Unione europea

This article analyses the recent decision of the German Constitutional Court, where it considered that the PSPP (Public Sector Purchase Programme) adopted by the ECB (European Central Bank) was ultra vires. The author undertakes an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the constitutional courts of the Member States, also touching upon the fundamental principles of EU law underpinning such judicial cooperation, which is one of the main features of the Union’s judicial architecture. Such analysis leads to the conclusion that the German Constitutional Court misconstrued, inter alia, the principles of conferral and proportionality and threatened the very foundations of the EU legal order, of its integrity and autonomy, by replacing judicial cooperation with judicial confrontation and by ignoring the principle of equality of Member States before the Treaties and the principle of sincere cooperation between the Union and its Member States. Moreover, the decision of the German Constitutional Court defies the exclusive competences conferred to the ECJ by the Treaties, thus undermining the rule of law at the heart of the European Union. It also seriously endangers the independence of the ECB and the ESCB, including the Bundesbank, in performing their tasks in the field of monetary policy. Some final words are devoted to an assessment of the immediate consequences of the judgment, as well as possible ways to overcome it.

Continua a leggere

The judgment of the German Constitutional Court was necessarily expected as such, but it had undergone a lengthy preparation: since its Maastricht and Lisbon Treaty judgements, the BVerfG had indeed laid the groundwork which enabled to unfold its reasoning it in Weiss. They are two: standing for appeal and arguments to put forward . Overall, one can indeed regret the decision’s weaknesses in reasoning, to the point of where the BVerfG falls into ultra vires. In terms of legal theory, the judgement puts a fundamental debate back on the agenda, namely monism v. pluralism.

Continua a leggere

The authors present their proposal, written in the form of a Position Paper, for the creation of a Mixed Chamber at the Court of Justice as a means, in part, of addressing the issues highlighted by the May 5th Weiss decision of the German Constitutional Court. This Chamber, to be composed of sitting members of the Court of Justice of the EU alongside judges of constitutional courts of the Member States, would have jurisdiction to solve, in last instance, conflicts of competence between the Union and its Member States.

Continua a leggere

A few weeks ago, we published a proposal, in the form of a Position Paper, for the creation of a Mixed Chamber at the Court of Justice as a means, in part, of addressing the issues highlighted by the May 5th Weiss decision of the German Constitutional Court. This Chamber, to be composed of sitting members of the Court of Justice of the EU alongside judges of constitutional courts of the Member States, would have jurisdiction to solve, in last instance, conflicts of competence between the Union and its Member States. The full details may be found here in the original Position Paper (republished on CERIDAP.eu). The proposal has stirred a lively debate and produced constructive comments and critiques from colleagues and friends from many quarters. We are honored by the attention received and the best way to acknowledge our critics is by providing reasoned replies to their comments. We received two kinds of remarks: Macro and Micro. The Macro critiques target the proposal’s convenience and its general defects in the broad sense. These are principled critiques that deserve also a principled reply. At the Micro level we received detailed inquiries into specific aspects of the proposal, questioning a particular point here or there. We will address most of them accordingly. We will end with a more elaborate description of some of the procedural aspects of our Proposal which consider several of the comments we have been receiving.

Continua a leggere

Dal punto di vista del diritto dell’Unione europea è la prima volta che il BVerfG mette in atto la sua minaccia di non attuare le decisioni della Corte di giustizia UE, già contenuta già in diverse sue precedenti sentenze e, in particolare, nella sua sentenza sul Trattato di Lisbona del 2009. L’argomentare dei giudici di Karlsruhe rivela, tuttavia, lacune e veri propri errori in diritto. Qui di seguito farò dunque riferimento, anzitutto, agli errori giuridici a mio parere più rilevanti (par. II). Dirò poi brevemente anche delle conseguenze delle violazioni del diritto UE da parte della Germania che la sentenza implica (par. III).

Continua a leggere

La direttiva 50/2009 ha istituito una rapida procedura di ammissione per i lavoratori altamente qualificati provenienti da paesi terzi, ma a più di dieci anni dalla sua adozione i risultati sperati non sono stati conseguiti e si è manifestata in maniera sempre più pressante la necessità di una riforma. La Germania è stata l’unico Stato europeo ad aver sfruttato le potenzialità dello strumento della Blue Card. Dall’analisi dei dati emerge che nel successo tedesco ha giocato un ruolo fondamentale il sistema universitario e la capacità del Paese di attirare studenti internazionali. La maggior parte dei titolari di Carta Blu è infatti entrata nel Paese con un visto per motivi di studio ed ha successivamente convertito il proprio titolo di soggiorno.

