; for Denmark, see, Carlsen v. Rasmussen, H⊘jestret, 6 April 1998, paras. 35–36.Google Scholar

⁸ BVerfGE 89, 155, supra, note 6, 186.Google Scholar

⁹ For a discussion on the delimitations set by the German FCC, the Danish Supreme Court and the French Constitutional Council, see Anneli Albi and Peter Van Elsuwege, The EU Constitution, national constitutions and sovereignty: an assessment of a “European constitutional order”, 29 European Law Review 745 (2004). Also, the Italian Constitutional Court imposed so-called “counter-limits” in order to guarantee “the fundamental principles of the Italian constitutional order.” See, Marta Cartabia, The Italian Constitutional Court and the relationship between the Italian legal system and EU, in The European Courts and National Courts, 138 (Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Stone Sweet, Joseph Weiler eds., 1998).Google Scholar

¹⁰ BVerfGE 89, 155, supra, note 6, 182.Google Scholar

¹¹ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 219.Google Scholar

¹² Id. Google Scholar

¹³ Id., para. 221.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Id., para. 225.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Carl Lebeck, National Constitutionalism, Openness to International Law and Pragmatic Limits of European Integration – European Law in the German Constitutional Court from EEC to the PJCC – Part I/II, 7 German Law Journal No. 11, 1 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁷ For a discussion of the Maastricht decision, see e.g., Matthias Herdegen, Maastricht and the German Constitutional Court: Constitutional Restraints for an “Ever Closer Union, 31 Common Market Law Review 235 (1994).Google Scholar

¹⁸ BVerfGE 89, 155, supra, note 6, 190.Google Scholar

¹⁹ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 248.Google Scholar

²⁰ Lebeck, supra, note 16, 2.Google Scholar

²¹ As laid down in Article 79, para.3 of the Basic LawGoogle Scholar

²² BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 216.Google Scholar

²³ Id., para. 219 with reference to the judgement on 4 May 1971, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG, 1 BvR 636/68, 75–76.Google Scholar

²⁴ Id., para. 228.Google Scholar

²⁵ Id., para. 235.Google Scholar

²⁶ Carlo Schmid, Generalbericht in der Zweiten Sitzung des Plenums des Parlamentarischen Rates am 8. September 1948, in Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948–1949, Akten und Protokolle, 20, Band 9 (Deuthscher Bundestag/Bundesarchiv ed., Vol. 9, 1996).Google Scholar

²⁷ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 231.Google Scholar

²⁸ Id. Google Scholar

²⁹ BVerfGE 89, 155, supra, note 6, 207.Google Scholar

³⁰ Id., 186.Google Scholar

³¹ Meinhard Schröder, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als Hüter des Staates im Perozeß der europäischen Integration 318 (1994).; Hermann-Josef Blanke, Der Unionsvertrag von Maastricht - Ein Schritt auf dem Weg zu einem europäischem Bundesstaat? 421 (1993).Google Scholar

³² Peter Lerche, Die Europäische Staatlichkeit und die Identität des Grundgesetzes, in Rechtsstaat zwischen Sozialgestaltung und Rechtsschutz, Festschrift für Konrad Redeker 131–135 (Bernd Bender, Rüdiger Breuer, Fritz Ossenbühl and Horst Sendler eds., 1993).Google Scholar

³³ Bruno De Witte, Constitutional Aspects of European Union Membership in the Original Six Member States: Model Solutions for the Applicant Countries?, in EU Enlargement. The Constitutional Impact at EU and National Level 78 (Alfred Kellermann, Jaap De Zwaan and Jeno Czuczai eds., 2001).Google Scholar

³⁴ See, Albi and Van Elsuwege, supra, note 9, 746 with reference to decision on 9 April 1992, Conseil Constitutionnel, décision No. 92–308 DC.Google Scholar

³⁵ Horni Bříza, The Czech Republic - The Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty Decision of 26 November 2008, 5 European Constitutional Law Review 149 (2009).Google Scholar

^{36 35} Case No. Pl. ÙS 19/08, supra, note 3, para. 109.Google Scholar

³⁷ The Lisbon Treaty gives at least some guidance as to what such inalienable core competencies would be. Article 4.2 (2) TEU Lisbon provides that the Union shall respect the essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.Google Scholar

³⁸ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 249.Google Scholar

³⁹ Id., para. 250.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id., para. 251.Google Scholar

