The PSPP Judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Slovenian Constitutional System
Abstract
The BVerfG’s judgment on the PSPP marks another important part of the EU constitutional mosaic. It was the first time that the court declared an EU act ultra vires. Intense academic commentary ensued, mostly adopting a critical attitude towards the judgment. However, a summary rejection of the underlying idea of an exceptional national constitutional review of EU acts does not seem warranted. Unconditional primacy has been disputed by different national courts for some time now, and on two occasions, national apex courts already declared EU acts ultra vires. Considering its inherent diversity, the EU should be able to accommodate legitimate national constitutional concerns. A common frame of reference, possibly provided by Art. 4(2) TEU, could facilitate such accommodation if very high standards of violation were adopted by national courts, which would also respect the principle of loyal cooperation. In this regard, EU law also marks red lines when it comes to its fundamental principles, limiting the possibility of abuse. The Slovenian Constitution introduces EU law through Art. 3a, adopted for the purpose of accession to the EU. The Slovenian Constitutional Court's case law is generally very EU-friendly, and it could be marked by cooperative vagueness, echoing the doctrines of the CJEU. A clear answer regarding the relationship between national (constitutional) law and EU law is lacking in its jurisprudence. The court explicitly left the question of absolute primacy open. The substantive preconditions for the transfer of sovereign rights in Art. 3a, namely, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law, have been interpreted in different ways in academia. However, considering the inalienable right to self-determination, in exceptional cases of serious encroachment on fundamental constitutional values, the SCC would probably adopt its version of the BVerfG’s doctrines.
References
de Abreu Duarte, F. and Delgado, M. M. (2020) ‘It’s the Autonomy (Again, Again and Again), Stupid! Autonomy Between Constitutional Orders and the Definition of a Judicial Last Word’, Verfassungsblog, 6 June. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/its-the-autonomy-again-again-and-again-stupid/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Accetto, M. (2013) ‘Odločbe ustavnih sodišč o naravi in mejah prava EU’, in Pavčnik, M. and Novak, A. (eds) (Ustavno)sodno odločanje. Ljubljana: GV Založba, d.o.o, pp. 419–467.
Albi, A. (2010) ‘Constitutional Changes and Challenges in the New Member States’, in Łazowski, A. (ed.) The application of EU law in the new member states: Brave new world. The Hague: Asser, pp. 67–97.
Avbelj, M. (2010) ‘Trajni in neusahljivi temelj slovenske državnosti?’, Dignitas, (45/46), pp. 140–150.
Avbelj, M. (2011) ‘Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law-(Why) Does it Matter?: Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law’, European Law Journal, 17(6), pp. 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00560.x
Avbelj, M. (2012a) ‘Slovensko ustavno pravo v odnosu do prava EU’, in Kaučič, I. (ed.) Dvajset let Ustave Republike Slovenije: pomen ustavnosti in ustavna demokracija. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta, Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije, pp. 341–351.
Avbelj, M. (2012b) ‘Ustavni pluralizem v EU in Sloveniji’, Pravna praksa, (21), p. 6.
Avbelj, M. (2013) ‘Differentiated Integration—Farewell to the EU-27?’, German Law Journal, 14(1), pp. 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200001760
Avbelj, M. (2019) ‘3.a člen’, in Avbelj, M. (ed.) Komentar ustave Republike Slovenije, I. del. Nova Gorica: Evropska Pravna Fakulteta, pp. 66–74.
Avbelj, M. (2020) ‘Constitutional Pluralism and Authoritarianism’, German Law Journal, 21(5), pp. 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.56
Avbelj, M. and Trstenjak, V. (2019) ‘3.a člen’, in Avbelj, M. (ed.) Komentar ustave Republike Slovenije, II. del. Nova Gorica: Evropska Pravna Fakulteta, pp. 64–71.
