Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:16:43.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thresholds for the European Parliament Elections in Germany Declared Unconstitutional Twice

Bundesverfassungsgericht Judgment of 9 November 2011, 2 BvC 4/10, 5% threshold Judgment of 26 February 2014, 2 BvE 2/13, 2 BvR 2220/13, 3% threshold

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Bastian Michel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

European UnionEuropean ParliamentelectionsequalityGrundgesetzBundesverfassungsgericht
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 133 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

PhD candidate in comparative constitutional law, University of Amsterdam.

References

1 E.g. limitation on universality by an age requirement, ranging from 16 years for the right to vote in Austria, § 10 Europawahlordnung, to 25 for the right to stand as a candidate in Italy, Art. 4 Legge 24 Gennaio 1979, n. 18; on universal suffrage as a tripartite question between UK law, EU law and the Convention, see Lansbergen, A., ‘Prisoner Disenfranchisement in the United Kingdom and the Scope of EU Law’, 10 EuConst (2014) p. 126Google Scholar; and, in this issue, van Eijken, H. and van Rossem, J. W., ‘Prisoner Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote in Elections for the European Parliament’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 114Google Scholar.

2 Estimated on the basis of valid votes cast in the EP elections 2009 and 2014; factors of around 7 and 11 if based on entitled voters.

3 BVerfG 31 May 1995, 2 BvR 635/95, published in NJW (1995) p. 2216; with reference to BVerfGE 89, 155, Maastricht.

4 BVerfGE 123, 267; for a critical comment see Bieber, R., ‘“An Association of Sovereign States”’, 5 EuConst (2009) p. 391Google Scholar.

5 2011 case, Leitsatz, the official one-sentence summary, translation by the author; longer summary in English in BVerfG, press release 70/2011, 9 November 2011, <www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2011/bvg11-070.html>, visited 19 February 2016; the judgment is also published in BVerfGE 129, 300.

6 2014 case; summary in English in BVerfG, press release 14/2014, 26 February 2014, <www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2014/bvg14-014.html>, visited 19 February 2016; the judgment is also published in BVerfGE 135, 259.

7 The competence of the Court to entertain this incidental question on constitutionality has no direct basis in the written law but flows from the Court’s own case law: BVerfGE 16, 130 (135-136); 2011 case, paras. 75 and 136; without this competence, there would be a hiatus in the system of constitutional review arising from a concrete case, cf. for the same problem within a different procedural framework the jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional Court, on which, in this issue, Piccirilli, G., ‘Maintaining a 4% Electoral Threshold for European Elections, in order to clarify the access to constitutional justice in the electoral matter’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 164Google Scholar, text at n. 15 onwards.

8 2011 case, paras. 76-77.

9 2011 case, para. 81.

10 2011 case, paras. 78-82.

11 Stable case law going back to a 1952 decision, BVerfGE 1, 208 (243-246), with reference to a 1930 decision of the Constitutional Court of the Weimar Republic; on the latter see also, with a convincing analysis, Jacobi, E., ‘Die verfassungsmäßigen Wahlrechtsgrundsätze als Gegenstand richterlicher Entscheidung’, in Gmelin and Koellenreutter (eds.), Festgabe für Richard Schmidt (Hirschfeld 1932) vol. 2, p. 59-93Google Scholar.

12 2011 case, para. 88.

13 Originally proposed with clearly anti-pluralistic aims in Smend, R., Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht (Duncker & Humblot 1928)Google Scholar; on the influence on legal thinking in post-war Germany see van Ooyen, R.C., Integration (Springer 2014)Google Scholar.

14 2011 case, para. 126.

15 2011 case, para. 92.

16 2011 case, para. 93.

17 2011 case, paras. 97-99.

18 2011 case, paras. 103-106.

19 2011 case, paras. 107-110.

20 2011 case, para. 111.

21 2011 case, para. 116.

22 Stable case law from 1956 in BVerfGE 5, 77; lately BVerfG 31 January 2012, 2 BvC 11/11.

23 2011 case, paras 118-119.

24 2011 case, paras. 120-123.

25 2011 case, para. 124.

26 2011 case, para. 125.

27 One of the five judges in the majority agreed to the outcome but not to the reasoning, which leaves doubt as to its authoritativeness of the reasoning; critical Schönberger, C., ‘Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Fünf-Prozent-Klausel bei der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament’, 67 Juristenzeitung (2012) p. 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 80.

28 2011 case, paras. 147-160.

29 See Grzeszick, B., ‘Demokratie und Wahlen im europäischen Verbund der Parlamente’, Europarecht (2012) p. 667CrossRefGoogle Scholar, himself critical, pointing to other critical scholars at p. 668 n. 4 and to positive reactions at p. 668 n. 3.

