¹ Bardutzky, Samo & Fahey, Elaine, Who Got to Adjudicate the EU's Financial Crisis and Why? Judicial Review of the Legal Instruments of the Eurozone, in The Constitutionalization of European Budgetary Constraints 341, 352 (Maurice Adams, Federico Fabbrini & Pierre Larouche eds., 2014).Google Scholar

² Id. at 357.Google Scholar

³ See, infra D.I.; Fahey, Elaine & Bardutzky, Samo, Judicial Review of Eurozone Law: The Adjudication of Postnational Norms in the EU Courts, Plural: A Case Study of the European Stability Mechanism, Mich. J. Int'l L. Emerging Scholarship Project (2013), http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FaheyBardutzky.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴ Peers, Steve, Towards a New Form of EU Law? The Use of EU Institutions outside the EU Legal Framework, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 37, 38 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵ Schiavo, Gianni Lo, The ESM Treaty: A new form of intergovernmental differentiated integration to the benefit of the EMU?, in Evolving Europe: Voices of the Future, 8-9 July 2013, http://uaces.org/documents/papers/1340/loschiavo.pdf. Beukers similarly speaks of new forms of differentiated integration. Thomas Beukers, The Eurozone Crisis and the Legitimacy of Differentiated Integration, in The Euro Crisis and the State of European Democracy 8 (Bruno de Witte ed., 2013).Google Scholar

⁶ See, infra at D.II.1.Google Scholar

⁷ Chalmers, Damian, The European Court of Justice has taken on huge new powers as ‘enforcer’ of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance. Yet its record as a judicial institution has been little scrutinised, available at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/03/07/european-court-of-justice-enforcer/.Google Scholar

⁸ Fabbrini, Federico, On Banks, Courts and International Law: a Critical Analysis of the Draft International Agreement on the Functioning of the Single Resolution Fund, Centro Studi sul Federalismo Research Paper 4, http://www.csfederalismo.it/attachments/2579_CSF-RP_Fabbrini_Banks-Courts-lnternationalLaw_Feb2014.pdf.Google Scholar

⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Fabbrini, Federico, The Euro-Crisis and the Courts: Judicial Review and the Political Process in Comparative Perspective, 32 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 64, 103 (2014).Google Scholar

¹¹ Kelemen, R. Daniel, Eurolegalism and Democracy 50 J. Common Mkt. Studs. 55 (2012); Kelemen, R. Daniel, Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the EU (2012).Google Scholar

¹² Cichowski, Rachel, The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance (2007).Google Scholar

¹³ See Witte, Bruno de & Beukers, Thomas, The Court of Justice approves the creation of the European Stability Mechanism outside the EU legal order: Pringle, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 805, 827 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Fabbrini, supra note 11, at 116 (citing Daniel Halberstam, Constitutional Heterarchy: the Centrality of Conflict in the European Union and the United States, in Ruling the World 326, 337 (Jeffrey Dunoff & Joel Trachtman eds., 2009)).Google Scholar

¹⁵ A look at the complainants/applicants in national constitutional challenges reveals a broad spectrum of different actors, such as a regional government, an ordoliberal think tank, politicians, and academics affiliated with the new left movements and Eurosceptic members of the public.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Tushnet, Mark, Taking the Constitution away from the Courts 153 (2000).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Scholz, Kay-Alexander, Karlsruhe's constitutional monastery (11 September 2012), Deutsche Welle, available at http://www.dw.de/karlsruhes-constitutional-monastery/a-16231161.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The ESM treaty was signed by the 17 Member States of the Euro-zone on 2 February 2012 and entered into force on 27 September 2012. It is available at http://www.esm.europa.eu/pdf/esm_treaty_en.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁹ European Council Decision of 25 March 2011 Amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with Regard to a Stability Mechanism for Member States whose Currency is the Euro, 2011 O.J. (L91) 1. For a detailed account of the creation of the ESM, see de Witte & Beukers, supra note 13, at 812.Google Scholar