Baranski, M., Brito Bastos, F. and van den Brink, M. (2020) ‘Unquestioned supremacy still begs the question’, Verfassungsblog, 29 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/unquestioned-supremacy-still-begs-the-question/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Bardutzky, S. (2007) ‘Kritični pogled na vlogo nacionalnih ustav v pravu Evropske unije’, Pravosodni bilten, (3), pp. 21–33.
Bardutzky, S. (2019) ‘The Future Mandate of the Constitution of Slovenia: A Potent Tradition Under Strain’, in Albi, A. and Bardutzky, S. (eds) National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law: National Reports. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 687–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-273-6_15
Besselink, L. F. M. (2010) ‘National and constitutional identity before and after Lisbon’, Utrecht Law Review, 6(3), p. 36. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.139
Besselink, L. F. M. et al. (2014) National constitutional avenues for further EU integration. Luxembourg: Publications Office, Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union, European Parliament.
von Bogdandy, A. and Schill, S. (2011) ‘Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty’, Common Market Law Review, 48(5), pp. 1417–1453. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011057
Calliess, C. (2019) ‘Constitutional Identity in Germany’, in Calliess, C. and van der Schyff, G. (eds) Constitutional Identity in a Europe of Multilevel Constitutionalism. 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616256.008
Cerar, M. (2003a) ‘O nujnosti sprejetja novega 3.a člena ustave’, Evro Pravna praksa, (1), pp. 6–7.
Cerar, M. (2003b) ‘Spremembe Ustave in EU: Ustavna podlaga za prenos suverenosti in za vstop v obrambne zveze’, Podjetje in delo, (6–7), pp. 1463–1474.
Cerar, M. (2011) ‘3.a člen’, in Šturm, L. (ed.) Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije, Dopolnitev – A. Kranj: Fakulteta za podiplomske državne in evropske študije, pp. 73–84.
Claes, M. (2005) ‘Constitutionalizing Europe at its Source: The “European Clauses” in the National Constitutions: Evolution and Typology’, Yearbook of European Law, 24(1), pp. 81–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/24.1.81
Court of Justice of the European Union (2020) ‘Press release No 58/20’, 8 May. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-05/cp200058en. pdf (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
De Witte, B. (2011) ‘Direct Effect, Primacy and the Nature of the Legal Order’, in De Búrca, G. and Craig, P. (eds) The evolution of EU law. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 323–362.
Denham, S. and Burke, G. (2009) ‘Constitutional Courts and the Lisbon Treaty’, Irish Journal of European Law, 16(1 and 2), pp. 93–130.
Dobbs, M. (2014) ‘Sovereignty, Article 4(2) TEU and the Respect of National Identities: Swinging the Balance of Power in Favour of the Member States?’, Yearbook of European Law, 33(1), pp. 298–334. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yeu024
Eleftheriadis, P. (2020) ‘Germany’s Failing Court’, Verfassungsblog, 18 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/germanys-failing-court/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
European Central Bank (2020a) Asset purchase programmes. Available at: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/index.en.html (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
European Central Bank (2020b) ‘ECB takes note of German Federal Constitutional Court ruling and remains fully committed to its mandate’, 5 May. Available at: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2020/html/ecb.pr200505~00a09107a9.en.html (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
European Commission (2020) ‘Statement by President von der Leyen’, 10 May. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_20_846 (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Fabbrini, F. (2020) ‘Suing the BVerfG’, Verfassungsblog, 13 May. Available at: https:// verfassungsblog.de/suing-the-bverfg/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Galetta, D.-U. (2020) ‘Karlsruhe über alles? The Reasoning On The Principle Of Proportionality In The Judgment Of 5 May 2020 Of The German BVerfG and Its Consequences’, CERIDAP, 8 May. Available at: https://ceridap.eu/karlsruhe-uberalles-the-reasoning-on-the-principle-of-proportionality-in-the-judgment-of-5-may2020-of-the-german-bverfg-and-its-consequences/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Garner, O. (2020) ‘Squaring the PSPP Circle: How a “declaration of incompatibility” can reconcile the supremacy of EU law with respect for national constitutional identity’, Verfassungsblog, 22 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/squaringthe-pspp-circle/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Guastaferro, B. (2012) ‘Beyond the Exceptionalism of Constitutional Conflicts: The Ordinary Functions of the Identity Clause’, Yearbook of European Law, 31(1), pp. 263–318.https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yes022
