Make a Submission
Vol. 38 (2018)
General Articles

Constitutional Courts and the Implementation of EU Directives: A Comparative Analysis

PDF
  • Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka
Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka
Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń

Published 2018-12-31

Keywords

  • constitutional courts,
  • judicial review,
  • EU law,
  • European integration,
  • EU directives

Copyright (c) 2021 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Constitutional Courts and the Implementation of EU Directives: A Comparative Analysis. (2018). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 38, 189-208. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2019.129612

Abstract

This article concerns constitutional problems related to the implementation of EU directives seen from both the legal and comparative perspectives. The directives are a source of law which share a number of characteristic features that significantly affect and determine the specificity of Member States’ constitutional review of the directives as well as the legal acts that implement them. The review of the constitutionality of EU directives is carried out in accordance with the provisions of national implementing acts. Member States’ constitutional courts adopt two basic positions in this respect. The first position (adopted by, inter alia, the French Constitutional Council and German Federal Constitutional Court) is based on the assumption of a partial “constitutional immunity” of the act implementing the directive, which results in only a partial control of the constitutionality of the implementing acts, i.e. the acts of national law implementing such directives. The second position, (adopted, explicitly or implicitly by, inter alia, the Austrian Federal Constitutional Court, Czech Constitutional Court, Polish Constitutional Court, Romanian Constitutional Court and Slovak Constitutional Court) concerns the admissibility of a full review of the implementing acts. This leads to the admissibility of an indirect review of the content of the directive if the Court examines the provision as identical in terms of content with an act of EU law. Another issue is related to the application of the EU directives as indirect yardsticks of review. The French Constitutional Council case-law on review of the proper implementation of EU directives represents the canon in this regard. Nonetheless, interesting case studies of further uses of EU directives as indirect yardsticks of review can be found in the case law of other constitutional courts, such as the Belgian Constitutional Court or Spanish Constitutional Court. The research presented in this paper is based on the comparative method. The scope of the analysis covers case law of the constitutional courts of both old and new Member States. It also includes a presentation of recent jurisprudential developments, focusing on the constitutional case-law regarding the Data Retention Directive and the Directive on Combating Terrorism.

