Case Notes
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1201900406 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
554 19 MJ 4 (2012)
CASE NOTES
‘Start the Eng ines’
Comment on the ESM-judgment of the Germa n Federal Constitutiona l Court of
12September 2012
Frank Schorkopf*
§1. GREAT EXPECTATIONS IN THE GREAT CRISIS
In early June 2012, the British magazine e Economist ran the headline ‘Start the
engines, Angela’. e front page showed a sinking ship, representi ng the world economy.
e vessel had already su nk with the crew on the bridge, waiting for the Chancel lor’s
order to start the engine s again.1
Over the last weeks and months of t he Great Crisis of the European Union, the
world’s attention has been focused on Germany’s Federal Const itutional Court – t he
Bundesverfassungsgericht. On September 12th the Court del ivered its judgment2 regardi ng
the preliminar y injunctions procedure on the constitutiona lity of two EU-related treaties
as well as the national accompa nying laws. Under scrutiny were the Treaty Establishing
the European Stabil ity Mechanism (TESM) and the Fiscal C ompact Treaty (FC).3
At rst g lance what came was expected by commentators a nd the participants in the
oral hear ing on 10 July.4 Germany will be able to complete the rati cation process of
both treaties and the Federal Government wil l deposit the instruments of rati cation,
* Chair of Public L aw and European Law at the Universit y of Goettingen. A n earlier German version of
this comment wa s published in the 31 Neue Zeitschr i für Verwaltungs recht 20 (2012), p.1273–1277. I
am gratefu l to Joel Herok and Pia Cara zo-Klein for their supp ort.
1 e Economist, ‘St art the engines, Angela’, 9 June 2012; since the b eginning of the nancial ma rket
crisis in the second half of 2007, ve issues in tot al mentioned the Ge rman Chancel lor in the main
heading.
2 ESM Case, BVerfG, 2 BvR 1390/12 , 2 BvR 1421/12, 2 BvR 1438/12, 2 BvR 1439/12, 2 BvR 1440/12 and
2 BvE 6/12, of 12 September 2012, ava ilable at: ww w.bundesverfa ssungsgericht.d e/entscheidungen/
rs20120912_2bv r139012.html (last v isited 2 November 2012); citation s are to the Cour t’s uno cial
abridged Engli sh translat ion, available at: w ww.bundesverf assungsgericht .de/entscheidungen/
rs20120912_2bv r139012en.html (last vis ited 2November 2012).
3 Treaty establish ing the Europea n Stability Mecha nism, 2February 2 012, BT-Drs. 17/9045, 6 et seq. and
Treaty on Stabilit y, Coordination and G overnance in the E conomic and Monetar y Union, 2 March
2012, BT-Drs. 17/9046, 6 et seq.
4 For speci c expectations compar e Federal Min ister for Finance, W. Schäuble, 3Septembe r 2012 in
Hannover: ‘Wir haben k einen Plan B und den brauche n wir auch nicht’ (a quotation from w ww.heute.
de (last visit ed 2Nove mber 2012)); Reuters, ‘Verfassungsex perten erw arten grü nes Licht für E SM’,
7September 2 012; President of the European Parlia ment, M. Schulz, Handelsb latt, 8Se ptember 2012
(online issue).
Case Notes
19 MJ 4 (2012) 555
thus removing the last obstacle to the treaties entering into force. e Fiscal Compact is
scheduled to do so at the begin ning of 2013, whereas the ESM alre ady entered into force
on 8October5 – the ‘rescue engine’ ca n start running.
e judgment is to be placed in t he context of two overlapping lines of jurisprudence
by the FCC’s Second Senate: First, the case law relati ng to European integration6 and
secondly on the ve – to date – decisions regarding the ‘Euro rescue’.7 e c urrent ruling
continues this jurispr udence and thus develops German constit utional law in the expec ted
manner. However, despite this the Court has also raised new and important points for
discussion. For the rst time in the jurisprudence on the rati cation of international
treaties the Court dema nds that a particular treaty interpretation is binding upon the
Parties.
In addition, the Court a nnounces that a more substantia l decision in the main
proceedings wil l follow. e explicit statements in the judgment that the nal decision
will be of substantial relevance, as well as the mention that particular questions will be
dealt with in the main proceedings,8 emphasize the Court’s role in current a airs and
keep it as a weighty player in the ongoing ‘Euro rescue’.
§2. KEY STATEMENTS AND FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
e FCC examines the merits of the constitutional complaints insofar as they are
supposed to be a substantial v iolation of the rights under Ar ticle 38(1), 20(1) and (2)
in conjunction with Ar ticle 79(3) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG). is
condition of admissibilit y was met only for the complaints arguing that t he treaties and
their internal accompany ing laws interfere with the budgetary autonomy of the German
Bundestag. In one case the parlia mentary group Die Linke argued that by ratifying the
treaties the Bundestag would entail a loss of its overall budgeta ry responsibility, the
sovereign power, thereby constituting a violation of the citizens’ right to determine
public authority in equal ity and freedom under Article38(1)[2] GG. e Court declared
all other complaints i n the altogether six joint cases as inad missible.
