USTAVNI OTPOR PRAVU EVROPSKE UNIJE : USTAVNI SUDOVI I TEST SUKOBA USTAVNOG IDENTITETA
Abstract
Novija praksa ustavnih sudova država članica Evropske unije koja se tiče sukoba ustavnog identiteta unutar Evropske unije, naglasila je snažno približavanje nacionalnih ustavnih sudova u načinu na koji tretiraju te sukobe: čak i ako se pođe od toga da svaki sud i svaki pravni poredak u Evropi ima svoju pravnu tradiciju, zajednički trend u tretiranju ustavnog identiteta jasno je uočljiv. Cilj ovog rada je da ukaže na sve veći intenzitet otpora ustavnih sudova pravu Evropske unije i proceni ustavne implikacije tog otpora na proces evropskih integracija.
U radu se prvo analizira preliminarno pitanje pojave ustavnih narativa u procesu evropskih integracija. Ukazuje se da su ustavne tradicije i ustavni identiteti država članica gotovo prirodno zauzeli središnje mesto u evropskim integracijama, u nekim slučajevima kao njihov sastavni element, a drugim kao pandan tekućem napretku tog procesa. Da bi se analizirale ustavne komponente sistema EU, prvo se razmatra postepeni razvoj koncepta “ustavne tradicije zajedničke državama članicama” i koncepta “ustavnog identiteta”, kao osnovnih elemenata čitavog evropskog konstitutivnog procesa, zaključno sa uključivanjem posebne odredbe koja govori o nacionalnom identitetu država članica u Ugovor iz Lisabona (član 4, stav 2. Ugovora o Evropskoj uniji). Potom se razmatraju relevantni odgovori ustavnih/vrhovnih sudova iz uporedne perspektive, odnosno njihova praksa koja se tiče „rezerve ustavnog identiteta“, uključujući i praksu kontrole akata EU na osnovu „ultra vires“ doktrine , sa ciljem da se utvrde obrasci ustavnog otpora koji se mogu identifikovati u procesu evropskih integracija.
Posebna pažnja u ovom radu poklanja se odluci Saveznog Ustavnog suda Nemačke donetoj 2020. godine u predmetu PSPP, koja predstavlja vrhunac narativnog otpora ustavnih sudova pravu EU, a kojom je ovaj sud ustanovio da je Sud pravde Evropske Unije, odlukom u predmetu programa javnih nabavki Evropske centralNe banke, prekoračio nadležnost Evropske unije. Time se pokazuje da su nacionalni ustavni sudovi spremni da povuku crvene linije evropskom procesu konstitucionalizacije kad god se on dotakne osnovnih ustavnih pitanja. Zbog toga se na praksu ustavnih sudova može gledati kao na zastoj u napretku evropskih integracija.
Međutim, praksa ustavnih sudova može se posmatrati i u perspektivi dijaloga između sudova: na kraju krajeva, nacionalne ustavne sudije odlučile su da ne izbegavaju konfrontaciju sa svojim nadnacionalnim kolegama, tražeći od Suda pravde EU da interveniše kroz prethodni postupak iz člana 267. Ugovora o funkcionisanju Evropske unije. U određenoj meri zapravo su prepoznali da se postojeći višestepeni sudski postupak može primeniti i na ustavne sporove, tačnije, na sukobe zasnovane na ustavnom identitetu. Upravo uzajamnom interakcijom po pitanju ustavnog identiteta, sudovi određuju suštinu i postavljaju granice fluidnim konceptima nacionalnog ustavnog identiteta i ustavnog identiteta EU, kako bi se izbegli sukobi u najkritičnijim slučajevima između dva suprotna stava u pravnoj teoriji.
Izraz „ustavni otpor“ koji se koristi u ovom radu, dakle, odnosi se na mač sa dve oštrice, odnosno na neku vrstu prizme kroz koju možemo sagledati pozitivne i negativne strane razvoja evropskog konstitucionalizma.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anagnostaras, G., 2017, Solange III? Fundamental Rights Protection under the National Identity Review, European Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 2.
Arcari, M., Ninatti, S., Exploring Counter-Constitutionalism: The Backlash Effect of Constitutional Vocabulary of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, paper presented at the GlobCon Scholars Workshop, Berlin, 5-6 July 2018, in: Chiti, E., Martino, A. di, Palombella, G., (eds.), L’età dell’interlegalità, work in progress.
Baquero Cruz, J., 2008, The Legacy of the Maastricht-Urteil and the Pluralist Movement, European Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Bernardi, A., 2017, La Corte costituzionale sul caso Taricco: tra dialogo cooperativo e controlimiti, Quaderni Costituzionali, 1.
Bobek, M., 2014, Landtová, Holubec, and the Problem of an Uncooperative Court: Implications for the Preliminary Rulings Procedure, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 10, Issue 1.
Bogdandy, A. von, Grabenwarter, C., Huber, P.M., 2015, Il diritto costituzionale nel diritto pubblico europeo. L’esempio della rete istituzionalizzata della giustizia costituzionale, Rivista Aic, 4.
Cassese, S., 2009, L’Unione europea e il guinzaglio tedesco, Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 9.
Chiti, M.P., 2009, Am deutschen Volk, Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 9.
Claes, M., Reestman, J.H., 2015, The Protection of National Constitutional Identity and the Limits of European Integration at the Occasion of the Gauweiler Case, German Law Journal, Vol. 16, Issue 4.
Drinóczi, T., 2017, Hungarian Constitutional Court: The Limits of EU Law in the Hungarian Legal System, ICL Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 1.
Dyèvre, A., 2013, European Integration and National Courts: Defending Sovereignty under Institutional Constraints?, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 9, Issue 1.
Faraguna, P., 2016, La sentenza del Bundesverfassungsgericht sul caso OMT/Gauweiler, Diritti Comparati Working Paper, 1.
Faraguna, P., 2020, Il Bundesverfassungsgericht dichiara ultra vires il Quantitative easing (con uno sguardo al Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme), Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali, 2.
Gualco, E., Lourenço, L., 2016, “Clash of Titans”. General Principles of EU Law: Balancing and Horizontal Direct Effect, European Papers, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Guastaferro, B., 2018, Derubricare i conflitti costituzionali per risolverli: sezionando il caso Taricco, Quaderni Costituzionali, 2.
Habermas, J., 2001, So, Why Does Europe Need a Constitution?, Florence, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies.
Halmai, G., 2017, The Hungarian National(ist) Constitutional Identity, Quaderni Costituzionali, 1.
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, Vol. 3, Issue 1.
Hofmann, A., 2018, Resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union, International Journal of Law in Context, Vol. 14, special issue 2.
Kelemen, K., 2017, The Hungarian Constitutional Court and the concept of national identity, Ianus, 15-16.
Kelemen, R.D., Pech, L., 2018, Why autocrats love constitutional identity and constitutional pluralism: Lessons from Hungary and Poland, RECONNECT Working Paper, no. 2.
Kochenov, D., Bard, P., 2018, Rule of Law Crisis in the New Member States of the EU. The Pitfalls of Overemphasising Enforcement, RECONNECT Working Paper, no. 1.
Komarek, 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, Vol. 8, Issue 2.
Kowalik-Bańczyk, K., Sending smoke signals to Luxembourg: the Polish constitutional tribunal in dialogue with the ECJ, in: Claes, M., Visser, M. de, Popelier, P., Heyning, C. van de (eds.), 2012, Constitutional conversations in Europe: actors, topics and procedures, Cambridge, Intersentia.
Kramer, R.U., Looking through Different Glasses at the Lisbon Treaty: The German Constitutional Court and the Czech Constitutional Court, in: Fischer-Lescano, A., Joerges, C., Wonka, A., (eds.), 2010, The German Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives, ZERP Discussion Paper no. 1.
Krunke, H., Klinge, S., 2018, The Danish Ajos Case: the Missing Case from Maastricht and Lisbon, European Papers, Vol. 3, No. 1.
Kühn, Z., 2016, Ultra Vires Review and the Demise of Constitutional Pluralism: The Czecho-Slovak Pension Saga, and the Dangers of State Courts’ Defiance of EU Law, in Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 23, Issue 1.
La Pergola, A., Del Duca, P., 1985, Community Law and the Italian Constitution, American Journal of International Law, vol. 79, issue 3.
Lustig, D., Weiler, J.H.H., 2018, Judicial Review in the contemporary World - Retrospective and Prospective, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 16, Issue 2.
Mayer, F.C., 2011, Rashomon in Karlsruhe: A reflection on democracy and identity in the European Union: The German Constitutional Court’s Lisbon decision and the changing landscape of European constitutionalism, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 9, Issue 3-4.
Mayer, F.C., 2014, Rebels Without a Cause? A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court’s OMT Reference, German Law Journal, Vol. 15.
Ninatti, S., L’idea di Europa nelle costituzioni del dopoguerra, in: Geninatti Satè, L., Luther, J., Mastropaolo, A., Tripodina, C., (eds.), 2019, Le età della Costituzione. 1848-1918, 1948-2018, Milano, Franco Angeli.
Ninatti, S., Pollicino, O., 2020, Identità costituzionale e (speciale) responsabilità delle Corti, Quaderni costituzionali, 1.
Payandeh, M., 2017, The OMT Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Repositioning the Court within the European Constitutional Architecture, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 13, Issue 2.
Pliakos, G., Anagnostaras, A., 2017, Saving Face? The German Federal Constitutional Court Decides Gauweiler, German Law Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 1.
Poiares Maduro, M., Grasso, G., 2009, Quale Europa dopo la sentenza della Corte costituzionale tedesca sul Trattato di Lisbona?, Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 2.
Pollicino, O., 2008, European Arrest Warrant and Constitutional Principles of the Member States: a Case Law-Based Outline in the Attempt to Strike the Right Balance between Interacting Legal Systems, German Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Pollicino, O., 2016, La Corte di giustizia riconosce l’efficacia diretta orizzontale dei principi generali ma non delle direttive, Quaderni Costituzionali, 3.
Reestman, J.H., 2009, The Franco-German Constitutional Divide: Reflection on National and Constitutional Identity, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 5, Issue 3.
Rideau, J., The Case-law of the Polish, Hungarian and Czech Constitutional Courts on National Identity and the ‘German Model’, in: Saiz Arnaiz, A., Alcoberro Llivina, C., (eds.), 2013, National Constitutional Identity and European Integration, Cambridge – Antwerp– Portland, Intersentia.
Sadurski, W., Constitutional Justice, East and West: Introduction, in: Sadurski, W., 2002, Constitutional Justice, East and West: Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective, The Hague, Kluwer.
Schmid, C., 2001, All Bark and No Bite: Notes on the Federal Constitutional Court’s ‘Banana Decision’, European Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2001, pp. 95-113.
Tribl, N., Sulyok, M., 2018, Constitutional law: Hungary (2018), European Review of Public Law, Vol. 30, No. 4.
Vranes, E., 2013, Constitutional Foundation of, and Limitation to, Integration in France, European Public Law, Vol. 17, No. 3.
Wendel, M., 2011, Lisbon before courts: comparative perspectives, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 7, Issue 1.
Zaccaroni, G., 2017, Un’altra crepa nella diga del dialogo? La Corte Suprema danese rifiuta di dare applicazione ad un rinvio pregiudiziale della Corte di Giustizia, Quaderni Costituzionali, 1.
Zbiral, R., 2012, Czech Constitutional Court, judgment of 31 January 2012, Pl. ÚS 5/12. – A Legal revolution or negligible episode? Court of Justice decision proclaimed ultra vires, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 49, Issue 4.
LEGISLATIVE SOURCES
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece.
CASE LAW
CJEU, Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others v. Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Ecologie et du Développement durable and Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie, Case C-127/07, Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, 21 May 2008.
CJEU, Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, Case C-208/09, 22 December 2010.
CJEU, Marie Landtová v. Česká správa socialního zabezpečení, Case C-399/09, 22 June 2011.
CJEU, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, Case C-399/11, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 2 October 2012.
CJEU, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, Case C-399/11, 26 February 2013.
CJEU, Raffaella Mascolo and Others v. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca and Comune di Napoli, Joined Cases C-22/13, C-61/13, C-63/13, C-418/13, 26 November 2014.
CJEU, Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag, Case C 62/14, Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, 14 January 2015.
CJEU, Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag, Case C-62/14, 16 June 2015.
CJEU, Taricco and Others, Case C 105/14, 8 September 2015.
CJEU, Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldărau v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, Joined Cases C-404/15 and 659/15, 5 April 2016.
CJEU, Dansk Industri (on behalf of Ajos A/S) v. Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen, Case C-441/14, 19 April 2016.
CJEU, Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v. Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe and Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe, Case C-438/14, 2 June 2016.
CJEU, M.A.S. and M.B., Case C-42/17, 5 December 2017.
CJEU, Commission v. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Joined Cases C‑715/17, C‑718/17 and C‑719/17, 2 April 2020.
Constitutional Council of France, 2004-505 DC, 19 November 2004.
Constitutional Council of France, 2006-540 DC, 27 June 2006.
Constitutional Council of France, 2007-560, 20 December 2007.
Constitutional Court of Austria, SV 2/08, G 80/08, 30 September 2008.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, AB 17/04, 25 May 2005.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 143/2010 (VII. 14.), 12 July 2010.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 22/2016 (XII.5.) AB, 30 November 2016.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 3198/2018 (VI. 21.) AB, 4 June 2018.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 3199/2018 (VI. 21.) AB, 4 June 2018.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 9/2018 (VII. 9.) AB, 26 June 2018.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 2/2019 (III. 5.) AB, 25 February 2019.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 11/2020 (VI. 3.) AB, 21 May 2020.
Constitutional Court of Italy, 183/1973, 18 December 1973.
Constitutional Court of Italy, 24/2017, 23 November 2016.
Constitutional Court of Italy, 115/2018, 31 May 2018.
Constitutional Court of Latvia, 2008-35-01, 7 April 2009.
Constitutional Court of Spain, 1/2004, 13 December 2004.
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, P 1/05, 27 April 2005.
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, K 18/04, 11 May 2005.
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, K 32/09, 24 November 2010.
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Pl. ÚS 50/04, 8 March 2006.
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, PI. ÚS 19/08, 26 November 2008.
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, PI. ÚS 29/09, 3 November 2009.
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Pl. ÚS 5/12, 31 January 2012.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvL 52/71, 29 May 1974.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvR 197/83, 22 October 1986.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvE 2/08, 2 BvE 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 2 BvR 1022/08, 2 BvR 1259/08, 2 BvR 182/09, 30 June 2009.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvR 2661/06, 6 July 2010.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvR 2728/13, 14 January 2014.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvR 2735/14, 15 December 2015.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvR 2728/13, 21 June 2016.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2 BvR 859/15, 2 BvR 980/16, 2 BvR 2006/15, 2 BvR 1651/15, 5 May 2020.
Supreme Court of Denmark, 15/2014, 6 December 2016.
INTERNET SOURCES
Avbelj, M., 2020, The Right Question about the FCC Ultra Vires Decision, (https://verfassungsblog.de/the-right-question-about-the-fcc-ultra-vires-decision/).
Caravita, B., Condinanzi, M., Morrone, A., Poggi, A.M., 2020, Karlsruhe: a wrong decision in a difficult political phase, (https://federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?hpsez=Primo_Piano&content=Karlsruhe:-a-wrong-decision-in-a-difficult-political-phase&content_auth=%253Cb%253EB.-Caravita,-M.-Condinanzi,-A.-Morrone,-A.-Poggi%253C/b%253E&Artid=43527).
Dyevre, A., 2020, How Europe’s Legal Equilibrium Unravelled, (https://ejiltalk.org/how-europes-legal-equilibrium-unravelled/).
Eleftheriadis, P., 2020, Germany’s Failing Court (www. https://verfassungsblog.de/germanys-failing-court/).
Garner, O., 2020, Squaring the PSPP Circle, (https://verfassungsblog.de/squaring-the-pspp-circle/).
Grabenwarter, C., 2014, The Cooperation of Constitutional Courts in Europe – Current Situation and Perspectives, General Report, XVIth Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts, (https://venice.coe.int/files/Bulletin/SpecBull-CECC-e.pdf).
Lenaerts, K., 2020, No Member State is More Equal than Others. The Primacy of EU law and the Principle of the Equality of the Member States before the Treaties, (https://verfassungsblog.de/no-member-state-is-more-equal-than-others/).
Marzal, T., 2020, Is the BVerfG PSPP decision “simply not comprehensible”?, (https://verfassungsblog.de/is-the-bverfg-pspp-decision-simply-not-comprehensible/).
Poiares Maduro, M., 2020, Some Preliminary Remarks on the PSPP Decision of the German Constitutional Court, (https://verfassungsblog.de/some-preliminary-remarks-on-the-pspp-decision-of-the-german-constitutional-court/).
Poli, S., 2020, The German Federal Court and its first ultra vires review: a critique and a preliminary assessment of its consequences, (http://rivista.eurojus.it/the-german-federal-court-and-its-first-ultra-vires-review-a-critique-and-a-preliminary-assessment-of-its-consequences/).
Rask Madsen, M., Palmer Olsen, H., Sadl, U., 2017, Legal Disintegration? The Ruling of the Danish Supreme Court in AJOS, (https://verfassungsblog.de/legal-disintegration-the-ruling-of-the-danish-supreme-court-in-ajos/).
Sarmiento, D., 2020, An Infringement Action against Germany after its Constitutional Court’s ruling in Weiss? The Long Term and the Short Term, (https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-an-infringement-action-against-germany-after-its-constitutional-courts-ruling-in-weiss-the-long-term-and-the-short-term-by-daniel-sarmiento/).
Stumpf, I., 2017, The Hungarian Constitutional Court’s Place in the Constitutional System of Hungary, (http://real.mtak.hu/80143/1/PSZ%202017.%20angol.szam_beliv_14.pdf).
Uitz, R., 2016, National Constitutional Identity in the European Constitutional Project: A Recipe for Exposing Cover Ups and Masquerades, (https://verfassungsblog.de/national-constitutional-identity-in-the-european-constitutional-project-a-recipe-for-exposing-cover-ups-and-masquerades/).
Wilkinson, M., 2020, Fight, flight or fudge?, (https://verfassungsblog.de/fight-flight-or-fudge/).
Zaccaroni, G., 2018, Is the horizontal application of general principles ultra vires? Dialogue and conflict between supreme European courts in Dansk Industri, (https://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?Artid=36201).
Ziller, J., 2020, L’insoutenable pesanteur du juge constitutionnel allemande A propos de l’arrêt de la deuxième chambre de la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande du 5 mai 2020 concernant le programme PSPP de la Banque Centrale Européenne, (http://rivista.eurojus.it/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Ziller-CorteCost-tedesca-PSPP.pdf).