On the Competence Conflicts between the Constitutional Courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU

Q4 Social Sciences
R. Král
{"title":"On the Competence Conflicts between the Constitutional Courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU","authors":"R. Král","doi":"10.14712/23366478.2023.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is aimed as a contribution to academic discourse on how to solve possible competence conflicts between constitutional or other highest courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). This discourse has rather recently received an extraordinary impetus when Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (FCC) handed down its judgment in Weiss. For the first time in its history, the FCC invoked the ultra vires doctrine against an EU act and a CJEU judgment. It is argued in the article that the final say in dealing with such competence conflicts should not and cannot rest with either the CJEU or individual national apex courts. The article supports the idea of establishing an EU-competence super-arbiter. However, it is stressed in this respect that the component members of whatever EU-competence super-arbiter to be established should always include the representatives of all EU Member States (although not necessarily only them) and the voting of such EU-competence super-arbiter should be based on the (absolute) majority of those of its component members that are the representatives of Member States. Otherwise, the collective competence-competence monopoly of the EU Member States in the EU would be breached too strongly.","PeriodicalId":52921,"journal":{"name":"Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is aimed as a contribution to academic discourse on how to solve possible competence conflicts between constitutional or other highest courts of the EU Member States and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). This discourse has rather recently received an extraordinary impetus when Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (FCC) handed down its judgment in Weiss. For the first time in its history, the FCC invoked the ultra vires doctrine against an EU act and a CJEU judgment. It is argued in the article that the final say in dealing with such competence conflicts should not and cannot rest with either the CJEU or individual national apex courts. The article supports the idea of establishing an EU-competence super-arbiter. However, it is stressed in this respect that the component members of whatever EU-competence super-arbiter to be established should always include the representatives of all EU Member States (although not necessarily only them) and the voting of such EU-competence super-arbiter should be based on the (absolute) majority of those of its component members that are the representatives of Member States. Otherwise, the collective competence-competence monopoly of the EU Member States in the EU would be breached too strongly.
论欧盟成员国宪法法院与欧盟法院的权限冲突
本文旨在为如何解决欧盟成员国宪法法院或其他最高法院与欧盟法院之间可能存在的权限冲突的学术讨论做出贡献。最近,当德国联邦宪法法院(FCC)在维斯作出判决时,这一言论得到了非凡的推动。联邦通信委员会历史上首次援引越权原则反对欧盟法案和欧盟法院的判决。文章认为,处理此类权限冲突的最终决定权不应该也不能由欧盟法院或个别国家最高法院。文章支持建立欧盟能力超级仲裁者的想法。然而在这方面强调,无论要建立什么欧盟权限超级仲裁机构,其组成成员都应始终包括所有欧盟成员国的代表(尽管不一定只有他们),并且该欧盟权限超级仲裁者的投票应基于其组成成员中成员国代表的(绝对)多数。否则,欧盟成员国在欧盟的集体权限垄断将被严重破坏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信