5 Statement by the President of t he Eurogroup of 12September 2012 avai lable at: www.consi lium.europa.
eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/eco n/132376.pdf (l ast visited 2November 2012).
6 BVerfGE 37, 271 – Solange I (1974); 73, 339 – Solange II (1986); 89, 155 – Maastricht (1993), English
translation s: BVerfG, 1 Common Market Law Review 57 (1994); BVerfG, 33 Internation al Legal
Materials 388 (1994); 102, 147 – Bananenmarkt (2000); 113, 273 – Europäischer Ha befehl (2000); 123,
267 – Lissabon (2009) and BVerfGE 126, 28 6 – Honeywell/Mangold (2 010).
7 BVerfGE 126, 158 – Euro-Rettungsschirm, eA (2010); BVerfG, Judgment of 19 June 2011, 2 BvE 4/11
– BT-Beteili gung ESM-Vertrag; BVerfGE 129, 124 – Euro-Ret tungsschirm, Hauptsache (2011) = NJW
2011, 2946; BVerfG, Decision of 27Oc tober 2011, 2 BvE 8/11 – StabMechG, eA; BVerfG, Judgment of
28Februar y 2012, 2 BvE 8/11 – StabMechG, Hauptsache.
8 ESM Case, BVerfG, 2 BvR 1390/12 , 2 BvR 1421/12, 2 BvR 1438/12, 2 BvR 1439/12, 2 BvR 1440/12 and 2
BvE 6/12, para. 202 , 280 and 293.
Case Notes
556 19 MJ 4 (2012)
A. ARTICLE1363 TFEU NEW
e FCC’s rst substantial argu ment concerns the act through which a new article
is introduced in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).9
Article 136(3) TFEU allows the establishment of a stability mechanism between the
Eurozone states on the basis of internat ional law, complementary to primary EU law. is
new provision is regarded as an expression of sovereignty by the Member States.10 e
Court reart iculates with thi s argument its modern concept of ‘sovereignty’11 promi nently
placed in its Lisbon judgment of 2009. Supranational as well as intergovernmental
commitments cannot be seen as an encroachment upon statehood – an approach which
has nevert heless been criticiz ed ercely by some scholars in the a ermath of the Lisbon
judgment.12 It i s st rik ing t hat i n th e rele vant pass ages , th e Sen ate pa rti cul arly stre sses the
importance of stabil ity for the Monetary Union. e Court continues its a rgumentation
on the premise that Art icle136(3) TFEU and the ESM are a counterweight to the exi sting
stability architec ture. However, the potential risk of dimi nishing price stabil ity caused
by the new stability mechanism falls within parliament’s discretion. e Court would
have to respect such a decision.13 Moreover, the FCC does not discuss a ny further the
systematic e ects of the new ar ticle on the existing legal f ramework of the chapter on the
European Moneta ry Union.
B. ESM
e exam ination of the ESM Treaty is the main part of the judg ment. e Treaty ar ticles
are examined under the auspices developed by the FCC in its judgment of September
2011 on the ‘Euro rescue package’.14 In that particular case, the overall budgeta ry
9 European Cou ncil Decision of 25March 2011 amendi ng Article136 of the Treaty on t he Functioning
of the European Union w ith regard to a stabilit y mechanism for Member States w hose currency is the
euro, [2011] OJ L 91/1.
10 ESM Case, BVerfG, 2 BvR 1390/12 , 2 BvR 1421/12, 2 BvR 1438/12, 2 BvR 1439/12, 2 BvR 1440/12 and 2
BvE 6/12, para. 236.
11 See F. Schorkopf, ‘ e European Union as An Associat ion of Sovereign States: Karlsruhe ’s Ruling on
12 Amongst the critique i n the English l anguage see T. Gieger ich, ‘ e Federal Const itutional Cou rt’s
judgme nt on the Treat y of Lisbon’, 52 G erman Yearbo ok of Inter national L aw (2009), p.9– 43; D. ym,
‘In the Name of Sovereig n Statehood’, 46 Common Market Law Review 6 (2009), p.1795–1822; C.
Tomuschat, ‘Lisbon – Terminal of t he European Integration Pro cess?’, 70 Zeitschri für ausländisches
ö entliche s Recht und Völkerrecht 2 (2010), p.251–282; D. Halberstam a nd C. Möllers, ‘ e German
Constitutional Court says “Ja zu Deutschland !”’, 10 German Law Journal 8 (200 9), p.1241–1258; M.
Zürn, ‘Ist die Karlsruher Republik demokratisch?’, in Stolleis (ed.), Herzkammern de r Republik – Die
Deutschen und d as Bundesverfa ssungsgericht (C.H. Be ck, München 2011), p.258, 263.
13 ESM Case, BVerfG, 2 BvR 1390/12, 2 BvR 1421/12, 2 BvR 1438/12, 2 BvR 1439/12, 2 BvR 1440/12 and 2
BvE 6/12, para. 232–234, for t he passage on parlia mentary discreti on see para. 217.
14 BVerfGE 129, 124 – Euro-Rettungsschirm, Hauptsache (2011) = Neue Juristische Wochenschri (2 011),
p.2946.
To continue reading
Request your trial