PDF

References

  1. Bell J., French Constitutional Council and European Law, „International & Comparative Law Quarterly” 2005, vol. 54, no. 3.
  2. Calin D., The Constitutional Court of Romania and European Union Law, „International and Comparative Law Review” 2015, vol. 15, no. 1.
  3. Case C-14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordrhein – Westfalen, ECLI:EU:C:1984:153.
  4. Case C-182/10, Marie-Noelle Solvay and Others v. Region wallonne, ECLI:EU:C:2012:82.
  5. Case C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1.
  6. Case C-314/85 Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452.
  7. Case C-42/17 Criminal proceedings against M.A.S. and MB. (Taricco II), ECLI:EU:C:2017:936.
  8. Case C-50/00 P Union de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2002:462.
  9. Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v. ENEL., ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
  10. Claes M., The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland 2006.
  11. Colares J.E., The Reality of EU-conformity Review in France, „Columbia Journal of European Law” 2012, no. 18.
  12. Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, document 32006L0112.
  13. Doktor-Bindas K., Wpływ prawa Unii Europejskiej na system prawa Republiki Włoskiej [The Impact of European Union Law on the Law System of the Italian Republic], Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, Warszawa 2013.
  14. Fabbrini F., After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States, „German Law Journal” 2015, vol. 16, no. 4.
  15. Fabbrini F., Kelsen in Paris: France’s Constitutional Reform and the Introduction of A Posteriori Constitutional Review of Legislation, „German Law Journal” 2008, vol. 9, no. 10.
  16. Fontanelli F., Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog: Court of Justice of the European Union: Judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C-617/10 Aklagaren v. Hans Akerberg Fransson, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2013, vol. 9, no. 2.
  17. Garcia M., Cautious Openness: The Spanish Constitutional Court’s Approach to EU Law in Recent National Case-Law, available at: http://europeanlawblog.eu/2017/06/07/cautious-openness-the-spanish-constitutional-courts-approach-toeu-law-in-recent-national-case-law/ [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  18. Gerard P., Verrijdt W., Belgian Constitutional Court Adopts National Identity Discourse. Belgian Constitutional Court No. 62/2016, 28 April2016, 13(1) „European Constitutional Law Review” 2017, vol. 13, no. 1.
  19. Granger M., France Is Already Back in Europe: The Europeanization of French Courts and the Influence of France in the EU, „European Public Law” 2008, vol. 14, no. 3.
  20. Havelkovi B., Burden of proof and positive action in decisions of the Czech and the Slovak Constitutional Courts - milestones or mill-stones for implementation of EC equality law? „European Law Review” 2007, vol. 32.
  21. Heirbaut D., Storme M.E., Private Law Codification in Belgium [in:] J.C. Rivera (ed.) The Scope and the Structure of Civil Codes, Springer, Dordrecht 2013.
  22. Houry N., French Legislators Rebuked for Seeking to Criminalize Online Browsing. Court Ruled Provision Was Too Restrictive of Freedoms, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/12/15/french-legislatorsrebuked-seeking-criminalize-online-browsing [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  23. Jaegere J. De, Beyers J., Popelier P., Exploring the deliberative performance of a constitutional court in a consociational political system. A theoretical and empirical analysis of the Belgian Constitutional Court, available at: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/1cl6e505-e983-44c9-9935-8c573f521abO.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  24. Jones Ch., National legal challenges to the Data Retention Directive, 8 April 014, available at: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/national-legal-challenges-to-data.html [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  25. Kaiser A.-B., German Data Retention Provisions Unconstitutional in Their Present Form; Decision of 2 March 2010, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2010, no. 6.
  26. Komarek J., The Place of Constitutional Courts in the EU, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2013, vol. 9, no. 3.
  27. König D., Die Übertragung Von Hoheitsrechten Im Rahmen des Europäischen Integrationsprozesses - Anwendungsbereich und Schranken des Art. 23 des Grundgesetzes, Mohr Siebeck, Berlin 2000.
  28. Kuhn Z., Raport krajowy - Czechy [The National Report - the Czech Republic] [in:] J. Barcz (ed.), Ochrona praw podstawowych w Unii Europejskiej [Protection of basic rights in the European Union], Beck, Warszawa 2008.
  29. Kumm M., Comella R.E, The Primacy Clause of the Constitutional Treaty and the Future of Constitutional Conflict in the European Union, „International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2005, vol. 3, no. 2-3.
  30. Kumm M., The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty, „European Law Journal” 2005, vol. 11, no. 3.
  31. Kustra A., Reading the Tea Leaves: The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Preliminary Ruling Procedure, „German Law Journal” 2015, vol. 16, no. 6.