Halmai, G. (2018) ‘Abuse of Constitutional Identity. The Hungarian Constitutional Court on Interpretation of Article E) (2) of the Fundamental Law’, Review of Central and East European Law, 43(1), pp. 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04301002
Hassemer, W. (2004) ‘Položaj ustavnih sodišč po vključitvi v Evropsko unijo: Praksa nemškega Zveznega ustavnega sodišča’, Revus. Translated by A. Jerše, (3), pp. 33–43. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.1651
Hillion, C. (2016) ‘Overseeing the Rule of Law in the EU: Legal Mandate and Means’, in Closa, C. and Kochenov, D. (eds) Reinforcing Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316258774.005
Hoffmeister, F. (2007) ‘Constitutional Implications of EU Membership: A View from the Commission’, Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.3935/cyelp.03.2007.29
Jakab, A. and Sonnevend, P. (2020) ‘The Bundesbank is under a legal obligation to
ignore the PSPP Judgment of the Bundesv erfassungs gericht’, Verfassungsblog, 25
May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-bundesbank-is-under-a-legal
obligationto-ignore-the-pspp-judgment-of-the-bundesverfassungsgericht/
(Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Jambrek, P. (2011) ‘3. člen’, in Štrum, L. (ed.) Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije: Dopolnitev – A. Kranj: Fakulteta za podiplomske državne in evropske študije, pp. 48–58.
Jambrek, P. (2012) ‘Iskanje neusahljivega vira slovenske državnosti ter njegove ustavne identitete’, in Kaučič, I. (ed.) Dvajset let Ustave Republike Slovenije: pomen ustavnosti in ustavna demokracija. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta, Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije, pp. 23–33.
Jóźwicki, W. (2020) ‘Ultra vires and constitutional identity control – apples and oranges or two drops of water? Some remarks on the possible role of the New Mixed Chamber of the Court of Justice in the context of the “sequential” model of adjudication on art. 4(2) TEU’, Verfassungsblog, 15 June. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/ultra-vires-and-constitutional-identity-control-apples-and-oranges-ortwo-drops-of-water/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Kelemen, D. R. et al. (2020) ‘National Courts Cannot Override CJEU Judgments: A Joint Statement in Defense of the EU Legal Order’, Verfassungsblog, 26 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/national-courts-cannot-override-cjeu-judgments/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Kelemen, D. R. and Pech, L. (2018) ‘Why autocrats love constitutional identity and constitutional pluralism: Lessons from Hungary and Poland’, Working Paper No. 2. Available at: https://reconnect-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/RECONNECTWorkingPaper2-Kelemen-Pech-LP-KO.pdf.
Komárek, J. (2012) ‘Czech Constitutional Court Playing with Matches: the Czech Constitutional Court Declares a Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU Ultra Vires; Judgment of 31 January 2012, Pl. ÚS 5/12, Slovak Pensions XVII’, European Constitutional Law Review, 8(2), pp. 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019612000193
Kos, M. (2019) ‘The Relevance of National Identity in European Union Law and Its Potential for Instrumentalisation’, Zbornik Znanstvenih Razprav, 79, pp. 41–69.
Krunke, H. and Klinge, S. (2018) ‘The Danish Ajos Case: The Missing Case from Maastricht and Lisbon’, European Papers – A Journal on Law and Integration, 1(3), pp. 157–182.
Łazowski, A. (ed.) (2010) The application of EU law in the new member states: Brave new world. The Hague: Asser.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-429-5
López Bofill, H. (2013) ‘What is not constitutional pluralism in the EU: National Constitutional Identity in the German Lisbon Judgment’, in Saiz Arnáiz, A. and Llivinia, C. A. (eds) National constitutional identity and European integration. Cambridge: Intersentia (Law and cosmopolitan values, 4), pp. 221–242.
