Throughout the world, there is debate about how democratic systems should adapt to the demands of their increasingly emancipated citizenries. More than ever, people desire to take part in the creation of their life circumstances. The demand for participation is paired with a growing discontent with the political elites. This article looks at the challenges in the context of Germany's system of government, discussing the leading debates of democratic reform in the EU's largest member state with some incidental remarks on other countries. Specifically, the study analyzes two core components of representative democracy—the electoral process and the parliamentary decision-making procedure—and shows how they should be reformed to ensure political stability in the long run. As a measure for the analysis, the author develops a system of four preconditions, on which successful democratic government depends: Responsiveness and political leadership on the side of the elected representatives; preparedness for participation and acceptance on the part of the represented. The article shows that optimizing democracy on the basis of these pillars is not just advisable as a matter of political prudence. In fact, Germany's constitution, the Basic Law, contains a normative expectation towards the political elites that they continuously improve democracy and ensure its appropriate functioning.

This article considers whether greater accountability for EU supranational decision-making can be achieved through a combination of member states' legislative processes and EU treaty-based mechanisms. The EU is formed by member states' national consent through treaty ratification and a system of domestic pre-legislative controls on consent—parliamentary approval, public consultation and referendum—which operates to limit the nature and extent of EU law. Using the UK as an example to compare with other member states, the article contends that such domestic controls are prerequisites to national incorporation of EU law and strengthen democratic accountability. Consent alone, however, does not provide an adequate basis for accountability of supranational decisions; EU constitutional principles of citizenship, democracy, and political rights illustrate how the EU fulfills a role as protector of rights. The article further argues that the EU's protector role represents partial legitimacy and accountability for supranational decisions. Greater legitimacy and accountability derives from national parliaments' pre-legislative controls under EU law—scrutinizing legislation, monitoring subsidiarity, and exercising veto powers. The article concludes that if these controls are exercised properly, they represent powerful accountability mechanisms.

Is legal theory relevant to legal practice? Should legal theory be part of the academic legal curriculum? This article outlines three propositions in relation to these longstanding contentious questions. First, it argues that existing literature has pursued an inadequate argumentative strategy by (1) assuming that there is a single yes or no answer to the questions surrounding the relevance of legal theory; and (2) treating legal theory and legal practice as discrete, unrelated entities. This article distinguishes between different styles of doing legal theory and legal practice, and argues that the role of legal theory needs to factor in changes in the substance of law, legal reasoning, and legal careers. Second, focusing on European civil law countries, this article concludes that most legal theory is irrelevant for conventional legal practice. Concomitantly, it suggests that the constitutionalization, transnationalization, and Europeanization of legal systems are changing the practice of law in a way that is more congenial to theory than hitherto. It also contends that legal roles embodying a legislative standpoint within law are creating a demand for increased theoretical sophistication. Third, this article suggests what a course in legal theory, sketched along the lines of the analysis carried out, might look like.

In this article, Lawrence Donnelly, an American born and trained attorney who is now a Lecturer & Director of Clinical Legal Education in the School of Law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, considers Professor Brian Tamanaha's seminal Failing Law Schools, a comprehensive critique of legal education in the United States. The article first thoroughly outlines and analyses the central lines of argument in Failing Law Schools and then evaluates the scholarship written in response to it. The article next compares and contrasts the state of play in legal education in the US with what is happening in Western Europe and posits that, for a variety of reasons, law schools on the eastern side of the Atlantic Ocean may actually be better – and more realistically – placed at present than their US counterparts. Lastly, the article urges that legal educators around the world continue an open dialogue on the “crisis” Professor Tamanaha presciently identifies in a concerted effort to ensure that law students receive the best possible training to equip them for working in legal careers that may not closely resemble those pursued by their predecessors in light of rapid globalization, ever-improving technology and consequent changes to how legal services are provided.

In Germany, the practice of forcing a person to marry against his or her own free will was not explicitly penalized and did not attract much political attention until the beginning of the new millennium. Since the mid-2000s, however, the German legislature has enacted a number of laws concerning forced marriage, possibly due to increased public and media interest in honor-related gender violence in immigrant communities. In 2011, the German Criminal Code (StGB) was amended to include “Forced Marriage,” thus making forcing someone to marry an offense in its own right. In light of similar recent developments criminalizing forced marriages in other European jurisdictions—such as England and Wales—this article aims to critically assess the German legislation and its potential impact on victims and offenders. First, this article considers the German criminal legislation in detail. Second, it contemplates the underlying question of whether the introduction of criminal law as a repressive measure effectively addresses the issue of forced marriage. Third, this article contemplates non-legislative measures that could contribute to affording more holistic protection. Finally, it concludes that improving the situation for victims of forced marriage in practice requires more than adopting criminal law on the matter.

