Ultra vires review of the German Constitutional Court. Comments on the Decision of 06.07.2010 (2 bvr 2661/06, Honeywell)
Keywords:
Relationships between the ECJ and the Constitutional Courts, German Constitutional Court, ultra vires review, Principle of conferral of competences, Preliminary rulingAbstract
The Lisbon decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has been generally considered as being highly critical of European integration. The importance of Honeywell lies in the fact of its being the first occasion for the FCC to put into practice the Lisbon doctrine, specifically its constitutional ultra vires review of European acts. The application of the ultra vires review could well have been a point of conflict between the FCC and the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, in Honeywell, the FCC established a very restrained standard of ultra vires review, thereby reducing, to a considerable extent, any possibility of conflict between the two courts. Moreover, the FCC actually promoted the prior exercise of the preliminary reference procedure, before permitting the exercise of its own domestic constitutional review jurisdiction. In this way, the decision aims to maintain the balance and principle of judicial cooperation in the European Union.Downloads
Issue
Section
CASE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