Continua a leggere

Il destino delle spiagge, nell’approssimarsi della piena stagione estiva, può essere un argomento di interesse che ripropone interrogativi insoluti dal punto di vista del rapporto, spesso pieno di contraddizioni, tra diritto amministrativo nazionale e principi dell’ordinamento europeo. Vi è dunque la necessità di dettare disposizioni chiare e precise per permettere lo svolgimento della stagione estiva in tutta sicurezza, sia per gli operatori sia per i turisti, ricordando anche la necessità di superare l’inerzia del legislatore per quanto riguarda il riordino della materia relativamente all’assegnazione dei titoli concessori in scadenza, sulla base dei principi di evidenza pubblica stabiliti dai Trattati europei e dalla Direttiva servizi (123/2006/CE) nel cui campo di applicazione rientrano le concessioni demaniali marittime (lacuali e fluviali). L’emergenza potrebbe dunque rappresentare il momento propizio per adottare misure che tengano conto delle situazioni specifiche al fine di tutelare anche il legittimo affidamento dei titolari delle concessioni, sempre nel rispetto di quanto già affermato dai giudici europei a seguito del un rinvio pregiudiziale in cause riunite C-458/14 e C-67/15, Promoimpresa e sig. Melis. Altresì, sulla base delle disposizioni suggerite dai comitati di tecnici per quanto riguarda le misure di contenimento del contagio da Covid19 che interessano direttamente anche il settore balneare, si possono operare delle riflessioni sull’ “amministrazione dell'emergenza”. Le decisioni necessarie a fronteggiare la crisi debbono sicuramente essere ispirate dal principio di precauzione, ma debbono anche rispettare il principio di proporzionalità di modo da limitare ricadute inadeguate su altri interessi, tra cui le ripercussioni sulla tenuta del mercato unico europeo (dei servizi).

Continua a leggere

This article analyses the recent decision of the German Constitutional Court, where it considered that the PSPP (Public Sector Purchase Programme) adopted by the ECB (European Central Bank) was ultra vires. The author undertakes an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the constitutional courts of the Member States, also touching upon the fundamental principles of EU law underpinning such judicial cooperation, which is one of the main features of the Union’s judicial architecture. Such analysis leads to the conclusion that the German Constitutional Court misconstrued, inter alia, the principles of conferral and proportionality and threatened the very foundations of the EU legal order, of its integrity and autonomy, by replacing judicial cooperation with judicial confrontation and by ignoring the principle of equality of Member States before the Treaties and the principle of sincere cooperation between the Union and its Member States. Moreover, the decision of the German Constitutional Court defies the exclusive competences conferred to the ECJ by the Treaties, thus undermining the rule of law at the heart of the European Union. It also seriously endangers the independence of the ECB and the ESCB, including the Bundesbank, in performing their tasks in the field of monetary policy. Some final words are devoted to an assessment of the immediate consequences of the judgment, as well as possible ways to overcome it

Continua a leggere

The judgment of 5 May 2020 of the Zweiter Senat of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, to the extent that it expresses the German constitutional judge's claim to assess the legality of the ECB's decisions on the basis of the principles of attribution and proportionality, is more than questionable in point of law. Furthermore, it is extremely dangerous: and not only because it implies that the Zweiter Senat ultimately refuses, on the basis of the democratic principle and the control of the Union's competences, the uniformity of application of EU law. But also because it appears as the glaring demonstration of a form of “cultural bullying” many complain about, and which emerges in a crystal clear way in the reasoning carried out on proportionality. This is an attitude which, in the contingency caused by the COVID-19 emergency, could have truly tragic consequences for the future of the European Union.

Continua a leggere

The reasoning of the German Constitutional Court judges to prohibit the Bundesbank from buying Sate securities on the secondary market if the ECB does not demonstrate within three months the proportionality of its decisions under the PSPP programme is not sustainable. Instead, the judges, who demonstrate unfounded intellectual arrogance in their claim to interpret EU law, make manifest errors in applying the principle of proportionality to the delimitation of competences between the Union and the Member States. They also make methodological errors in their application of the principle of proportionality to ECB decisions, while highlighting their prejudices in the field of monetary and economic policy.

Continua a leggere