30 Bundestag Innenausschuss 10 June 2013, minutes and written statements, <webarchiv.bundestag.de/cgi/show.php?fileToLoad=4125&id=1223>, visited 19 February 2016.

31 Art. 1 sub 2. d) amending act of 7 October 2013, BGBl. I 3794; for parliamentary proceedings see <dipbt.bundestag.de/extrakt/ba/WP17/537/53796.html>, visited 19 February 2016.

32 2014 case, paras. 25-27.

33 2014 case, paras. 40-44.

34 2014 case, paras. 62-64.

35 2014 case, paras. 71-78.

36 2014 case, dissenting opinion Müller.

37 For references see Grzeszick, supra n. 29; and Frenz, W., ‘3%-Klausel als europäischer Mindeststandard beim Wahlrecht’, 67 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (2014) p. 960Google Scholar at p. 961 n. 7 and n. 8.

38 Cf. 2011 case, dissenting opinion, para. 160.

39 Schönberger, supra n. 27, p. 80 and p. 86; similarly Grzeszick, B., ‘Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf’, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (2014) p. 537Google Scholar at p. 540.

40 Speaking extrajudicially, Bundestag Wissenschaftsforum, 17 November 2011, <dbtg.tv/cvid/1421201>, visited 19 February 2016, from time index 01:12:00 onwards.

41 Cf. 2011 case, dissenting opinion, para. 157, with a clear invocation of Immanuel Kant’s moral imperative.

42 On how to estimate an effective threshold, see, in this issue, Smekal, H. and Vyhnánek, L., ‘Equal voting power under scrutiny’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 148Google Scholar, text at n. 15 and onwards.

43 Along these lines: Felten, T., ‘Durfte das Bundesverfassungsgericht die Drei-Prozent-Hürde bei der Europawahl überprüfen?’, Europarecht (2014) p. 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 308; W. Heun, written statement before the BT committee, supra n. 30, p. 4; 2014 case, dissenting opinion Müller, para. 29; similarly BVerfGE 51, 222 (250-254).

44 EP resolution of 11 November 2015, P8_TA(2015)0395; see also exposé of arguments in favour of that proposal, Nogaj, M. and Poptcheva, E.-M., ‘The Reform of the Electoral Law of the European Union’, EP Research Service PE 558.775 (September 2015) p. 17-19Google Scholar.

45 Cf. national results of the 2014 EP elections in the UK, with 2.37% of votes cast for the Scottish National Party delivering two seats and 6.61% for the Liberal Democrats delivering just one seat.

46 Estimation based on valid votes cast in 2014.

47 Cf. speech Ulrike Müller, EP debate 27 October 2015, CRE 27/10/2015-16.

48 Huber, P.M., ‘Art. 14 EUV’, in Streinz (ed.), EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. (C.H. Beck 2012)Google Scholar paras. 63-67.

49 See Huber, supra n. 48, para. 51; and cf. ECtHR 18 February 1999, Case No. 24833/94, Mattews v United Kingdom, para. 31, relied upon in BVerfG 22 November 2001, 2 BvB 1/01, para. 20.

50 Convincingly Felten, supra n. 43, p. 310-313.

51 Cf., in this issue, Piccirilli, G., ‘Maintaining a 4% Electoral Threshold for European Elections, in order to clarify the access to constitutional justice in the electoral matter’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 164Google Scholar, text at n. 29.

52 Cf. Lenz, C., ‘Die Wahlrechtsgleichheit und das Bundesverfassungsgericht’, 121 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (1996) p. 337Google Scholar.

53 Michael, L., Verfassungsunmittelbare Sperrklauseln auf Landesebene (Nomos 2015) p. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar with further literature references and citing Italian Constitutional Court 13 January 2014, Sentenza 1/2014, Considerato in diritto para. 3.1; indeed, in Belgium the notion that votes must have equal success value seems to be rejected, cf. Belgian Constitutional Court 27 April 2005, Arrêt no. 78/2005, para. B.11.1; on the Czech Constitutional Court’s stance in this regard, see, in this issue, Smekal, H. and Vyhnánek, L., ‘Equal voting power under scrutiny’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 148Google Scholar, text at n. 20 and onwards.

54 See, in this issue, Smekal, H. and Vyhnánek, L., ‘Equal voting power under scrutiny’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 148Google Scholar.

55 See, in this issue, Piccirilli, G., ‘Maintaining a 4% Electoral Threshold for European Elections, in order to clarify the access to constitutional justice in the electoral matter’, 12 EuConst (2016) p. 164Google Scholar.