Saturday

26th Sep 2020

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

Support quality EU news

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.

Why no EU progress on Black Lives Matter?

Months after Black Lives Matter erupted, for many EU decision-makers the problems of racism in policing and criminal legal systems - the issues that sparked the George Floyd protests - are still 'over there', across the Atlantic.

Does Erdoğan's long arm now reach Belgian universities?

Leuven's Catholic University, one of Belgium's best, has decided to close one of its respected but controversial chairs. And many say that is not because of an academic failure or scandal, but a result of the Turkish government's relentless pressure.

How EU can help end Uighur forced labour

A recent report noted apparel and footwear as the leading exports from the Uighur region - with a combined value of $6.3bn [€5.3bn] representing over 35 percent of total exports.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council meets Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tichanovskaja
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region to invest DKK 250 million in green digitalised business sector
  3. UNESDAReducing packaging waste – a huge opportunity for circularity
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCOVID-19 halts the 72nd Session of the Nordic Council in Iceland
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCivil society a key player in integration
  6. UNESDANext generation Europe should be green and circular

Latest News

  1. Berlin repeats support for EU human rights sanctions
  2. China's carbon pledge at UN sends 'clear message' to US
  3. Far right using pandemic to win friends in Germany
  4. Visegrad countries immediately push back on new migration pact
  5. Why no EU progress on Black Lives Matter?
  6. EU migration pact to deter asylum
  7. 'Era of EU naivety ends', MEP pledges on foreign meddling
  8. Anti-mask protesters pose challenge for EU authorities

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNEW REPORT: Eight in ten people are concerned about climate change
  2. UNESDAHow reducing sugar and calories in soft drinks makes the healthier choice the easy choice
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersGreen energy to power Nordic start after Covid-19
  4. European Sustainable Energy WeekThis year’s EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW) will be held digitally!
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic states are fighting to protect gender equality during corona crisis
  6. UNESDACircularity works, let’s all give it a chance

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us