Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T00:56:56.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Federico Fabbrini

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This article analyzes the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Gauweiler, answering the first preliminary reference ever by the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG), on the legality of the Outright Monetary Transaction (OMT) program of the European Central Bank (ECB). As the article explains, the ECJ rejected any possible claim of illegality of a key program devised by the ECB at the height of the Euro-crisis. However, because the BVerfG had defined the OMT program as ultra vires, and had threatened to strike it down if the ECJ did not reach the same result, the article defends the principle of the supremacy of European Union (EU) law, indicating that a possible nullification of the OMT program by the BVerfG would be clearly unlawful. To re-affirm the supremacy of EU law, the article argues that this principle is functional to ensure the equality of the member states before the law, preventing each country of the EU from cherry-picking which provisions of EU it likes or not. As the article suggests, respect of the principle of the supremacy of EU law – including by the BVerfG – is ultimately in the interest of every EU member state, including of Germany.

Information

Type
Special Section
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , 01 September 2015 , pp. 1003 - 1023
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Case C-62/14, Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag (June 16, 2015), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

2 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 14, 2014, Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2014/01/rs20140114_2bvr272813en. html.Google Scholar

3 See Draghi, Mario, Speech at Global Investment Conference, London (July 26, 2012), available at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120726.en.html (last visited Aug. 11, 2015).Google Scholar

4 Eur. Cent. Bank, Technical Features of Outright Monetary Transaction, (Sep. 6, 2012), available at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html (last visited Aug. 11, 2015).Google Scholar

5 For an analysis of the BVerfG preliminary reference, see the case notes collected in 15 German L.J. (2014) (issue 04).Google Scholar

6 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 at para. 5.Google Scholar

7 See Pernice, Ingolf, Multilevel Constitutionalism in the European Union, 27 Eur. L. Rev. 511 (2002) (introducing the concept of multilevel constitutionalism to define the relationship between the ECJ and national courts in the EU).Google Scholar

8 See Witte, Bruno De, Direct Effect, Supremacy and the Nature of the Legal Order, in The Evolution of EU Law 177 (Paul Craig & Grainne de Burca eds., 1999).Google Scholar

9 See generally Davies, Bill, Resisting the European Court of Justice (2012).Google Scholar

10 See generally Constitutional Pluralism in the EU and Beyond (Matej Avbelj & Jan Komarek eds., 2012).Google Scholar

11 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 (pending).Google Scholar

12 See, e.g., Case C-370/12, Pringle v. Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General (Nov. 27, 2012), http://curia.europa.eu/; on which see Federico Fabbrini, The Euro-Crisis and the Courts, 32 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 64 (2014).Google Scholar

13 Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 15.Google Scholar

14 Id. at para. 16.Google Scholar

15 Id. at para. 25.Google Scholar

16 See Case T-492/12, von Storch v. ECB, Order of 10 December 2013 (EU General Court declaring inadmissible action for annulment against decision of the ECB), now appealed as Case C-64/14, P von Storch v. ECB, pending.Google Scholar

17 Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 29.Google Scholar

18 Id. at para. 35.Google Scholar

19 Id. at para. 36.Google Scholar

20 See Case C-11/00, Comm'n v. ECB, 2003 E.C.R. I-7147.Google Scholar

21 Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 40.Google Scholar

22 Id. at para. 41.Google Scholar

23 Id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

24 Id. Google Scholar

25 Id. at para. 47.Google Scholar

26 Id. at para. 51.Google Scholar

27 Id. at para. 53.Google Scholar

28 Id. at para. 54.Google Scholar

29 Id. at para. 57.Google Scholar

30 Id. at para. 58.Google Scholar

31 Id. at para. 59.Google Scholar

32 Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, Case C-62/14, Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag (Jan. 14, 2015), at para. 111, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=161370&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10276.Google Scholar

