Wednesday

10th Aug 2022

Opinion

Germany's important Lisbon Treaty judgement

The bulk of the six proceedings challenging the compatibility of Lisbon Treaty and the German Constitution initiated by the conservative MP Peter Gauweiler and a number of left-wing deputies from Die Linke, revolves around the question of whether the Lisbon Treaty erodes the German parliament's powers of participation in EU decision making.

As early as 29 May 1974, the Federal Constitutional Court decided in its famous Solange judgment that the Community lacked a parliament legitimized by direct democratic means and that it would reserve the right to review the compatibility of secondary Community law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the German Constitution.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • The German court's judgement is expected later this year (Photo: wikiepdia)

On 22 October 1986, in a follow up judgment dubbed Solange II, it halted this review but retained the right to resort to it should it be needed.

Seven years later, on 12 October 1993, in its landmark Maastricht judgment, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasized the central role of the Bundestag within the EU institutional setup.

It claimed that "it is first and foremost the national peoples of the Member States who, through their national parliaments, have to provide democratic legitimacy" and that "functions and powers of substantial importance must remain for the German Bundestag".

National parliaments and the Lisbon Treaty

Under the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments are involved in the EU's policy formulation process by safeguarding the subsidiarity principle. It is essentially a consultation mechanism operating before the onset of the EU decision-making procedure and is applicable only where competences are shared between the EU and the Member States.

National parliaments receive draft legislative proposals directly from EU institutions and, if an infringement of subsidiarity is detected, they may send a reasoned opinion to the Commission, the European Parliament, or the Council. This triggers the "early warning mechanism" aimed at the review of such a proposal. If ultimately circumvented, a national parliament or its chamber may initiate proceedings before the European Court of Justice.

In September 2006, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso initiated a similar proposal. It largely mirrors the early warning mechanism but is a separate political procedure and encompasses the proportionality principle. In the first year of this new system, the Bundesrat sent 21 opinions to the Commission and received 15 replies. By contrast, the Bundestag issued only three reactions.

Towards a new landmark judgement

In an article published last year, President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Hans Jürgen Papier, said that "the current pillar structure of Europe is to be dissolved" and that "the current distinction between supranational Community law on the one hand, and Union law as a partial legal order characterised by international law on the other, thereby becomes obsolete". Such an appraisal might profit from another perspective.

"Pillars" have never been mentioned in the founding treaties and they also do not appear in the Lisbon Treaty. Rather, the treaties speak of "policies" or "fields" and the most important differentiating factor between them is the decision-making procedure and the participation of the European Parliament.

Although the Lisbon Treaty subjects the whole current Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters to co-decision and thus allows for the involvement of the European Parliament, it retains unanimity in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy. Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty confirms unequivocally that in this field "the adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded". Consequently, this would allow for Bundestag influence in this field, should it adopt a proactive approach.

Further, Mr Gauweiler rightly hypothesizes in his application that the Bundestag could be bypassed if, for example, the German environment minister, after an unsuccessful national bid to ban a particular type of light bulb, turns to the European level and succeeds there instead. In an article published two years ago, the same type of problem was emphasized by Roman Herzog and Lüder Gerken.

Yet since the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the decision-making procedure in this field, by-passing of the Bundestag could also happen under the present treaties. In addition, the Lisbon treaty expressly specifies that environment is the Union's shared competence, which means that the early warning mechanism would apply.

German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has previously, and correctly, assessed that Lisbon does not undermine national parliaments' powers. Nevertheless, his subsequent observation that they will instead be completely involved in the European law-making process seems at best arguable.

Three final remarks suffice. First, both chambers of the German parliament have approved the Lisbon Treaty and have therefore made use of what the Federal Constitutional Court has deemed in its Maastricht judgment a key means of ensuring a democratic character of the Union and of Germany's membership in it.

Second, much of the academic literature, as well as an empirical inquiry recently conducted at Utrecht University, have shown that the Bundestag, unlike the Bundesrat, is quite passive in using the available tools of influencing Union's policies and laws.

Third, the outcome of the pending Lisbon Treaty cases is of prime importance not only for Germany but for the whole of the EU and its relevance transcends the remaining ratification procedures in Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic. This is not least because the "sale of the state's vital powers" is at stake, as Prof. Klaus Buchner one of the complainants said.

It has all the ingredients to become the most influential pronouncement that the German Federal Constitutional Court has ever made regarding the EU.

The writer is a PhD candidate in European constitutional law at Utrecht University and Director for international relations of the Youth Dialogue Programme (NGO).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Russia puts EU in nuclear-energy paradox

There's unprecedented international anxiety about the safety of Ukraine's nuclear reactors, but many European countries are also turning to nuclear power to secure energy supplies.

How Ukraine made the case anew for an EU army

The Kremlin attacked Ukraine because it believed it could afford to. It perceived nuclear deterrence between Russia and the West as reciprocal, and therefore almost a non-issue. It also saw, in military terms, Europe is disappearing from the world map.

Let Taiwan's democracy shine brighter

Dr Ming-Yen Tsai, head of the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium, responds to EUobserver op-ed on Taiwan by the Chinese ambassador to Belgium. "Taiwan is an 'island of resilience'. That will continue to be the case."

Supporting Taiwan 'like carrying water in a sieve'

China's ambassador to Belgium, Cao Zhongming, says the US has been distorting, obscuring and hollowing out the 'one-China' principle and unscrupulously undermining China's core interests. This is sheer double standards and a shameful act of bad faith.

One idea to tackle Big Energy's big profits

A new idea, besides a windfall tax on polluting Big Energy giants, is to make them invest their profits in their own sustainable futures. After all, these companies have a large 'sustainability debt' and extraordinary transition costs awaiting them.

Column

Global hunger crisis requires more than just the Odessa deal

International donors are playing hide and seek. Instead of stepping up their assistance programmes, richer nations are cutting overseas aid, or reallocating funds from other parts of the world towards the Ukraine crisis.

Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business

From food policy to climate change, corporate lobbyists are exploiting the Ukraine crisis to try to slash legislation that gets in the way of profit. But this is only making things worse.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  3. European Centre for Press and Media FreedomEuropean Anti-SLAPP Conference 2022
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers write to EU about new food labelling
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersEmerging journalists from the Nordics and Canada report the facts of the climate crisis
  6. Council of the EUEU: new rules on corporate sustainability reporting

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us