[ad_1]
As we pointed out last Friday: The decision of the German Constitutional Court a week ago starts a gigantic legal and power strugglechallenging a previous ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and, therefore, the primacy of EU law over national law) and finding that the European Central Bank had exceeded its powers and that it required a detailed explanation of its asset purchase program; of greater participation.
Since then, several fronts of this power and legal struggle have become clear to the public, with the EU Court of Justice giving an unprecedented response to the German Constitutional Court that day, and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen , on Sunday. announced in a communication the initiation of infringement proceedings against Germany. Behind this, it could have been considered that such a case would end up in the EU Court of Justice anyway, where the Luxembourg panel would “settle” the whole matter as the de facto supreme judicial forum in the EU.
Meanwhile, an interesting question is what needs to be fixed, as Monday’s Eurologist summary reminds us:
In one of the annexes to the EU Treaty, all Member States have long recognized that EU law takes precedence over national law and is therefore binding on the judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU in all Member States.
So, in principle, it shouldn’t be a case now either, but the German Constitutional Court decision has questioned this, which can be a benchmark for starting / restarting many processes. It is no coincidence that the Court of Justice of the EU has again stated, on the basis of its own previous jurisprudence, that It is the main legal forum and EU law must be observed in all member states, because it is one of the basic components of the community and, if it is damaged, uncontrollable processes will begin.
After all this background and history, what Bruxinfo indicates from the information it has received from Commission officials is important: Although the initiation of infringement proceedings remains a possible response to the situation following the ruling of the German Constitutional Court last week,
the European Commission prefers an out-of-procedure solution, that is, a dispute resolution of a legal situation.
Instead of a procedure, the Commission has several compelling reasons for dialogue. Firstly, Brussels distrusts the fact that the independence of the judiciary is one of the most important principles of the rule of law, in this case it challenges the decision of a constitutional court in a Member State. It is even more puzzling that since the judgment of the German Constitutional Court is final and unalterable, it is not clear what the purpose of the infringement procedure should be.
That is why a negotiated solution to the extremely delicate legal dilemma comes to light, as Commission sources have pointed out, In the Commission, they are convinced that the judgment of the German Constitutional Court calls into question the foundations of the European legal order.
In addition to the above, Brussels also draws attention to the fact that not only the European Commission but also the European Central Bank can also initiate infringement proceedings, if you consider that a national central bank is not subject to the rules of the European System of Central Banks.
The EU relies on the voluntary agreement of the member states to create a union. Therefore, the EU is not based on force, but on law and agreement. The uniform interpretation and application of common rules across Europe is legally guaranteed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities
– reminded the Commission officials.
Cover image source: Sean Gallup / Getty Images
[ad_2]
