Did Germany ratify Lisbon treaty or not?

[Eye]

THE JUDGEMENT OF THE GERMAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LISBON TREATY

by Michael Bothe1

By its judgment of 30 June 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court cleared the way for the German ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The reasoning of the Court, however, contains fundamental holdings on the current legal character of the European Union and on constitutional limitations concerning its possible development.
The ratification of an international treaty by Germany must be preceded by a parliamentary consent. In the case of the Lisbon treaty, this consent and a number of legislative acts relating to that treaty were challenged before the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). The basic argument of this challenge was that the Lisbon Treaty went too far in transferring sovereign rights to the European Union, thereby jeopardizing inalienable state sovereignty, the national identity of the German State as guaranteed by the Basic Law (the German constitution) and also the constitutional principle of democracy which required, it was said, a sufficient area of public policy being reserved to parliaments elected only by the German voter.
The Court, in the result, rejected the challenges as far as the treaty itself was concerned and upheld them only to a limited extent as to the surrounding legislation, this default being easy to heal before the summer recess and the federal elections to be held in September.
That positive stance, however, was surrounded by a number of reservations and limitations which are very important for the future behaviour of the State organs of Germany towards the EU, in particular their behaviour within the organs of the EU.
Thus, the Court erects some constitutional barriers against possible future expansions of European integration and Germany’s participation in them. In doing so, the Court continues to show a special kind of euroskeptical attitude which started already in the1970’s and has been maintained in a number of judgments since. While the earlier decisions of this line were concerned with the protection of (German) fundamental rights in the European Economic Community (as it then was), the more recent ones
(Maastricht Treaty, now Lisbon Treaty) deal with the expansion of the powers of the European Union to the detriment of the Member States, in particular their parliaments.
More here:
http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iai0920.pdf

I'm not sure if it judgement doesn't make Germany a kind of privileged member of EU and if Germany ratified that treaty or not?

[Mackie]

This court prevent backdoors through EU law. Maybe the most important institution in Germany.

Economist published an intresting article months ago:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13376204

[Dexx]

More here:
http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iai0920.pdf

I'm not sure if it judgement doesn't make Germany a kind of privileged member of EU and if Germany ratified that treaty or not?

No, Germany hasn't done it yet, but will do so with the reservations and limitations the Constitutional Court demands.

On the other hand, the BVerfG (German Constitutional Court) has reserved its right to veto any act by a EU body that does not comply with the principles laid down in the German Basic Law (Constitution). Or with positive words: As long as the EU bodies guarantee the same standard of protection as the Basic Law for German nationals, it will not review these acts. Until then, no German national will be heard with legal actions concerning acts of EU bodies. This is the famous "Solange-Rechtsprechung" ("As long as Jurisdiction").

[JCR]

Isn't it "Solange II"?
(nitpick) :D

The ruling against the Lisbon treaty could be called "solange III"

I find the economist article a tad bit arrogant. Just because our system isn't american doesn't mean it doesn't work fine.
The constitutional court has managed to stop dead some of the major idiotic things that run rampant in common law countries.
Criticizing the tertiary effect of basic rights (drittwirkung) or the constitutional right to data privacy just shows that the people who criticize are either stupid or paid lobbyists.
Not to mention that some things the article says are plain false, as not everybody can appeal to the BVerfG, as it is required to be personally affected.

The Lisbon ruling was a triumph of grassroots democracy against all established parties. Some relatively obscure politicians from totally opposing parties (from CSU to leftists) managed to shock the entire political establishment.
I don't agree with all they do (the shootdown ruling is pretty much detached from reality), but the constitutional court as a whole is a very good invention.

[Gammelpreusse]

Isn't it "Solange II"?
(nitpick) :D

The ruling against the Lisbon treaty could be called "solange III"

I find the economist article a tad bit arrogant. Just because our system isn't american doesn't mean it doesn't work fine.
The constitutional court has managed to stop dead some of the major idiotic things that run rampant in common law countries.
Criticizing the tertiary effect of basic rights (drittwirkung) or the constitutional right to data privacy just shows that the people who criticize are either stupid or paid lobbyists.
Not to mention that some things the article says are plain false, as not everybody can appeal to the BVerfG, as it is required to be personally affected.

The Lisbon ruling was a triumph of grassroots democracy against all established parties. Some relatively obscure politicians from totally opposing parties (from CSU to leftists) managed to shock the entire political establishment.
I don't agree with all they do (the shootdown ruling is pretty much detached from reality), but the constitutional court as a whole is a very good invention.




I don't agree with all they do (the shootdown ruling is pretty much detached from reality), but the constitutional court as a whole is a very good invention.

Great post, but I can't agree with this one line. The shootdown ruling may run against cold blooded intelligence of preventing more deaths and suffering, anybody with a bit of common sense would probably agree to this, but here is a case of principle and symbolism.

As soon somebody decides to deliberately kill innocent people he makes himself a decider of life and death. That is a power nobody has the right to ever possess, even if this results in more deaths that could have been averted. Whenever there is talk about keeping democracy and human rights requireing sacrifices, this is one example. (another one is running the risk to die in a terrorist attack due to keeping up granted rights instead of cuting them for security reasons). Now I completly understand the other side of the argument, so no critique per se, but I feel it is nessecary to point this out.

[Eye]

OK, but what about sovereignty? Isn't that like - Lisbon treaty can be ratify when German sovereignty is protected. If yes, will not be Germany the only sovereign state in EU after Lisbon treaty? And if yes, isn't it a privileged position among other EU states?

[Dexx]

OK, but what about sovereignty? Isn't that like - Lisbon treaty can be ratify when German sovereignty is protected. If yes, will not be Germany the only sovereign state in EU after Lisbon treaty? And if yes, isn't it a privileged position among other EU states?

Per definition of puplic international law the EU won't get statehood with the lisbon treaty!

[Eye]

Per definition of puplic international law the EU won't get statehood with the lisbon treaty!
So, why The German Federal Constitutional Court commended to protect German sovereignty? Without any reason?

[kato2k6]

So, why The German Federal Constitutional Court commended to protect German sovereignty?

Umm, it didn't. That's just a rumour spread by the usual uninformed rabid anti-EU clientele. Mistaking the sovereign for sovereignty - intentionally, of course.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the law the German government has drafted to expand the rights of the German parliamentary houses with regard to the European Union wasn't constitutional. Basically, this national law keeps assent to EU-level treaty modification laws solely with the government, instead of giving the parliament the power to control this.
According to the ruling, the German government pretty much needs to give the parliament such veto power over the German council representative before the treaty can be ratified.

With the current draft law, if the EU council decides to modify the treaty, the German representative, with approval by only the government, could assent to it. What the Supreme Court wants is that in such cases the sovereign's representatives - i.e. the parliament - votes on it and either assents with the governments opinion or can overrule it.

Note: the above was drawn from the actual full ruling, not some press interpretation of only its introductionary notes.

[Derbedeu]

Germany finalises ratification of Lisbon Treaty

Germany has finalised its ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The ratification act was signed by President Kohler today and deposited in Rome by the German Ambassador.
Although the parliament had approved the treaty in May of last year the process had been delayed following a number of court challenges.
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/europe/germany-finalises-ratification-of-lisbon-treaty-1897283.html


It's been signed, sealed, and delivered.

BTW, here are some more official sources stating this:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/010-61281-271-09-40-901-20090928IPR61280-28-09-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_6516/Content/EN/Artikel/2009/09/2009-09-09-bundestag-lissabon-vertrag__en.html