Constitutional Courts and the Court of Justice, Constitutional Law and EU Law – Two Arranged Marriages and the Legal Problems Arising From Them

  • David Sehnálek Vice-dean for bachelor’s degree study and two-year follow-up master’s degree programme and Associate Professor, Department of International and European Law, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, the Czech Republic
Keywords: the preemption doctrine, federal preemption, supremacy, primacy, Court of Justice and National Courts, Constitutional Courts and EU Law, national identity

Abstract

This article addresses the question of relationship of constitutional courts to the Court of Justice in national case law; the hierarchy of these national courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU); the hierarchy of national law (constitution) and EU law and the constitutional identity as a limit of the principle of supremacy. The innovative contribution of the present article is that it distinguishes between the effects of the principle of supremacy of EU law on national courts and on national legislators. It thus provides clear and precise guidance to national judges on how to proceed in contentious cases of conflict between national and EU law. This question is not satisfactorily answered in the case law of the Court of Justice. It is also avoided in articles and most textbooks dealing with the supremacy principle. This article also addresses the possibility of a comprehensive solution to the conflict between EU and national law in extreme, but politically extremely important and sensitive, divergences between the decisions of national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice. Contrary to conventional notions, which cognise such a divergence as a serious problem and tend to deny constitutional courts the possibility of making their own independent conclusions, the author of the present article sees this as a natural consequence of the position that these courts occupy in the legal systems of the Member States. In the last part of the article, the author presents several options that constitutional courts have and can use to deal with decisions based on EU law, ranging from full acceptance of this law to its complete rejection on the grounds that EU law does not fall within the frame of reference protected by constitutional law.

References

Avbelj, M. (2011) ‘Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law-(Why) Does it Matter?’, European Law Journal, 17(6), pp. 744–763; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00560.x.

Amalfitano, C., Pollicino, O. (2018) ‘Two Courts, two Languages? The Taricco Saga Ends on a Worrying Note’, Verfassungsblog, 5 June [Online]. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/two-courts-two-languages-the-taricco-sagaends-on-a-worrying-note/ (Accessed: 22 June 2023).

Benke, K. (2023) ‘The Saga May Continue: On the Intricate Dialogue Between the Constitutional Court of Romania and the Court of Justice of the European Union’, Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 4(2), pp. 9–40; https://doi.org/10.47078/2023.2.9-40.

Bobek, M., Bříza, P., Hubková, P. (2022) Vnitrostátní aplikace práva Evropské unie. 2nd edn. Praha: C.H. Beck.

Bončková, H.K., Týč, V. (2022) ‘Článek 4 Smlouva o EU’ in Tomášek, M., Šmejkal, V. (eds.) Smlouva o fungování EU. Smlouva o EU. Listina základních práv EU. Komentář. Praha: Wolters Kluwer.

Bonelli, M. (2018) ‘The Taricco saga and the consolidation of judicial dialogue in the European Union: CJEU, C-105/14 Ivo Taricco and others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:555; and C-42/17 M.A.S., M.B., ECLI:EU:C:2017:936 Italian Constitutional Court, Order no. 24/2017’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25(3), pp. 357–373; https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X18773046.

Brown, G.W. (2014) ‘The European Union and Kant’s idea of cosmopolitan right: Why the EU is not cosmopolitan’, European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), pp. 671–693; https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113482991.

Duchek, O. (2023) ‘Princip aplikační přednosti v judikatuře Ústavního soudu Španělského království’, Právní rozhledy, 31(6), pp. 199–207.

García, M. (2017) ‘Cautious Openness: the Spanish Constitutional Court’s approach to EU law in recent national case law’, European Law Blog, 7 June [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21428/9885764c.cfec6f75 (Accessed: 15 September 2024).

Hamuľák, O. (2011) ‘Flexibilita ústavního pořá dku, právo Evropské unie a marginalia k Listině základních práv Evropské unie’ in Mlsna, P. (ed.) Ústava ČR – vznik, vývoj a perspektivy. Praha: Leges, pp. 288–308.

Hamuľák, O. (2014) ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being Guardian of the Constitution (Revolt and Revolution Dilemma in the Approach of Czech Constitutional Court Vis- à-Vis EU and Supranational Legal Order)’, European studies – The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics, 1(1), pp. 119–129.

Hamuľák, O., Sulyok, M., Kiss, L. N. (2019) ‘Measuring the ‘EU’clidean Distance between EU Law and the Hungarian Constitutional Court – Focusing on the Position of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law, 10(1), pp. 130–150.

Hamuľák, O. (2010) Právo Evropské unie v judikatuře Ústavního soudu České republiky: reflexe členství a otázek evropského práva v ústavní judikatuře. Prague: Leges.