  32. Lavrysen L., EUFJE 2013 Vienna Conference - Report on Belgium, available at: https://www.eufje.org/images/docConf/vie2013/BE%20vie2013.pdf [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  33. Lohse E.J., The German Constitutional Court and Preliminary References. Still a Match not Made in Heaven? 16(6) „German Law Journal” 2015, vol. 16, no. 6.
  34. Lynskey O., The Data Retention Directive is incompatible with the rights to privacy and data retention protection and is invalid in its entirety: Digital Rights Ireland, „Common Market Law Review” 2014, vol. 51, no. 6.
  35. Mallers Ch., German Federal Constitutional Court: Constitutional Ultra Vires Review of European Acts Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Decision of 6 July 2010, 2 BvR 2661/06, Honeywell, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2011, no. 7.
  36. Millet F.-X., How much lenience for how much cooperation? On the first preliminary reference of the French Constitutional Council to the Court of Justice, „Common Market Law Review” 2014, vol. 51, no. 1.
  37. Millet F.-X., The French Constitutional Council and the CJEU: between splendid isolation, communication, and forced dialogue in Constitutional Conversations in Europe. Actors, Topics and Procedures [in:] M. Claes et al. (eds.), Constitutional Conversations in Europe: Actors, Topics and Procedures, Intersentia, Cambridge 2012.
  38. Molek P., The Czech Constitutional Court. Unconstitutionality of the Czech Implementation of the Data Retention Directive; Decision of 22 March 2011, Pl. US 24/10, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2012, vol. 8, no. 2.
  39. Murphy C., Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision No. 1258 of 8 October 2009 regarding the unconstitutionality exception of the provisions of Law No. 298/2008 regarding the retention of the data generated or processed by the public electronic communication service providers or public network providers, as well as for the modification of Law No. 506/2004 regarding the personal data processing and protection of private life in the field of electronic communication area, „Common Market Law Review” 2010, vol. 47.
  40. Neves M., Transconstitutionalism, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2013.
  41. Ollo A., Can we ensure EU terrorism policies respect human rights?, available at: https://edri.org/can-we-ensure-eu-terrorism-policies-respect-human-rights/ [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  42. Paris D., Carrot and Stick. The Italian Constitutional Court' Preliminary Reference in the Case Taricco, „Questions of International Law” 2017, no. 37.
  43. Paris D., Constitutional courts as European Union courts: The current and potential use of EU law as a yardstick for constitutional review, „Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law” 2017, vol. 24, no. 6.
  44. Paulussen Ch., Courts and Counter-Terrorism: the Last Line of Defence?, Verfassungsblog, 4 May 2018, available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/courts-and-counter-terrorism-the-last-line-of-defense/ [accessed: 30 May 2019].
  45. Perlo N., E-X. Millet, The first preliminary reference of the French Constitutional Court to the European Court of Justice: Revolution de Palais or Revolution in French Constitutional Law?, „German Law Journal” 2015, vol. 16, no. 6.
  46. Pfersmann O., Concrete Review as Indirect Constitutional Complaint in French Constitutional Law. A Comparative Perspective, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2010, vol. 6, no. 2.
  47. Piqani D., The role of National Constitutional Courts in Issues of Compliance [in:] M. Cremona (ed.), Compliance and Enforcement of EU law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012.
  48. Piquani D., The role of National Constitutional Courts in Issues of Compliance [in:] M. Cremona (ed.), Compliance and Enforcement of EU law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012.
  49. Pliakos A., Anagnostaras G., Saving Face? The German Federal Constitutional Court Decides Gauweiler, „German Law Journal” 2017, vol. 18, no. 1.
  50. Pollicino O., The Conseil d’Etat and the Relationship between French internal law after Arcelor; Has something really changed, „Common Market Law Review” 2008, vol. 45.
  51. Rochere J.D. de la, French Conseil constitutionnel: Recent Developments [in:] J.M. Beneyto, I. Pernice (eds.), Europe’s Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts: Lisbon and Beyond, Nomos, Baden Baden 2011.
  52. Thym D., Separation versus Fusion - or: How to Accommodate National Autonomy and the Charter? Diverging Visions of the German Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2013, vol. 9, no. 13.
  53. Vandamme T., Prochain Arret: la Belgique! Explaining Recent preliminary References of the Belgian Constitutional Court, „European Constitutional Law Review” 2008, no. 4.
  54. Vries K. de et al., The German Constitutional Court Judgment on Data Retention: Proportionality Overrides Unlimited Surveillance (Doesn’t It?) [in:] S. Gutwirth et al. (eds.), Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: An Element of Choice, Springer, Dordrecht 2011.
  55. Wójtowicz K., The Constitutional Courts and European Union Law, E-Wydawnictwo, Prawnicza i Ekonomiczna Biblioteka Cyfrowa, Wrocław 2014.
  56. Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft decision of 22 October 1986, 2 BvR 197/83, BVerfGE 73, 339.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.