The following article aims to analyze the first German draft bill concerning a corporate criminal code. The draft bill, recently introduced by the federal state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, led to a transformation of a theoretical academic discussion towards a specific proposal on potential future legislation. Firstly, the article introduces underlying reasons for the draft based on deficiencies of the current legislation. Current regulations solely provide corporate administrative responsibility for criminal offenses committed by a corporation's management (involving huge fines). Subsequently, the article reviews the content of the draft, specifically the multiplicity of proposed criminal and other penalties. The authors intend to demonstrate that the draft is often too vague or—especially with regard to penalties—simply over the top. The applicable sanctions – which may be combined- would lead to a more draconic punishment than in any other comparable legal system. Furthermore, regarding the principles of due process and strict legality the proposed procedural rules of the draft are not satisfying. After all, the proposed procedural measures to safeguard the proceedings and the rules on representation and defense counsel are deficient.

The second decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Islamic headscarf declares a general ban on headscarf to be unconstitutional and, in particular, a violation of freedom of religion. This case note examines whether this decision is an ill-conceived weakening of a religiously neutral state or, to the contrary, an encouraging manifestation of a liberal constitutional order that takes its aspirations in a highly contested area of law seriously.

The First Senate of the German Constitutional Court held in its decision on 27 January 2015 on the ban of headscarves that a blanket ban on religious statements for teachers in public non-denominational schools—that does not require a sufficiently concrete threat to the peace at the schools or the state's neutrality—is unconstitutional. The Court further nullified a discriminatory clause that privileged Christian-occidental educational and cultural values and traditions vis-à-vis other religions. By doing so, Karlsruhe made a strong plea in favor of understanding the German State's neutral role in religious matters as one of openness and inclusion of a plurality of religions and worldviews, rather than that of a laizistic polity. It brought its jurisprudence in line with the United Nations Human Rights Committee's approach in similar matters. Though, arguably, the case would have required a referral to the Joint Senate of the Constitutional Court, as it marks a deviation from the Second Senate's decision from 2003, the findings of the Court on the substantive law are to be welcomed.

This contribution revisits the Bundesverfassungsgericht's order for reference in the Gauweiler case and focuses on two aspects of that order that until now have not received much scholarly attention. The first concerns the German federal constitutional court's dissociation of constitutional identity review under the German Basic Law from national identity review under Article 4(2) TEU. While the decision on the Lisbon Treaty had suggested that the two go “hand in hand”, the Bundesverfassungsgericht now emphasizes the “fundamental” difference between the concept of national identity under Article 4(2) TEU on the one hand and the German concept of constitutional identity on the other. The second element is the German federal constitutional court's contention that its approach to ultra vires and constitutional identity review can also be found in the constitutional law of many other member states. Yet, careful analysis demonstrates that while there does indeed seem to be a trend in that direction, and several elements of the German approach can also be found in other countries, very few national courts are as adamant as the Bundesverfassungsgericht, and only a handful have developed their position with the same level of detail and ardor.

