Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:24:03.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pushing Back: What Happens When Member States Resist the European Court of Justice? A Multi-Modal Approach to the History of European Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2012

BILL DAVIES
BILL DAVIES*
Affiliation:
Department of Justice, Law and Society, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20016, USA; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Established explanations of the development of the European legal system focus on the decisive power of the Court of Justice in determining the system's practice and parameters. Even accounts highlighting the various interlocutors involved with the Court are ultimately drawn to Luxembourg as the fulcrum of decision. However, these approaches neglect the equally constitutive role played by national courts, particularly when resisting the European Court of Justice (ECJ). By analysing the important consequences of the German Constitutional Court's Solange decision of 1974, this paper argues that we must complicate our retelling of the European Union's (EU) legal history by rethinking the importance of national-level agency.

Qu'est-ce qui arrive lorsqu'un état membre résiste à la cour de justice européenne? une approche multi-modale à l'histoire du droit européen

On explique généralement le développement du système juridique européen en soulignant les pouvoirs décisifs de la Cour de justice pour déterminer la pratique et les paramètres du système. Même ceux qui voudraient mettre en valeur les divers interlocuteurs concernés doivent finalement se référer au pivot décisif que représente Luxembourg. Ces approches laissent néanmoins de côté le rôle tout aussi constitutif des cours nationales, surtout quand il s'agit de résister à la Cour de justice européenne. Cet article analyse les conséquences importantes de la décision prise par la cour constitutionnelle de l'Allemagne dans le cas Solange en 1974, et soutient qu'il faut compliquer le récit de l'histoire juridique de l'Union Européenne en réévaluant l'importance des agences nationales.

Was geschieht, wenn sich mitgliedstaaten dem europäischen gerichtshof widersetzen? ein multimodaler ansatz für die geschichte des europäischen rechts

Gängige Erklärungen für die Entwicklung des europäischen Rechtssystems stellen ab auf die entscheidende Macht des Gerichtshofs beim Festlegen der Praxis und der Parameter des Systems. Selbst Berichte, welche die verschiedenen Beteiligten mit Beziehung zum Gericht herausstellen, sind letztlich ausgerichtet nach Luxemburg, dem Dreh- und Angelpunkt der Entscheidung. Jedoch vernachlässigen diese Ansätze die gleichermaßen gestaltende Rolle, welche die nationalen Gerichte gespielt haben, vor allem als sie sich dem Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) widersetzten. Diese Studie analysiert die wichtigen Konsequenzen des Solange-Beschlusses des Bundesverfassungsgerichts aus dem Jahr 1974 und argumentiert, dass wir die Rechtsgeschichte der Europäischen Union (EU) in komplexer Form weitertragen müssen, indem wir die Bedeutung nationaler Erschwernisse überdenken.

Type
Articles
Information
Contemporary European History , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Towards a New History of European Law , August 2012 , pp. 417 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mattli, Walter and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘Revisiting the European Court of Justice’, International Organisation 52, 1 (Winter 1998), 177–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Cohen, Antonin, ‘Constitutionalism without Constitution; Transnational Elites between Political Mobilisation and Legal Expertise (1940–1960)’, Law and Social Inquiry 1 (2007), 109–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Antonin Cohen. Scarlet Robes, Dark Suits: The Social Recruitment of the European Court of Justice, European University Institute (EUI) Working Paper 2008/35, Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS), 2008; Vauchez, Antoine, ‘The Transnational Politics of Judicialization: Van Gend En Loos and the Making of EU Polity’, European Law Journal 16, 1 (2010), 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Alter, Karen, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe (Oxford Studies in European Law, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

4 ‘Joint Declaration by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission’, Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC), 27 Apr 1977, No C 103, 1. See also http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31977Y0427%2801%29:EN:HTML (last visited, 31 Mar. 2012).

5 In its Hauer decision of 1979, the ECJ modified its human rights jurisprudence to include the ECHR, stating, ‘International treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories, can . . . supply guidelines which should be followed within the framework of Community law’. Furthermore, the Court cited Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR specifically in part of its reasoning. This deals with the individual's right to ‘peaceful enjoyment of his possessions’. See Case 44/79 Hauer v. Land Rheinland Pfalz [1979] European Court Report 321 and page 33 of the European Convention on Human Rights at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13–4318-B457–5C9014916D7A/0/CONVENTION_ENG_WEB.pdf (last visited, 31 Mar. 2012).