²⁰ The ESMT envisages, inter alia, that the Commission will “negotiate, in liaison with the European Central Bank (ECB), the economic policy conditionality attached to each financial assistance” under the mandate given by the ESM Board of Governors (Art. 5(6)(g)). The Commission shall be entrusted with assessment tasks in the process of granting stability support (Art. 13(1)) as well as with negotiating and signing the memoranda of understanding with the ESM member requesting stability support (Arts. 13(2) and (3)) and then take part in the monitoring of the compliance with the memorandum (Art. 13(7)). See also Case C–370/12, Thomas Pringle v. Gov't of Ireland, 2012 E.C.R. I-000, para. 56 (regarding the tasks allocated to the Commission), para. 157 (regarding the ECB). For a comment on the governance system as a curious hybrid, see de Witte & Beukers, supra note 13, at 814.Google Scholar

²¹ See Peers, supra note 4, for a favorable assessment of the use of EU institutions outside the EU legal framework; contra Paul Craig, Pringle and Use of EU Institutions Outside the EU Legal Framework: Foundations, Procedure and Substance, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 263 (2013).Google Scholar

²² Ruffert, Matthias, The European Debt Crisis and EU Law, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1777, 1790 (2011); Tuori, Karlo, The European Financial Crisis—Constitutional Aspects and Implications, 36 EUI law Working Paper No. 28, 2012.Google Scholar

²³ Pringle v. The Government of Ireland, [2012] IESC 47. Before that, the procedure took place before the High Court. See, infra II. 1.Google Scholar

²⁴ Judgment of 12 July 2012, no. 3-4-1-6-12, Judgment of the Supreme Court (en banc).Google Scholar

²⁵ Case 2BvR 1390/12, Judgment of 12 September 2012.Google Scholar

²⁶ Case SV 2/12-18, Judgment of 16 March 2013, http://www.vfgh.gv.at/cms/vfgh-site/attachments/9/1/9/CH0006/CMS1370243386803/esm_sv2-18.12_endg.pdf.Google Scholar

²⁷ Case K 33/12, Judgment of 26 June 2013, http://trybunal.gov.pl/fileadmin/content/omowienia/K_33_12_en.pdf.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pringle v. The Government of Ireland [2012] IEHC 296.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case no. 3-4-1-6-12 at para. 111 of the judgment.Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. at paras. 150, 184.Google Scholar

³¹ Para. 8 of the dissenting opinion of the Justices Henn Jöks, Ott Järvesaar, Eerik Kergandberg, Lea Kivi, Ants Kull and Lea Laarmaa; the dissenting opinion of Justice Tampuu; Ginter, Carri, Constitutionality of the European Stability Mechanism in Estonia: Applying Proportionality to Sovereignty, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. (2013).Google Scholar

³² Case no. 3-4-1-6-12 at para. 202 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

³³ Saarmann, Merike, 'A cup of financial stability, please!'—The ESM judgment of the Estonian Supreme Court, Tijdschriftvoor Constitutioneel Recht 163 (2013), http://www.tvcr.nl/tijdschriftvoorconstitutioneelrecht/download/162A_cup_of_financial_stability__please__The_ESMJudgment_of_the.pdf.Google Scholar

³⁴ Case no. 3-4-1-6-12 at paras. 7 and 8 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

³⁵ Dissenting opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court Henn Jöks, Ott Järvesaar, Eerik Kergandberg, Lea Kivi, Ants Kull, and Lea Laarmaa, para. 2. The dissent supports this conclusion by offering a comparative argument, the fact that the Finnish parliament treated the ESMT as an EU matter when assessing its constitutionality.Google Scholar

³⁶ Case no. 3-4-1-6-12 at paras. 220-21 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

³⁷ Id. at para. 218 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ginter, supra note 30, at 353.Google Scholar

³⁹ See the initiative's website at http://verfassungsbeschwerde.eu/verfahrensstand.html.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The final decision on the ESM of the FCC was delivered on 18 March 2014.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Case C–235/87, Matteucci v Communauté française de Belgique, [1988] ECR 5589.Google Scholar

⁴² Case 2BvR 1390/12 at para. 172 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