MacCormick, N. (2010) ‘The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now’, European Law Journal, 1(3), pp. 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.1995.tb00031.x
Maduro, M. P. (2020a) ‘Some Preliminary Remarks on the PSPP Decision of the German Constitutional Court’, Verfassungsblog, 6 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/some-preliminary-remarks-on-the-pspp-decision-of-the-germanconstitutional-court/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Maduro, M. P. (2020b) ‘The German Constitutional Court struck a blow to EU integration. This is how we can save it’, euronews., 20 May. Available at: https://www. euronews.com/2020/05/20/german-constitutional-court-struck-blow-to-eu-integration-this-is-how-we-can-save-it-view (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Marzal, T. (2020) ‘Is the BVerfG PSPP decision “simply not comprehensible”?’, Verfassungsblog, 9 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/is-the-bverfg-psppdecision-simply-not-comprehensible/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Meier-Beck, P. (2020) ‘Ultra vires?’, D’KART, 11 May. Available at: https://www.d-kart. de/en/blog/2020/05/11/ultra-vires/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Nerad, S. (2012) ‘Recepcija prave Evropske unije v nacionalno ustavno pravo: Ustavno sodišče med pravom Evropske unije in Ustavo’, in Kaučič, I. (ed.) Dvajset let Ustave Republike Slovenije: pomen ustavnosti in ustavna demokracija. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta, Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije, pp. 379–392.
Novak, M. (2004) ‘Slovenska ustavna identiteta v primežu Evropskega prava – Preliminarna razmišljanja’, Revus, (2), pp. 95–115. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.1562
Nowag, J. (2020) ‘The BVerfG’s Proportionality Review in the PSPP Judgment and its Link to Ultra Vires and Constitutional Core: Solange Babel’s Tower Has Not Been Finalised’, SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: https://www.ssrn.com/ abstract=3634218 (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Reestman, J.-H. (2009) ‘The Franco-German Constitutional Divide: Reflection on National and Constitutional Identity’, European Constitutional Law Review, 5(3), pp. 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019609003745
Ribičič, C. (2005) ‘The European Dimension of the Decision-Making of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia’, EIF Working Papers Series, (19/2005), pp. 4–14.
Ribičič, C. (2006) ‘Položaj slovenske ustave po vključitvi v EU’, Pravna praksa, (29–30), p. 22.
Rideau, J. (2013) ‘The case-law of the Polish, Hungarian and Czech Constitutional
Courts on National Identity and the” German Model”’, in Saiz Arnáiz, A. and Llivinia, C. A. (eds) National constitutional identity and European integration. Cambridge: Intersentia (Law and cosmopolitan values, 4), pp. 243–261.
Schimmelfennig, F., Leuffen, D. and Rittberger, B. (2015) ‘The European Union as a system of differentiated integration: interdependence, politicization and differentiation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 22(6), pp. 764–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1020835
Stein, E. (1981) ‘Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution’, American Journal of International Law, 75(1), pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2201413
Strumia, F. (2020) ‘When Managed Recognition Turns into Outright Denial: Where to for EU inter-court relations after the BVerfG PSPP judgment?’, Verfassungsblog, 18 May. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/when-managed-recognition-turns-intooutright-denial/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Testen, F. (2003) ‘Tretji odstavek 3. a člena: res (pre)velika razpoka v ustavi?’, Podjetje in delo, (6–7), pp. 1484–1493.
Testen, F. (2011) ‘3.a člen’, in Štrum, L. (ed.) Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije: Dopolnitev – A. Kranj: Fakulteta za podiplomske državne in evropske študije, pp. 89–95.
Tomuschat, C. (2013) ‘The Defence of National Identity by the German Constitutional Court’, in Sáiz Arnaiz, A. and Alcoberro Llivina, C. (eds) National constitutional identity and European integration. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 205–219.