6 This process has continued in more recent times, with the coming into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in 2009, as well as steps taken in 2010 in the ongoing process towards the full accession of the EU itself to the Convention. In June 2010, Article 17 of Protocol 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was amended to allow the EU to accede to the treaty. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/194.htm (last visited, 31 Mar. 2012).

7 Case 29/69 Stauder v. Ulm [1969] European Court Report 419 and Case 04/73 Nold v.Commission [1974] European Court Report 491.

8 Case 26/62 Van Gend v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] European Court Report 1.

9 Case 06/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] European Court Report 585.

10 Bill Davies, ‘Meek Acceptance? The German Ministries’ Reaction to the Van Gend En Loos and Costa Decisions’, Journal of European Integration History, 14, 2 (2008), 20 and Davies, Bill, Resisting the ECJ: Germany's Confrontation with European Law 1949–1979 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 A case at the Italian Constitutional Court yielded a similar result to the Solange decision in Germany, only a year earlier. See case Frontini e a., in Giur. Cost., 2401 n. 183 27 Dec. 1973. The German version occurred in May 1974. See 2 BvL 52/71 – Solange I, 29 May 1974 – BVerfGE 37, 271.

12 Ernst Benda, President of the FCC, made this clear at the time in both academic and public media. Ernst Benda, ‘Das Spannungsverhältnis von Grundrechten und übernationalen Recht’, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 10/11 (1974), 389–96. See also subsequent media interviews with Benda, especially ‘Zur Frage der Schaffung eines europäischen Grundrechtskatalog’, Deutsche Welle, 9 Apr. 1975 and ‘Für europäische Grundrechte’, Die Rheinpfalz, 18 Apr. 1972.

13 Benda, ‘Das Spannungsverhältnis’, 395–6. See also media publications and interviews with Benda in this period, especially ‘Zur Frage der Schaffung eines europäischen Grundrechtskatalog’, interview with Ernst Benda, Deutsche Welle, 9 Apr. 1975.

14 See Green Paper SJ/229/79-EN in C. E. Archives Historiques de la Commission (CHA) H00-h01-h02-h03-h08 BAC 201–1989 1976–1978.

15 The abolition of the death penalty and the right for convictions to be appealed to the ECHR came about in France in 1981 as a result of a new President, François Mitterrand, and his appointment of the abolitionist Robert Badinter as Minister of Justice.

16 Jonas Bering Lüsberg, ‘Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law? Article 53 of the Charter: A Fountain of Law or just an Inkblot’, Jean Monnet Working Paper 4/01 (2001), available at http://centres.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/01/010401.html (last visited, 31 Oct 2011).

17 Stein, Eric, ‘Lawyers, Judges and the Making of a Transnational Constitution’, American Journal of International Law, 75, 1 (1981), 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Weiler, J.H.H., The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?’ and Other Essays on European Integration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar. Dehousse, Renaud, The European Court of Justice (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Antoine Vauchez, ‘Transnational Politics of Judicialization’.

19 Karen Alter's seminal work on the establishment of European legal supremacy pointed scholars in this direction with the concept of ‘backlash’, but could not go quite far enough in documenting the impact of European law in the member states and the resulting influence on the European system flowing back from the national orders: Alter, Establishing the Supremacy, xxvi, 258.

20 For a range of Eurobarometer results confirming this, see Inglehart, Ronald Ronald and Reif, Karlheinz, Eurobarometer: The Dynamics of European Public Opinion: Essays in Honour of Jacques-René Rabier (London: Macmillan, 1991)Google Scholar.

21 Hans-Peter Ipsen (1907–98) was Professor of Law at the University of Hamburg and a leading voice of the pro-Europeanists publishing several highly influential tracts on European law in this period.

22 Carl-Friedrich Ophüls (1895–1970) was a lawyer and diplomat, who was present during the Treaty of Rome negotiations and served as Germany's permanent representative to the Communities in the early 1960s.

23 Karl Carstens (1914–92) served in the foreign ministry as State Secretary (1960–6), State Secretary of the Defence Ministry (1966–8), Head of the chancellor's office (1968–9) and Federal President (1979–84), as well as actively publishing on European law during this period.

24 See the article in this special issue by Bernier.

25 See for instance the general tone of the European law colloquium held in Bensheim in the summer of 1964, which was organised by the German European Law Association in close collaboration with Hallstein's Commission. See Davies, Resisting, Chapter 2.

