Abstract
AbstractOn May 5, 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued the PSPP decision, sending shock waves through the European Union. This contribution analyzes the consequences of the PSPP decision for the future relationship between the German FCC and the CJEU and for European integration as a whole. The article consists of four parts. First, I will provide some context and model the interaction between domestic and international courts from a rational choice perspective. Second, I will recapitulate some core aspects of the relationship between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU in particular. I argue that the relationship between both courts had evolved into a strategic equilibrium in which it was costly not to respect the decision of the other party. The third section then looks for reasons why Karlsruhe nevertheless deviated from this equilibrium despite the significant costs involved. The fourth section, finally, considers the way ahead and analyzes what possible consequences for the future relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU.
Highlights
On May 5, 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued the PSPP decision, sending shock waves through the European Union. This contribution analyzes the consequences of the PSPP decision for the future relationship between the German FCC and the CJEU and for European integration as a whole
When the German Federal Constitutional Court handed down its PSPP decision in early May of this year, it characterized a break with the past whose significance cannot be overestimated
The fourth section, considers the way ahead and analyzes what lessons the Lochner episode may teach us for the future relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU (D.)
Summary
When modelling the relationship between domestic and international courts, the pluralist model has for quite some time been the most prominent approach in international and comparative legal scholarship. The main characteristic of the pluralist model is that ultimate judicial authority is. The international court pays respect to the national courts While it claims the ultimate authority and asserts supremacy of international over domestic law, it takes into account concerns of domestic courts and grants the latter a certain autonomy in their decision-making. Before the PSPP decision, the relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU was a textbook example of judicial pluralism The German Federal Constitutional Court has developed several doctrinal instruments to maintain ultimate authority, while generally accepting the supremacy of EU law (I.). The Court of Justice has fiercely defended the absolute supremacy of EU law, and developed strategies to take the concerns of Karlsruhe and other domestic courts into account (II.) This equilibrium emerged because there was a strong interdependence between both courts (III.)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