33 Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 68.Google Scholar

34 Id. at para. 69.Google Scholar

35 Id. Google Scholar

36 Id. at para. 74.Google Scholar

37 Id. at para. 75.Google Scholar

38 Id. at para. 81.Google Scholar

39 Id. at para. 84.Google Scholar

40 Id. at para. 86.Google Scholar

41 Id. at para. 87.Google Scholar

42 Id. at para. 89.Google Scholar

43 Id. at para. 94.Google Scholar

44 Id. at para. 96.Google Scholar

45 Id. at para. 97.Google Scholar

46 See also Hinarejos, Alicia, The Euro Area Crisis in Constitutional Perspective 126 (2015).Google Scholar

47 Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 100.Google Scholar

48 Id. at para. 111.Google Scholar

49 Id. at para. 112.Google Scholar

50 Id. at para. 113.Google Scholar

51 Id. at para. 115.Google Scholar

52 Id. at para. 120.Google Scholar

53 See Wendel, Mattias, Judicial Restraint and the Return to Openness: the Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the ESM and the Fiscal Treaty of 12 September 2012, 14 German L.J. 21, 24 (2013) (explaining that the BVerfG adjudicated the case based on possible financial losses, and their negative effect on the right to vote).Google Scholar

54 Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 125.Google Scholar

55 Id. at para. 127.Google Scholar

56 BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 at para. 4.Google Scholar

57 Id. (Separate Opinion of Justice Lübbe-Wolff and Separate Opinion of Justice Gerhardt).Google Scholar

58 Id. at para. 5.Google Scholar

59 See Goldman, Matthias, Mutually Assured Discretion, paper presented at the conference on “The ECJ, the ECB and the Supremacy of EU Law” at iCourts, Center of Excellence for International Courts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen (Sept. 2015) (on file with author).Google Scholar

60 See generally Schmid, Christoph, All Bark and No Bite: Notes on the Federal Constitutional Court's ‘Banana’ Decision, 7 Eur. L.J. 95, 95–113 (2001).Google Scholar

61 See generally Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], May 29, 1974, 37 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 271 (Solange I); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], July 6, 2010, Case No. 2 BvR 2661/06, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2010/07/rs20100706_2bvr266106en.html (Honeywell).Google Scholar

62 Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585.Google Scholar

63 See Claes, Monica, The National Courts' Mandate in the European Constitution 562 (2006).Google Scholar

64 Case 314/85, Foto-Frost, 1987 E.C.R. 4199.Google Scholar

65 See generally MacCormick, Neil, The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now, 1 Eur. L.J. 259 (1995).Google Scholar

66 See, e.g., Trybunał Konstytucyjny, Case TK 32/09, judgment of Nov. 24, 2010 (Lisbon Treaty) (Poland); H&jesteret, Case No. 199/2012 U 2013/1451H, judgment of Feb. 20, 2013 (Lisbon Treaty) (Denmark).Google Scholar

67 See ÚS 5/12, judgment of Jan. 31, 2012 (Slovak Pension XVII) (Czech Republic).Google Scholar

68 See, e.g., The European Courts and National Courts (Anne-Marie Slaughter et al. eds., 1998).Google Scholar

69 See Voßkhule, Andreas, Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtverbun, 6 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 175 (2010).Google Scholar

70 See Maduro, Miguel, Contrapunctual Law: Europe's Constitutional Pluralism in Action, in Sovereignty in Transition 501 (Neil Walker ed., 2003).Google Scholar

71 See generally Kumm, Mattias, The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty, 11 Eur. L.J. 262 (2005).Google Scholar

72 See Kelemen, Daniel, On the Unsustainability of Constitutional Pluralism, paper presented at the conference on “The ECJ, the ECB and the Supremacy of EU Law” at iCourts, Center of Excellence for International Courts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen (Sept. 2015) (on file with author).Google Scholar

73 See Fabbrini, Federico, Fundamental Rights in Europe 268 (2014) (arguing that the question of supremacy cannot be side-stepped in debates concerning European constitutionalism).Google Scholar

74 See, e.g., Gilles Moec & Mark Wall, Monetary Union After the German Constitutional Court Ruling, Deutsche Bank Research Paper (Feb. 11, 2014) (emphasizing negative consequences for the entire Eurozone of a decision by the BVerfG regarding OMT as ultra vires).Google Scholar

75 Costa, Case 6/64 at 585 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

76 Ingolf Pernice, Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal: Primacy of European Law, in The Past and Future of EU Law 47, 49 (Miguel Maduro & Loïc Azoulai eds., 2010).Google Scholar

77 Joined Cases 90 & 91/63, Comm'n v. Luxembourg & Belgium, 1964 E.C.R. 625.Google Scholar

78 See also Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastinghen, 1963 E.C.R. 1.Google Scholar

79 Phelan, William, Supremacy, Direct Effect and Dairy Products in the Early History of European Law 5 (EUI, Working Paper 11/2014).Google Scholar