26 2 BvE 4/52 – EDC Treaty decision, 7 Mar 1953 – BVerfGE 2, 143.

27 This argument has its basis in the earlier writings of the Vienna-based Professor, Alfred Verdroß, whose writings were required reading in the foreign ministry's legal section, and Göttingen Professor Herbert Kraus. On Verdross's long-standing influence in legal debates see the contribution by Jean Michel Guieu in this special issue. Schlochauer, Hans Jürgen, ‘Zur Frage der Rechtsnatur der Europäischen Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahle’, in Schätzel, Walter and Schlochauer, Hans-Jürgen (eds), Rechtsfragen der Internationalem Organisation, Festschrift für Hans Wehberg zum seinem 70. Geburtstag (Frankfurt/Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1956), 361–73Google Scholar.

28 In contradiction to the Stauder and Nold rulings, in the ECJ's jurisprudence of the late 1950s, the Court had refused to be bound by national constitutional traditions. See Case 1/58 Stork v.High Authority [1959] European Court Report 17, Case 36–8 and 40/59 Ruhrkohlenverkaufsgesellschaften v.High Authority [1960] European Court Report 423.

29 Rupp, Hans Heinrich, ‘Die Grundrechte und das Europäische Gemeinschaftsrecht’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 9 (1970), 353–9Google Scholar.

30 See the article by Warlouzet and Witschke in this special issue.

31 Editorial, ‘Hier wird die nationale Kuh geschlachtet’, Rheinische Post, 31 May 1974.

32 Editorial, ‘Europarecht bricht das nationale Verfassungsrecht’, Handelsblatt, 30 Oct. 1973.

33 Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft GmbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] European Court Report 1125.

34 Case 04/73 Nold v. Commission [1974] European Court Report 491.

35 Case 29/69 Stauder v. Ulm [1969] European Court Report 419.

36 2 BvL 52/71 – Solange I, 29 May 1974 – BVerfGE 37, 271.

37 The French Gaullist MEP Coustet had even written to the Commission to instigate this and the Legal Committee of the European Parliament had initiated an inquiry into the decision. See Memo, 9 Oct 1974 in BA B106 39568 Bundesinnenministerium: Vereinbarkeit von EWG-Recht mit dem Grundgesetz. Band 4: Feb 1973 – Dez 1974.

38 Exposé by Walter Much, 7 Feb. 1975, in Politisches Archiv des Auswärtiges Amt (thereafter PA AA) Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.

39 See Memo, 8 Oct. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50SB1.

40 See Outline, 5 Sep. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50SB1.

41 See Report, 17 Oct. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50SB1.

42 Meeting report, 6 Jan. 1975 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

43 A point which was emphasised in a letter to a Cabinet meeting at the chancellor's office by the Justice Minister in Oct. 1974 – Letter from Vogel to Bundeskanzleramt, 17 Oct. 1974 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

44 Letter from British Embassy, 9 Jul. 1975 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

45 Report from the State Secretary Committee on European Affairs on 21 Feb. 1975, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

46 Letter from Bahlmann to foreign ministry on 18 Mar. 1975, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

47 Meeting report from 23 May 1975 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

48 In this, the First Senate denied the competency of the German court to rule on laws issued by European public authorities. 1 BvR 248/63 and 216/6 – European Regulations, 18 Oct 1967 – BVerfGE 22, 293.

49 Outline from justice ministry on 5 Sept. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

50 Memo from foreign ministry on 8 Oct. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

51 Protocols of the 87 Meeting of the Cabinet of the Federal Government on 6 Nov. 1974.

52 See Letter from Genscher, 16 June 1975 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50SB1.

53 Letter from Seidel (Economics) to Teske (Justice) and foreign ministry, 12 Jan. 1976 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

54 Reischl was born in Munich at the end of the First World War, had graduated third in a class of 275 law school students, spoke fluent French, English and Italian, and had served for eleven years as a SPD member of the Bundestag and for two years as an MEP.

55 Letter to Schmidt from Reischl from 14 Nov. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121825.

56 PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121825.

57 Letter to Reischl from Schmidt from 9 Dec. 1974, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121825.

58 Outline from justice to foreign ministry from 16 Apr. 1975, in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121874 424.50.