Quite unsurprisingly, the CJEU has held that the ECB's OMT program does not violate EU law. In accordance with this holding, I argue in the first part of this note that the OMT program does not transgress the ECB's mandate under the Treaty, which is often interpreted too narrowly, in particular by German legal scholars. Furthermore, I argue that a violation of the prohibition of monetary financing of the member States as enshrined in article 123, para 1 TFEU cannot be inferred from the ECB's announcement of a program, which has never been implemented. In any case, there is clearly no manifest and grave transgression of EU competences which, according to the German Federal Constitutional Court's (FCC) Honeywell doctrine, is required for an ultra vires finding. The second part of this note shows that the FCC's doctrine regarding transgressions of competences by EU organs (ultra vires review) is not only unconvincing as a matter of principle but also and worse (as on premises we can always reasonably disagree) not consistently applied to the OMT program. The note also objects to the Court's somewhat trendy blending of ultra vires and constitutional identity review of EU law through which it increasingly conceals its approach of applying the so-called constitutional constraints of European integration to the EU organs' conduct. The forthcoming FCC judgment is therefore less important as regards the quite foreseeable finding on the lawfulness of the OMT program but – hopefully – of vital importance as it might embody a more coherent relaunch of the FCC's standards of judicial review with regard to EU law.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the European Central Bank's (ECB) 2012 announcement of future Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) comes as no surprise. It had not been expected that the CJEU would interpret the European Economic and Monetary Union's (EMU) Treaty provisions the way the FCC had “suggested.” Neither had it seemed conceivable that the CJEU would reject the FCC's request for a preliminary ruling holding that a legally non-binding assessment of the EU action's lawfulness could not be requested under Article 267 TFEU. The judgment had nevertheless been awaited for with tension for two reasons: First, in the vigorous and in part very critical debate about the ECB's competences under the TFEU and its alleged ultra vires action a judgment by the CJEU was necessary to settle the fundamental European law issues at stake. This is all the more important with regard to the ECB's current Expanded Asset Purchase Program (EAPP) as well as its interconnection with the European Stability Mechanism's (ESM) financial assistance programs. The CJEU's holdings on the ECB's competences within the EMU framework are discussed in the first part of this note regarding the distinction between monetary and economic policy (infra section A.I.) and the interpretation of Article 123, paragraph 1 TFEU which prohibits monetary financing of the member States by the ECB (infra section A.II.). Second, it was clear that the judgment would shape the new stage in the changing and sometimes explosive on-off relationship between the CJEU and the FCC, the stage entered into by Karlsruhe's first ever request for a preliminary ruling. The FCC had fortified its ultra vires doctrine and clearly indicated its readiness not to follow the CJEU but to insist on the notorious “last word” of the German Constitution instead. Thus, the second part of this note discusses the constitutional legal premises of the FCC's approach and the procedural and substantial manner in which the FCC tries to scrutinize the ECB's OMT program (infra sections B.I. and B.II.). In this context, possible scenarios for the upcoming judgment (infra section C.I.) and consequences for European multi-level constitutionalism (infra section C.II.) will be discussed.

This article analyzes the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Gauweiler, answering the first preliminary reference ever by the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG), on the legality of the Outright Monetary Transaction (OMT) program of the European Central Bank (ECB). As the article explains, the ECJ rejected any possible claim of illegality of a key program devised by the ECB at the height of the Euro-crisis. However, because the BVerfG had defined the OMT program as ultra vires, and had threatened to strike it down if the ECJ did not reach the same result, the article defends the principle of the supremacy of European Union (EU) law, indicating that a possible nullification of the OMT program by the BVerfG would be clearly unlawful. To re-affirm the supremacy of EU law, the article argues that this principle is functional to ensure the equality of the member states before the law, preventing each country of the EU from cherry-picking which provisions of EU it likes or not. As the article suggests, respect of the principle of the supremacy of EU law – including by the BVerfG – is ultimately in the interest of every EU member state, including of Germany.

By its first request for a preliminary ruling, the German Constitutional Court aired its doubts about the lawfulness of the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs) program. In this article it is argued that the ECB's pledge in the summer of 2012 to do “whatever it takes” to safeguard the monetary policy transmission mechanism in all countries of the euro area by buying government bonds was generally compatible with EU law. However, it is argued that there is some potential for the ECB to infringe the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) while acting according to this announcement. The peculiarity of the situation, the author argues, is that we might be dealing with a “self-fulfilling prophecy” in that the ECB announces a particular policy, which might not be compatible with EU law, but the act announced, will never take place because the political problem would have been resolved by the measure previously announced. The critical question in this scenario refers to how a court should react to such a situation. The author argues that a court in such a situation has to show the legal limits of the particular institution, but neither the ECJ nor the German Constitutional Court may replace the central banks' task to maintain financial stability. Finally, a comment is given on how the German Constitutional Court will react to the ECJ's decision in that case.

The promise of the ECB to act effectively as the Eurozone's ‘lender of last resort’ was widely praised as a central plank in a broader strategy to protect the Euro and avoid financial meltdown in its Member States. “Never has so much effect been gained by doing so little. Words alone, it seemed, calmed the markets. …” The OMT program appeared as a “watershed” in the Eurozone crisis, “one of the most effective announcements any central bank has ever made.”