The Maastricht-Urteil of the German Constitutional Court of October 1993 has left a deep mark on EU law. Although some may consider it as part of legal history, the decision has never been overruled, and the ideas behind it are very much alive. This article tries to examine the legacy of that decision. From a practical point of view, the article focuses on the following issues: the current situation in Germany; the influence on other constitutional or supreme courts and on constitutional reforms in some Member States; the influence on the European Court of Justice and on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Regarding theory, three sections of the article discuss a number of widespread 'idées reçues' contained in the Maastricht-Urteil on notions such as the state, constituent power (pouvoir constituant ), and democracy. The next section presents the movement of legal pluralism as an attempt to come to terms with the MaastrichtUrteil and its legacy. It criticises the radical versions of legal pluralism in view of the damage they may cause to essential dimensions of the rule of law. The final section reflects on the real motives behind the Maastricht-Urteil and its legacy, and on possible future developments.
This book discusses the impact of the difficult situation the European Union is currently going through on some structural elements of its legal order, looking for symptoms of decay, exploring examples of resistance, and assessing its overall state of health. The original choices made by the drafters of the Treaties and by the Court of Justice are put in their proper historical perspective, understanding Union law as a tool of civilization, and explaining its current problems, at least in part, as a consequence of the waning of the initial impetus behind integration. The concrete themes to be explored are the following: primacy, the national resistance to it and constitutional pluralism; the preliminary rulings procedure; Union citizenship, equality, and human dignity; the scope of the Charter and the standard of protection of fundamental rights; and the rigidity and fragmentation of the Union system in connection with the recent occasional use of international law as an alternative to Union law. The book looks at the development of the law throughout the decades, inevitably losing much detail, but hopefully also uncovering structural connections and continuities.
This concluding chapter reviews how the grave crisis that has been haunting the Union has exposed the fragility of the European construction, and among all its elements the impermanence of its law, which many see as an remnant from the past—an obstacle that prevents the Member States from returning to the dubious paradise of unfettered sovereignty. This explains all the pressures exerted to transform integration and its law into a more flexible framework of cooperation. The chapter recalls the reasons for preserving a robust supranational rule of law in the Union and explores the conditions required to make it possible.
The process through which the founding Treaties of the European Communities came to function and be regarded as a constitution and the role of the Court of Justice in that process are well known. According to a widespread view, the Court would have been the main or even the only actor in the constitutionalization of the Treaties, transforming them into constitutional entities by virtue of some judgments of the 60s and 70s. For many, in those judgments the Court would have been excessively prointegrationist, too audacious, almost “running wild”. At some point, a number of constitutional courts, in particular the German Constitutional Court with its Maastricht decision of 1993, would have voiced their concerns, tracing potential limits to judicially driven integration. As a result, the Court of the 90s would have become wiser, more self-restrained, at times even minimalistic – more like a court and less like an omnipotent legislator or “pouvoir constituent.” With the calling of the European Convention and the drafting of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the Court would have been more than ever on a second plane, as if constitutional matters had finally returned to the political actors to which they belong.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.