59 See Telegram, 18 Feb. 1976 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.50SB3.

60 It was held on 5 June 1975.

61 30 Oct. 1975, n. 232, Società industrie chimiche Italia centrale (I.C.I.C.), in Giur. Cost. 2211.

62 Case 36/75 Roland Rutili v. Minister of the Interior [1975] European Court Report 1219.

63 See PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.50SB3.

64 See Point 11 of European Parliament Working Document 436/74 13 Jan. 1975.

65 See Meeting Report, 10 Nov. 1975 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.50SB3.

66 See Report of the Commission submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. COM (76) 37 final, 4 Feb. 1976. Bulletin of the European Community, Supplement 5/76.

67 See Letter, 16 Sept. 1976 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.50SB3.

68 See PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.50SB3.

69 See Speeches, 5 Apr. 1977 in PA AA Zwischenarchiv 121875 424.

70 2 BvL 52/71 – Solange I decision, 29 May 1974 – BVerfGE 37, 271.

71 Conclusions to Session of the European Council, Copenhagen, 7–8 Apr 1978. See also http://aei.pitt.edu/1440/1/Copenhagen_1978.pdf (last visited 31st Mar. 2012).

72 Meinhard Hilf, ‘Die gemeinsame Grundrechtserklarung des europaischen Parlaments, des Rates und der Kommission vom 5. Apr 1977’, Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 4 (1977), 158–61.

73 Editorial, ‘Die Neuner-Gemeinschaft kennt noch keine Grundrechte’, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 June 1979.

74 Case 36/75 Roland Rutili v. Minister of the Interior [1975] European Court Report 1219.

75 Drzemczewski, Andrew, ‘Protection of Fundamental Human Rights in the European Community’, Notre Dame International Law Journal, 57, 1 (1983)Google Scholar.

76 CHA H00-h01-h02-h03-h08 BAC 201–1989 1976–1978.

77 2 BvR 197/83 – Solange II decision, 22 Oct. 1986 – BVerfGE 73, 339.

78 Cf. Peter Lindseth's provocative thesis about the consequences of the continuation of national practices of administrative delegation and democratic oversight into the process of European integration. Lindseth, Peter L., Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) xxii, 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92 – Maastricht Decision, 12 Oct. 1993 – BVerfGE 89, 155.

80 2 BvE 2/08, 2 BvE 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 2 BvR 1022/08, 2 BvR 1259/08, 2 BvR 182/09 – Lisbon Decision, 30 June 2009 – BVerfGE 123, 267.

81 2 BvR 1010/10 – Euro Bailout Mechanism, 11 Oct. 2011 – Absatz-Nr. (1 – 32).

82 CHA H19-H20 BAC 201–1989 1979–1980.

83 See Green Paper SJ/229/79-EN in CHAH00-h01-h02-h03-h08 BAC 201–1989 1976–1978.

84 CHA 536–8 BAC 39–1989.

85 CHA H85A+B BAC 103–1992.

86 For the history of this campaign, see Badinter, Robert, Abolition: One Man's Battle Against the Death Penalty (Boston: Northeastern University Press; Hanover: University Press of New England, 2008)Google Scholar.

87 CHA 536–8 BAC 39–1989.

88 See among many others Tomuschat, Christian, ‘Alle Guten Dinge Sind III? Zur Diskussion um die Solange-Rechtsprechung des BVerfG’, Europarecht, 25/4 (1990), 340–61Google Scholar. Dyevre, Arthur, ‘The German Federal Constitutional Court and European Judicial Politics’, West European Politics, 34/2 (2011), 346–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘Competition and Community: Constitutional Courts, Rhetorical Action, and the Institutionalization of Human Rights in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 8 (2006), 1247–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Lüsberg, ‘Inkblot’.

91 Alston, Philip and Weiler, J. H. H., ‘An “Ever Closer Union” In Need Of A Human Rights Policy: The European Union And Human Rights’, Jean Monnet Working Paper 1/99 (1999)Google Scholar, available at http://centres.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/99/990101.html (last visited, 31 Oct. 2011).

92 Beyond this, the Solange decision has also served as a model of judicial behaviour for member states acceding to the Union much later on. For a fascinating discussion of the influence of Solange on the Central and Eastern European states see Sadurski, Wojciech, ‘“Solange, Chapter 3”: Constitutional Courts in Central Europe – Democracy – European Union’, EUI Working Paper 2006/40 (Florence: EUI, 2006)Google Scholar.