Journals / Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 51

Federal German Constitutional Court Jurisprudence and EU Law

FEDERAL ALMAN ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ İÇTİHATLARI VE AB HUKUKU

Ayşe Füsun Arsava(ATILIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2275-7664
Pages
1–18
Publication Date
2022-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article aims to shed light on the development of case-law of the constitutional court in the context of ultra-vires control and constitutional identity control of EU primary law and to evaluate the relations of other constitutional organs (Federal Assembly and Federal Government) with the EU Court.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Federal German Constitutional Court has a leading role in EU Law with its jurisprudence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Solange I” decision of 1974, “Solange II” decision of 1986, “Maastricht” decision of 1993, “Lisbon” decision of 2009, “Honeywell” decision of 2010 and “OMT” decision of 2014 are included in the EU legal literature as landmark decisions regarding the relationship between EU law and national law.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article aims to shed light on the development of case-law of the constitutional court in the context of ultra-vires control and constitutional identity control of EU primary law and to evaluate the relations of other constitutional organs (Federal Assembly and Federal Government) with the EU Court.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Anayasal kimlik denetimi · temel hak denetimi · ultra-vires denetim

Abstract

The Federal German Constitutional Court has a leading role in EU Law with its jurisprudence. Solange I” decision of 1974, “Solange II” decision of 1986, “Maastricht” decision of 1993, “Lisbon” decision of 2009, “Honeywell” decision of 2010 and “OMT” decision of 2014 are included in the EU legal literature as landmark decisions regarding the relationship between EU law and national law. The article aims to shed light on the development of case-law of the constitutional court in the context of ultra-vires control and constitutional identity control of EU primary law and to evaluate the relations of other constitutional organs (Federal Assembly and Federal Government) with the EU Court.

Özet

Federal Alman Anayasa Mahkemesi içtihatlarıyla AB Hukukuna yön veren bir role sahiptir. Anayasa mahkemesinin AB Hukuku ve ulusal hukuk ilişkisinde 1974 tarihli “Solange I” kararı, 1986 tarihli “Solange II” kararı, 1993 tarihli “Maastricht” kararı, 2009 tarihli “Lizbon” kararı, 2010 tarihli “Honeywell” kararı ve 2014 tarihli “OMT” kararı bu bağlamda milat teşkil eden kararlar olarak AB hukuk literatüründe yer almaktadır. Makalede Federal Alman Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin AB birincil (primer) hukukunun ultra-vires denetimi ve anayasal kimlik denetimi bağlamındaki içtihatlarında ortaya çıkan gelişime ışık tutulması yanı sıra, diğer anayasa organları ile (Federal Meclis ve Federal Hükümet) entegrasyon rolü paylaşımı ve AB Divanı ile ilişki değerlendirilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arsava, A. F. (2022). Federal German Constitutional Court Jurisprudence and EU Law. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, Sayı: 51, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.54049/taad.1139315

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Dederer H-G, Die Grenzen des Vorrangs des Unionsrechts – zur Vereinheitlichung von Grundrechts-, Ultra vires- und Identitätskontrolle, JZ Jahrgang 69(2014), Heft 7
  2. Fabio U-D, Europas Verfassungskrize, FAZ vom 8 Juni 2020
  3. Grimm D, Das Grundgesetz als Riegel vor einer Verstaatlichung der Europäischen Union, Zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungs- gerichts, Der Staat, Vol.48 (2009)
  4. Grimm D, Jetzt war es soweit, FAZ vom 18 Mai 2020
  5. Herdegen M, bknz.: Theodor Maunz/Günter Dürig (Hrsg.), GG Kommentar, 72 EL.2014, Art.79, Rn.114
  6. Hering L, Zwischen Dialog und Kontrolle: Das Vertragsverletzungsverfahren zur verschärften Durchsetzung von Vorlagepflichtverletzungen letztinstanzlicher Gerichte-Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urt. v. 4.10.2018, Rs C-416/17 (Kommission/Frankreicht, Précompte mobilier), EuR 2020, Vol.55, Heft 1, s.112-131
  7. Hirsch G, Europäischer Gerichtshof und Bundesverfassungsgericht - Kooperation oder Konfrontation?, NJW 1996, Heft 38
  8. Jestaedt M, Warum in die Ferne schweifen, wenn der Maßstab liegt so nah? Verfassungshandwerkliche Anfragen an das Lissabon – Urteil des BVerfG, Der Staat, Vol. 48 (2009)
  9. Kirchof P, Chance für Europa, FAZ vom 20.Mai 2020
  10. Mannefeld L-K, Verfassungsrechtliche Vorgaben für die europäische Integration, Rechtsprechung des deutschen und italianischen Verfassungsgericht, 2017, s.4 vd.
  11. Ruffert M, Nach dem Lissabon – Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts - zur Anatomie einer Debatte, ZSE Vol.7, N.3/4 (2009)
  12. Ruffert M, An den Grenzen des Integrationsverfassungsrechts: Das Urteil des des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Vertrag von Lissabon, DVBl. 2009
  13. Sauer H, Jurisdiktionskonflikte in Mehrebenensystemen, 2008, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg
  14. Schönberger C, Die Europäische Union zwischen “Demokratiedefizit” und Bundesstaatsverlust, Anmerkungen zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Der Staat Vol.48 (2009)
  15. Schwarze J, Die Wahrung des Rechts durch den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union, DVBl. Bd.129, 9/2014
  16. Thym D, Blaupausenfallen bei der Abgrenzung von Grundgesetz und Grundrechtecharta, DöV 2014,Heft 22
  17. Thym D, Europäische Integration im Schatten souveräner Staatlichkeit, Anmerkungen zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Der Staat Vol. 48 (2009)