80 See Art. 11 Costituzione (Italy) (stating that Italy allows limitations of sovereignty “in condizioni di parità con gli altri stati”); Art. 88–2 Constitution (France) (stating that France allows transfer of competences to the EU “sous réserve de réciprocité”).Google Scholar

81 See also Dehousse, Renaud, ‘We the States’: Why the Anti-Federalists Won, in With US or Against US? European Trends in American Perspective 105 (Nicolas Jabko & Craig Parsons eds., 2005).Google Scholar

82 See, e.g., Bogdandy, Armin Von & Schill, Stephan, Overcoming Absolute Primacy: Respect for National Identity Under the Lisbon Treaty, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1417 (2011).Google Scholar

83 See Fabbrini, Federico, States' Equality v States' Power: the Euro-Crisis, Inter-State Relations and the Paradox of Domination, 17 Cambridge Y.B. Eur. Leg. Stud. 1 (2015) (emphasizing growing imbalance in interstate relations).Google Scholar

84 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BverfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Feb. 7, 1992, 89 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 155, 89 (Maastricht), para. C.II.1.a.Google Scholar

85 See, e.g., Bogdandy, Armin Von, The European Union as a Supranational Federation, 6 Colum. J. Eur. L. 27 (2000).Google Scholar

86 See generally Case C-376/98, Germany v. European Parliament and Council, 2000 E.C.R. I-8419.Google Scholar

87 See generally Craig, Paul, The ECJ and Ultra Vires Action: A Conceptual Analysis, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 395 (2011).Google Scholar

88 See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 at para. 5.Google Scholar

89 See Art. 26 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.Google Scholar

90 See infra note 107.Google Scholar

91 See, e.g., Gerhard van der Schyff, The Constitutional Relationship between the EU and its Member States: The Role of National Identity in Art. 4(2) TEU, 37 Eur. L. Rev. 563 (2012); Elke Cloots, National Identity in EU Law (2015).Google Scholar

92 See generally Case C-208/09, Sayn-Wittgenstein, 2010 E.C.R. I-13693.Google Scholar

93 See Millet, François-Xavier, L'Union europeenne et l'identite constitutionnelle des États membres (2013).Google Scholar

94 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BverfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 123 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 267 (Lissabon), para. 234.Google Scholar

95 See BVerfG, Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 at para. 5.Google Scholar

96 Emphasis added.Google Scholar

97 See generally Liisberg, Jonas, Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threatens the Supremacy of Community Law?, 38 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1171 (2001).Google Scholar

98 Declaration No. 17, Declaration Concerning Primacy, 2012 O.J. (C 326/346).Google Scholar

99 Opinion of the Legal Service (EC) No. 11197/07 of June 22, 2007 (JUR 260).Google Scholar

100 See Art. VI, § 2 U.S. Const.Google Scholar

101 See, e.g., Virginia Resolution (Dec. 24, 1789); South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification (Nov. 24, 1832).Google Scholar

102 See Theories of Federalism (Dimitrios Karmis & Wayne Norman eds., 2005) (reporting thought of John Calhoun about the US Constitution as an inter-state compact).Google Scholar

103 See Farber, Daniel, Lincoln's Constitution (2003) (explaining how the Civil War vindicated Daniel Webster's view of the US Constitution as a constitution).Google Scholar

104 Costa, Case 6/64 at 585.Google Scholar

105 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506, 517–18 (1858).Google Scholar

106 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958).Google Scholar

107 See generally Boom, Steve, The European Union after the Maastricht Decision: Will Germany be the “Virginia of Europe?”, 43 Am. J. Comp. L. 177 (1995) (emphasizing political and legislative, besides judicial, opposition to supremacy in Ante-bellum U.S.).Google Scholar

108 See Fabbrini, Federico, Economic Governance in Europe (forthcoming 2016) (discussing changes and challenges produced by the Euro-crisis on economic governance in Europe).Google Scholar

109 See Merkel, Angela, Speech at the Bundestag, Berlin (17 July 2015), available at http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btp/18/18117.pdf (last visited Aug. 11, 2015).Google Scholar

110 Opinion of Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón, Gauweiler, Case C-62/14 at para. 59 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar