Search

The article is aimed as a contribution to academic discourse on how to solve possible competence conflicts between constitutional or other highest courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). This discourse has rather recently received an extraordinary impetus when Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (FCC) handed down its judgment in Weiss. For the first time in its history, the FCC invoked the ultra vires doctrine against an EU act and a CJEU judgment. It is argued in the article that the final say in dealing with such competence conflicts should not and cannot rest with either the CJEU or individual national apex courts. The article supports the idea of establishing an EU-competence super-arbiter. However, it is stressed in this respect that the component members of whatever EU-competence super-arbiter to be established should always include the representatives of all EU Member States (although not necessarily only them) and the voting of such EU-competence super-arbiter should be based on the (absolute) majority of those of its component members that are the representatives of Member States. Otherwise, the collective competence-competence monopoly of the EU Member States in the EU would be breached too strongly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Legal History / Rechtsgeschichte is the property of Max-Planck-Institut fur europaische Rechtsgeschichte and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Press releases disseminate selected information and promote particular issues. Although several courts regularly publish press releases on decisions, it is unclear which policy issues are more likely to be promoted by courts. This study argues that courts publish press releases to increase transparency and promote politically contested issues strategically. Using original data on the German Federal Constitutional Court, it assesses the role of press releases for judicial agenda-setting. Policy issues in 7114 court decisions between 1998 and 2019 were coded through supervised text classification. The results show that the press releases cover a greater range of policy issues than the Court's decisions. They are more likely to be published for decisions that deal with politically contested issues. This study contributes to the policy agenda literature by adding a new case, the German Federal Constitutional Court, and court press releases as a new perspective. • The publication of press releases help constitutional courts to promote open justice. • Constitutional courts are more likely to publish press releases if decisions deal with politically contested policy issues. • Supervised classification methods can help systematically analyze large amount of legal text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Fiscal Treaty of September 12, 2012. It discusses three major arguments that stood out in the ESM & Fiscal Treaty decision, which include protecting the rights of Germany's Bundestag. The article also examines parliamentary right to information and intra-parliamentary allocation of responsibilities.

The article examines the preliminary European Stability Mechanism verdict of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). It explains the manner in which political science conceptualizes courts. It discusses previous FCC rulings on the European integration and the euro crisis. It also discusses the role of the FCC in the current system of European governance.

Copyright of Osgoode Hall Law Journal is the property of Osgoode Hall Law School and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The German constitution declares in its fi rst Amendment that human dignity is inviolable and declares its protection as a duty of the state. The following text explores the concept of human dignity as "a right to have rights" that can be derived from this constitutional passage. References to different decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court reveal the importance and complexity of this concept and its meaning for the understanding and interpretation of the German Constitution as such. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author focuses on the verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany or Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) in which it identified the European Union (EU) as a Staatenverbund or an association of sovereign states. He notes that the verdict, called the Lissabon-Urteil, over the compatibility of the Treaty of Lisbon with the Constitution has initiated a fundamental debate about the nature of the EU. He discusses whether the EU can be classified other than a union of states.

Copyright of Law & Politics in Africa, Asia & Latin America / Verfassung und Recht in Übersee (VRÜ) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)