No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Treaty Override”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016
References
1 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 2 BvL 1/23, Dec. 15, 2015, at http://www.bverfg.de/e/ls20151215_2bvl000112.html [hereinafter Order]. For an English summary of the facts of the case, including the procedural history and the key considerations of the Court, see Press Release No. 9/2016, BVerfG, Treaty Overrides by National Statutory Law Are Permissible Under the Constitution (Feb. 12, 2016), at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-009.html. Translations of the Order below are by the author.
2 Einkommensteuergesetz [EStG] [Income Tax Act], Oct. 16, 1934, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBL] I at 3366, §§50d(8), 1(1)(1), 2(1)(1)(4).
3 Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen Deutschland-Tuürkei [Double Taxation Treaty, Ger.-Turk.], Apr. 16, 1985, BGBL II 867.
4 Zweites Gesetz zur Änderung steuerlicher Vorschriften [Steueränderungsgesetz 2003] [StÄndG 2003], Dec. 15, 2003, BGBL I 2645, §50d.
5 Quoted in Order, para. 6, translated in Press Release 9/2016, supra note 1.
6 Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz [FG] [tax court of Rhineland-Palatinate], June 30, 2009, 6 K 1415/09.
7 Bundesfinanzhof [BFH] [Federal Finance Court], Jan. 12, 2012, I R 66/09, 236 Samlung Der Entschei dungen und Gutachten des Bundesfinanzhofs [BFHE] 304.
8 Grundgesetz Für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBL I, Art. 100, §1, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html.
9 See BFH, July 13, 1994, I R 120/93, 175 BFHE 351, 352; BFH, May 17, 1995, I B 183/94, 178 BFHE 59, 61; BFH, Nov. 28, 2001, I B 169/00, §10; BFH, Mar. 20, 2002, I R 38/00, 198 BFHE 514, 521.
10 BVerfG, Oct. 14, 2004, 2 BvR 1481/04, 111 BVerfGE 307 (“Görgülü”); BVerfG, Oct. 26, 2004, 2 BvR 955/00, 1038/01, 112 BVerfGE1; BVerfG, May 4, 2011, 2 BvR 2365/09, 2 BvR 571/10, 2 BvR 1152/10, 2BvR 2233/08, 2 BvR 740/10, 128 BVerfGE 326.
11 For a deeper analysis with further references, see, for example, Fehrenbacher, Oliver & Traut, Nicolas, Völkerrechtliche Verträge und nationale “Treaty Overrides,” in GrenzüBerschreitendes Recht—Crossing Frontiers 569, 573– 81 (Jochum, Georg, Fritzemeyer, Wolfgang, & Kau, Marcel eds., 2013)Google Scholar; Hofmann, Tobias, Zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit des Treaty Override, 128 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 215 (2013)Google Scholar.
12 BVerfG, Mar. 26, 1957, 2 BvG 1/55, 6 BVerfGE 309, 363.
13 Ina(nonbinding) chamber decision from 1996, the Court (declaring a constitutional complaint inadmissible) summarily stated that not just any international treaty entered into by Germany would trigger constitutional compliance obligations. BVerfG Kammer [Chamber], Dec. 22, 2006, 2 BvR 1526/04, Kammerentscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGK] 10, 116 (124).
14 The federal government advanced the argument before the Constitutional Court that invoking an abstract idea of international openness “was unfit to entail legal consequences.” See Order, para. 18.
15 See, e.g., BVerfG, May 8, 2007, 2 BvM 1/03, 118 BVerfGE 124, 135.
16 Article 25 of the Constitution provides: “The general rules of international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory.” GG, supra note 8, Art. 25.
17 The Court referred to the constitutions of France and Luxembourg (para. 42). For a comparative analysis, see Wildhaber, Luzius & Breitenmoser, Stephan, The Relationship Between Customary International Law and Municipal Law in Western European Countries, 48 Zeitschrift Für AuslÄndisches Öffentliches Recht und VÖlker Recht 163 (1988)Google Scholar.
18 Article 59, paragraph 2 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “Treaties that regulate the political relations of the Federation or relate to subjects of federal legislation shall require the consent or participation, in the form of a federal law, of the bodies responsible in such a case for the enactment of federal law.” GG, supra note 8, Art. 59(2).
19 E.g., BVerfG, Mar. 26, 1987, 2 BvR 589/79, 2 BvR 750/81, 2 BvR 284/85, 74 BVerfGE 358, 370; 111 BVerfGE 307, supra note 10, at 317; 128 BVerfGE 326, supra note 10, at 367; see also BVerfG, May 29, 1990, 2 BvR 254/88, 2 BvR 1343/88, 82 BVerfGE 106, 120 (the European Convention on Human Rights as a helpful tool in interpreting analogous constitutional rights).
20 111 BVerfGE 307, supra note 10.
21 GG Arts. 25 & 59(2), supra notes 16 & 18, respectively.
22 The rule of law is enshrined in GG Art. 20(3). The Court also discussed, apart from the questions of international law, whether ITA section 50d, paragraph 8 violated the equal protection clause in GG Article 3, paragraph 1 because, as the plaintiffs asserted, it subjected taxpayers to arbitrary taxation. The Court concluded that the provision is justified.
23 Famously expressed by Jefferson, Thomas, “The Earth Belongs to the Living,” Letter from Jefferson to James Madison (Sept. 6, 1789), in Jefferson Writings 959 (Peterson, Merrill D. ed., 1984)Google Scholar.
24 Bradley, Curtis A., International Law in the U.S. Legal System 333 (2d ed. 2015)Google Scholar.
25 See, in particular, Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order 65–103 (2004); Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Judicial Globalization, 40 VA. J. Int’l L. 1103 (2000)Google Scholar; Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Real New World Order, Foreign Aff., Sept.– Oct. 1997, at 183; Lars Viellechner, Transnationalisierung des Rechts 265–301 (2013) (on German transnational legal theory).
26 See cases cited supra note 10; see also 82 BVerfGE 106, 120, supra note 19.