⁴² Id. Google Scholar

⁴³ Id., para. 249.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Id., para. 260.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Id. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Id., para. 355.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id., para. 253.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id., para. 358.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Id., para. 351.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 251.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Lebeck, supra, note 16, 9.Google Scholar

⁵² BVerfGE 89, 155, supra, note 6, 186.Google Scholar

⁵³ Albi and Van Elsuwege, supra, note 9, 757.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Dieter Grimm, Does Europe Need a Constitution?, 1 European Law Journal 295 (1995); Frederico Mancini, Europe: The Case for Statehood, 4 European Law Journal 35 (1998).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Joseph Weiler, Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision, 1 European Law Journal 238 (1995); Joseph Weiler, The constitution of Europe “Do the new clothes have an emperor?” and other essays on the European Integration 345 (1999).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Jürgen Habermas, The European Nation State. Its achievements and its limitations. On the Past and the Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship, 9 Ratio Juris 125 (1996); Jürgen Habermas, The European Nation-State and the Pressures of Globalization, New Left Review 40 (1999).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Koen Lenaerts and Marlies Desomer, New Models of Constitution-Making in Europe: the Quest for Legitimacy, 39 Common Market Law Review 1252 (2002); Armin Von Bogdandy, The Preamble, in De Witte, ed., Ten Reflections on the Constitutional Treaty for Europe 5 (Bruno De Witte ed., 2003). Article available at: http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Publications (last accessed 21 March 2010); Amaryllis Verhoeven, The European Union Search of a Democratic and Constitutional Theory 292 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Albi and Van Elsuwege, supra, note 9, 758.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 250.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For a comprehensive analysis, see e.g., Fritz Ossenbühl, Vorrang und Vorbehalt des Gesetzes, in 3 Handbuch des Staatsrechts 65 (Josef Isensee and Paul Kirchhof (Eds.), 1988).Google Scholar

^{61 60} Judgment on 18 August 1978, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG, 2 BvL 8/77, BVerfGE 49, 89, 126.Google Scholar

⁶² See, judgment on 19 April 1994, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG, 2 BvE 3/92, 5/93, 7/93, 8/93 BVerfGE 90, 286, 381–382.Google Scholar

^{63 62} Id., 383.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 255.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Hartmut Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 81 (5^th ed., 1986).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 254.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id., para. 356Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Nicolai von Ondraza, EU Military Deployment - an Executive Prerogative? Decision-making and Parliamentary Control on the Use of Force by the EU, paper prepared for the GARNET EU in International Affairs Conference, (Brussels, 2008) 14, available at: http://www.ies.be/files/repo/conference2008/EUinIA_IX_2_vonOndarza.pdf (last accessed 21 March 2010).Google Scholar

^{69 68} Paul Kirchhof, Demokratie in Europa, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 12 (4 July, 2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Article 1.1 of the Basic Law provides: “The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect, it is the duty of all state authority.”Google Scholar

⁷¹ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 259.Google Scholar

⁷² See, judgment on 17 April 1999, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG, 1 BvR 2203/93, 897/95, BVerfGE 100, 271, 284.Google Scholar

⁷³ See, judgment on 29 May 1990, Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG, 1 BvL 20, 26, 184 and 4/86 BVerfGE 82, 60,80.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Id., para. 251.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Article 5(3) TEU Lisbon.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Trevor Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law 113 (6^th ed., 2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Article 95 ECT (Article 114 of ECT Lisbon).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Case C-491/01, The Queen v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 2002 E.C.R. I-11453, para. 179; see also, Catherine Barnard, The Substantive Law of the EU 583 (2^nd ed., 2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Jürgen Schwarze, EU-Kommentar (2^nd ed., 2009), Article 95 ECT, para. 25.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 359.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Howard Richards, Understanding the Global Economy 344 (2004).Google Scholar

⁸² Philip White, Globalization and Mythology of the Nation State, in Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local 257 (Anthony Hopkins ed., 2006).Google Scholar

⁸³ This may, for example, be the case in Belgium or Spain, where individual regions enjoy substantial autonomy and where the process of public opinion-making is limited to regions both in terms of language and the substance of political issues.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For comparative legal analysis, see eg., Jürgen Schwarze, Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht 215 (2^nd ed., 2005); Dimitris Triantafyllou, Vom Vertrags- zum Gesetzesvorbehalt 113 (1996).; the French constitution seems to be an exception in this regard, as it accords to the parliament only a limited set of legislative competencies.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, supra, note 1, para. 240.Google Scholar