Torres Pérez, A. (2009) Conflicts of rights in the European Union: a theory of supranational adjudication. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (Oxford studies in European law). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568710.001.0001
Torres Pérez, A. (2012) ‘Spanish Constitutional Court, Constitutional Dialogue on the European Arrest Warrant: The Spanish Constitutional Court Knocking on Luxembourg’s Door; Spanish Constitutional Court, Order of 9 June 2011, ATC 86/2011’, European Constitutional Law Review, 8(1), pp. 105–127.
Torres Pérez, A. (2013) ‘Constitutional Identity and Fundamental Rights: The Intersection Between Articles 4(2) TEU and 53 Charter’, in Saiz Arnáiz, A. and Llivinia, C. A. (eds) National constitutional identity and European integration. Cambridge: Intersentia (Law and cosmopolitan values, 4), pp. 141–157.
Trstenjak, V. (2012) ‘The Principle of Primacy in EU Law and the Role of the Constitutional Courts’, in Kaučič, I. (ed.) Dvajset let Ustave Republike Slovenije: Pomen ustavnosti in ustavna demokracija. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta, Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije, pp. 263–277.
Tuytschaever, F. (1999) Differentiation in European Union law. Oxford: Hart.
Utrilla, D. (2020) ‘Insight: “Three months after Weiss: Was nun?”’, EU Law Live, 5 August. Available at: https://eulawlive.com/three-months-after-weiss-was-nun/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Viterbo, A. (2020) ‘The PSPP Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court: Throwing Sand in the Wheels of the European Central Bank’, European Papers, 5(1), pp. 671–685.
Watson, E. and Downing-Ide, J. (2020) ‘“Incomprehensible and arbitrary”: Germany’s constitutional court strikes back against the ECB and CJEU’, ILA Reporter, 6 April. Available at: http://ilareporter.org.au/2020/06/incomprehensible-and-arbitrarygermanys-constitutional-court-strikes-back-against-the-ecb-and-cjeu-edwardwatson-and-jessica-downing-ide/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Weiler, J. H. H. and Sarmiento, D. (2020) ‘The EU Judiciary After Weiss: Proposing A New Mixed Chamber of the Court of Justice’, Verfassungsblog, 2 June. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-eu-judiciary-after-weiss/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
de Witte, B. (2018) ‘An undivided Union? Differentiated integration in post-Brexit times’, Common Market Law Review, 55(2/3), pp. 227–250. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2018065
Zagorc, S. and Bardutzky, S. (2010) ‘The Application of the EU Law in Slovenia: Teething Trouble of the Blue-eyed Boy’, in Łazowski, A. (ed.) The application of EU law in the new member states: Brave new world. The Hague: Asser, pp. 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-429-5_14
Zagorc, S. and Fajdiga, M. (2018) ‘The Principle of Consistent Interpretation in Slovenia: Inconsistently Consistent or Consistently Inconsistent?’, in Franklin, C. (ed.) Effectiveness and Application of EU and EEA Law in National Courts. Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia, pp. 411–449. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780688022.013
Zalar, B. (2005) ‘Prve izkušnje sodišča in sodnikovi pogledi na uporabo prava Evropske unije’, Pravna praksa, (6), p. 14.
Zalar, B. (2010) ‘Ustavnopravna presoja pred rednimi sodišči: primer prakse Upravnega sodišča’, Pravosodni bilten, 31(1), pp. 171–186.
Ziller, J. (2020) ‘The unbearable heaviness of the German constitutional judge. On the judgment of the Second Chamber of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020 concerning the European Central Bank’s PSPP programme’, CERIDAP, 7 May. Available at: https://ceridap.eu/the-unbearable-heaviness-of-the-german-constitutional-judge-on-the-judgment-of-the-second-chamber-of-the-german-federalconstitutional-court-of-5-may-2020-concerning-the-european-central-banks-pspp/ (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
Zwingmann, B. (2012) ‘The continuing Myth of Euro-Scepticism? the German federal constitutional court two years after Lisbon’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61(3), pp. 665–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589312000279
