The Karlsruhe Judges with Real Teeth

9 November 2010 by

As we have seen from the recent ruling from the Supreme Court in Pinnock, British judges regard themselves as constrained to follow a “clear and consistent” line of authority from Strasbourg, even though the latter has  no binding authority over the appellate courts in this country. Indeed, as we have noted in our post on the case, it overruled three of its own precedents without any ado.

How different the picture is in Germany, where the highest Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, is armed with tremendous powers by the German Grundgesetz, or Basic Law, to uphold its own interpretation of national law in judgments that go to the heart of what the executive is or isn’t allowed to do.

We touched in an earlier post on the power of the BVerfG to ensure that the Community institutions do not exceed the sovereign powers transferred by the German law ratifying the Treaties. According to Charlemagne in The Economist –

In the European Union, it seems, the creatures of dread are the red-cloaked members of the Bundesverfassungsgericht…which is zealous in protecting national sovereignty and limiting the EU’s powers.

At the moment it is considering the legality of the €750 billion rescue fund for the euro zone, a continuing case brought as a result of a request by a citizen, based on the Basic Law, to block the nation from participating in the euro-area rescue fund. The request was rejected in June (BVerfG, 2 BvR 1099/10) but the important point was that a mere citizen had standing to bring this challenge, and, in reaching their conclusion, the judges didn’t rely on the government’s argument that the rescue fund was constitutional. This constitutional question therefore remains open. So even though it is unlikely that the BVFG will declare the temporary IMF-backed fund illegal on this occasion, this episode illustrates the significant powers of the court, at the behest of German citizens, to set limits to the aggrandizing tendencies of European institutions. In 2009 for example the BVerfG held that the Lisbon Treaty was not incompatible with the Basic Law in that it  does not transform the EU into a federal state (read the English version of the judgment) . But by upholding the treaty on its own terms the Court signalled that member states of the EU wield the political power and any encroachment on that independence would lead to another review.

Of course the nature of our unwritten constitution and the common law basis for judicial power make for a very different structure in the UK Supreme Court. Nevertheless the combination of the BVerfG’s cast iron defence of constitutional rights in the Grundgesetz, and its practice of exercising judicial restraint, is  a matter of some envy in this era of judicial creationism.

Read more:

1 comment;

  1. Rob G says:

    Could have been interesting, if you hadn’t decided to compare apples and oranges – the Supreme Court applying the European Convention of Human Rights, from the Council of Europe, and the BVFG (thanks for the abbreviation!) interpreting the Treaties & legislation of the European Union. What’s it’s stance on the Convention? How does it interact with the Strasbourg court, rather than the Luxembourg one? For that matter, how does it deal with the Luxembourg court?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: