Dommerforedrag om den tyske forfatningsdomstols underkendelse af EU-retten

JURIDISK FORENING I KØBENHAVN indbyder til foredrags- og debatmøde ved dommer ved Bundesverfassungsgericht, professor Peter  Michael Huber over emnet 

The interplay between the European Court of Justice and national courts after the 5 May 2020 BVGH ruling in the ECB case

mandag den 25. oktober 2021, kl. 17.00

på Det Juridiske Fakultet, Alf Ross-auditoriet (bygning 9A, 3. sal, auditorium 1), Njalsgade 76, 2300 København S.

Den 5. maj 2020 afsagde den tyske forfatningsdomstol (BVGH) en dom, der reelt underkender det pengepolitiske opkøbsprogram (QE-programmet), som den europæiske centralbank (ECB) har gennemført siden 2015 for at undgå inflation i Euro-området. I mangel af en proportionalitetsvurdering fandt BVGH programmet stridende mod den tyske grundlov. Dermed underkendtes et svar fra EU-Domstolen i december 2018 på nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål, som BVGH havde rejst. Ved dommen gav BVGH ECB tre måneder til at foretage den efterspurgte proportionalitetsvurdering. Dette har ECB afvist. Der er nu taget skridt til en traktatkrænkelsessag imod Tyskland.

Under mødet vil dommer Peter M. Huber, der førte pennen i BVGH’s dom, kommentere baggrunden for og konsekvenserne af afgørelsen.

Herunder findes Hubers præsentation af sit emne samt link til BGVH’s hjemmeside med nærmere oplysninger om baggrunden for og indholdet af dommen.

The PSPP-case as a Contribution to a better cooperation in the European judicial network

BVR Peter M. Huber, Karlsruhe

Constitutional courts play a paramount role within the European judicial area. Within the European Union (EU) with its specific compound structure, in which national legal orders and Union law reciprocally influence, complement, determine and affect each other, national constitutional courts and the CJEU are not only assigned with the common task to enforce EU law, but also to preserve its limits, first and foremost the principle of conferral and the constitutional identities of the member states. The respect for these limits is an essential prerequisite for the member state’s participation in the EU and repeatedly enshrined in the Treaties. In order to be able to fulfil this common tasks all sides need to engage in sincere cooperation and a dialectic process, the potential of which must not be curtailed by hierarchical perceptions. Whereas the national (constitutional) courts are obliged to respect the CJEU’s authority to ultimately decide on the interpretation of EU law in principle, it is the CJEU’s obligation to take their referrals seriously and thoroughly address concerns brought forward. The constitutional courts of the member states are assigned with the responsibility to accompany the process of European integration in order to ensure that sovereign rights are only transferred in line with the respective provisions as well as that the excercise of competences respects the limits laid down in the treaties and does not interfere with the constitutional identities of the member states. It is of course again for the CJEU to review whether EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies act within their mandate in the first place including a quite large tolerance for misjudgments. To the extend the CJEU, however, fails to assume this responsibility, it is for the constitu- tional courts of the member states to step in. The desirable success of the European integration largely depends on an orderly, sustainable and generally accepted process in the long run to which the network of constitutional of courts can make a decisive contribution, provided it is designed and lived as a true cooperation among equals. The PSP-case can be regarded as an contribution to the amendment of the Status quo.

BVGH’s officielle pressemeddelelse om dommen (med link til den) findes her:

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/b vg20-032.html

Efter foredraget vil der være sandwiches og forfriskninger.

Få vegne af Juridisk Forening i København

Mads Bryde Andersen

Formand