Kosař, D., Vyhnánek, L. (2018) ‘Ústavní identita České republiky’, Právník, 157(10), pp. 854–872 [Online]. Available at: https://www.ilaw.cas.cz/upload/web/files/pravnik/issues/2018/10/6.Kosa%C5%99-Vyhn%C3%A1nek_854-872_10_2018.pdf (15 September 2024).

Křepelka, F. (2012) ‘The imperfect dismantlement of the Czechoslovak pension system as an impulse for rebellion against European Union law’, European Journal of Social Law, 2012/4, pp. 278–294.

Kühn, Z. (2005) ‘K přezkumu ústavnosti českých aktů implementujících evropské právo nejen ve vztahu k tzv. eurozatykači’, Trestněprávní revue, 4(3), pp. 57–62.

Malenovský, J. (2006) ‘K nové doktríně Ústavního soudu ČR v otázce vztahů českého, komunitárního a mezinárodního práva’, Právní rozhledy, 2006/21, pp. 774–783.

Malenovský, J. (2007) ‘Triptych zobrazování Soudního dvora ES: arbitr, „motor integrace“ nebo „velký manipulátor“?’, Právník, 2007/10, pp. 1065–1083.

Moorhead, T. (2012) ‘European Union Law as International Law’, European Journal of Legal Studies, 5(1), pp. 126–143.

Pavlík, J. (2004) ‘Kant’s idea of eternal peace and the European Union’, Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, 12(2), pp. 11–39; https://doi.org/10.18267/j.aop.254.

Sehnálek, D. (2019) Specifika výkladu práva Evropské unie a jeho vnitrostátní důsledky. Praha: C.H. Beck.

Sehnálek, D. (2020) ‘The European Perspective on the Notion of Precedent – are EU and Czech Court Decisions Source of Law?’, European Studies: The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics, 7(1), pp. 125–153; https://doi.org/10.2478/eustu-2022-0050.

Sehnálek, D. (2021) ‘Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in the Czech Republic’ in Tóth, Z. J. (ed.) Constitutional Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation: Analysis on Certain Central European Countries. Miskolc-Budapest: Ferenc Mádl Institute of Comparative Law – Central European Academic Publishing, pp. 245–300; https://doi.org/10.54237/profnet.2021.zjtcrci_4.

Sehnálek, D., Stehlík, V. (2019) ‘European “Judicial Monologue” of the Czech Constitutional Court – a Critical Review of its approach to the Preliminary Ruling Procedure’, International and Comparative Law Review, 19(2), pp. 181–199; https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2019-0020.

Scheu, H.C. (2002) ‘Koncepce komunitárního práva v praxi Evropského soudního dvora a v právní teorii’, Mezinárodní vztahy, 37(1), pp. 5–19.

Schilling, T. (1996) ‘The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: An Analysis of Possible Foundations’, Harvard International Law Journal, 1996/37, pp. 389–410.

Schütze, R. (2015) European Union Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stehlík, V., Sehnálek, D., Hamuľák, D. (2020) ‘National Report’ in Botman, M., Langer, J. (eds.) National Courts and the Enforcement of EU Law: The Pivotal Role of National Courts in the EU Legal Order. Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing, pp. 151–168.

Tichý, L., Dumbrovský, T. (2013) ‘Ústavní soud ČR mezi dvěma právními řády: od interpozice k nové evropské doktríně’, Právní rozhledy, 21(6), pp. 191–198.

Tuominen, T. (2020) ‘Reconceptualizing the Primacy–Supremacy Debate in EU Law’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 47(3), pp. 245–266; https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2020015.

Vikarská, Z. (2017) ‘O daňových podvodníkoch a ústavnej identite (Taricco II)’, Jiné Právo, 7 December [Online]. Available at: https://jinepravo.blogspot.com/2017/12/taricco-II.html (Accessed: 22 June 2023).

Vikarská, Z., Dřínovská, N. (2022) ‘Evropský zatýkací rozkaz ve stínu krize právního státu: dům postavený na písku’, Právník, 2022/12, pp. 1176–1195.

Weiler, J. H. H., Haltern, U. R. (1996) ‘The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order – Through the Looking Glass’, Harvard International Law Journal, 37(2), pp. 411–448.

Zbíral, R. (2014) ‘Koncept národní identity jako nový prvek ve vztahu vnitrostátního a unijního práva: poznatky z teorie a praxe’, Právník. 2014/2, pp. 112–133.

Zemánek, J. (2003) ‘Reforma soudnictví v Evropské unii’, Právní rozhledy, 7(9), pp. 99–117.

Published
2024-06-13
How to Cite
SehnálekD. (2024). Constitutional Courts and the Court of Justice, Constitutional Law and EU Law – Two Arranged Marriages and the Legal Problems Arising From Them. Law, Identity and Values, 4(1), 203-228. https://doi.org/10.55073/2024.1.203-228
Section
Articles