⁴³ Case C–370/12, Pringle v. Government of Ireland, 2012 E.C.R. I–000, para. 123.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Case SV 2/12-18, position of the Carinthian regional government, at 11 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Id. at 33 (stating the position of the Federal government), para. 52 (for the reasons given by the Court).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Not, however, to the Carinthians, who filed their suit on the 22 October 2012, before the CJEU's ruling in Pringle was pronounced on 27 November.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Case K 33/12, para. 7.2 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id. at para. 7.4.1 of the Judgment (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Id. at para. 7.5 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id. at para. 7.4.5 of the Judgment.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Komárek, Jan, The Place of Constitutional Courts in the EU, Eur. Const. L. Rev. 420, 421 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵² Marta Cartabia summarizes this position of “superiorem non recognoscens” very well in her account of this “implicit and conclusive reason.” Cartabia, Marta, “Taking Dialogue Seriously” The Renewed Need for a Judicial Dialogue at the Time of Constitutional Activism in the European Union, NYU Jean Monnet Working Paper 12/07, 1, 27–29 (2007), http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/07/071201.html.Google Scholar

⁵³ Komárek, supra note 51, at 422.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ We will address this further, infra E. II.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The account of the constitutional courts, preliminary rulings, and the ‘new form of EU law’ that thus takes place is what Giuseppe Martinico refers to as the new era of cooperation between the CJEU and the constitutional courts. Giuseppe Martinico, Preliminary References and Constitutional Courts: Are You in the Mood for Dialogue?, in Shaping rule of law through dialogue: International and Supranational Experiences 221 (Filippo Fontanelli, Guiseppe Martinico & Paolo Carrozza eds., 2010).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Thym, Daniel, A Spring in the Desert: the German ECJ Reference on the ECB Bond Purchases, available at http://eutopialaw.com/2014/02/13/a-spring-in-the-desert-the-german-CJEU-reference-on-the-ecb-bond-purchases/.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int'l L. J. 191, 193 (2003).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Typology of Transjudicial Communication, 29 U. Rich. L. Rev. 99, 112 (1994).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id. at 125-26 (explaining that there can only be communication when there is a “modicum of common ground,” courts need to recognize that they are operating on similar conceptions and share the commitment to rule of law.). This is a basic threshold; in the context of the EU, the common judicial identity of the courts, if anything, is much stronger.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Case 2 BvR 2728/13 et al, Order of 14 January 2014 [hereinafter OMT Reference].Google Scholar

⁶¹ Wendel, Mattias, Exceeding Judicial Competence in the Name of Democracy: The German Federal Constitutional Court's OMT Reference, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 263, 267 (2014).Google Scholar

⁶² Case 2 BvR 2661/06 Honeywell, BVerfGE 126, 286, 303-04 (cited in the OMT reference of the FCC).Google Scholar

⁶³ Wendel, supra note 51, at 277.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Gerstenberg, Oliver, An End to European Multilateralism: A Comment on the German Bundesverfassungsgericht's OMT decision, available at http://eutopialaw.com/2014/02/19/an-end-to-european-multilateralism-a-comment-on-the-german-bundesverfassungsgerichts-omt-decision/. This was in stark contrast with an initial response which saw the FCC's reference as a surrender of sovereignty, coupled with the conclusion that for the OMT, the FCC's decision to refer the question amounts to nothing less than “dodging a bullet.” Financial Times, February 10, 2014.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ OMT Reference, para. 100; Wendel, supra note 51, at 271.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Wendel, supra note 51, at 305.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Fahey & Bardutzky, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Advocate General Juliane Kokott in her speech offered some insight into fast-track procedure that played out in Pringle. Juliane Kokott, Perspectives on the Role of the Advocate General in the Eurozone Rescue Decision: Advocate General Kokott on Pringle v. Ireland, http://www.mjilonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Kokottl.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Id. Google Scholar

⁷¹ Andreas Voßkuhle, Multilevel cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund, 6 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 175, 197-98 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at 183–84. The author admits that the English translation of the word for the concept, “multilevel cooperation of European constitutional courts” is not ideal as it may not convey entirely the non-hierarchical character of the concept.Google Scholar

⁷³ Claes, Monica & Visser, Maartje de, Are You Networked Yet? On Dialogues in European Judicial Networks, 8 Utrecht L. Rev. 100, 101 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Visser, Maartje de, Constitutional Review in Europe: A Comparative Analysis 393. The website of the Conference is at http://www.confeuconstco.org/.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ In what is perhaps the most institutionalized connection between European constitutional courts, there are in fact already liaison officers of the constitutional courts charged with horizontal communication via the Joint Council on Constitutional Justice that operates under the auspices of the Venice Commission. Id. at 396.Google Scholar