does not open the way to amending the basic structure of the Constitution, which forms the basis of its identity, without a formal amendment to the Constitution, that is, it does not open any such way through the legislation of the inter-state institution.īut Article 24 of the Constitution limits this possibility in that it nullifies any amendment of the Treaty which would destroy the identity of the valid constitutional structure of the Federal Republic of Germany by encroaching on the structures which go to make it up. Īrticle 24 of the Constitution deals with the transfer of sovereign rights to inter-state institutions. The German Constitutional Court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht) held that so long as fundamental rights protection was evident, it would not scrutinise EU action in detail. Given the conflict it potentially faced, it then requested a ruling from the German Constitutional Court. The case then returned to the German Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgericht). It must therefore be ascertained, in the light of the doubts expressed by the Verwaltungsgericht, whether the system of deposits has infringed rights of a fundamental nature, respect for which must be ensured in the Community legal system.
The protection of such rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the Community. In fact, respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the Court of Justice. However, an examination should be made as to whether or not any analogous guarantee inherent in Community law has been disregarded. The validity of such measures can only be judged in the light of Community law.
Recourse to the legal rules or concepts of national law in order to judge the validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the Community would have an adverse effect on the uniformity and efficacy of Community law. But here there was no fundamental right violation.ģ. European Community law did, however, respect fundamental rights, as in member state systems. The ECJ held that the validity of EU measures cannot be challenged on grounds of national law rules or concepts, even if that is a violation of fundamental human rights provisions in a member state’s constitution. The German Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgericht) made a reference to the ECJ. The Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH claimed that the licensing system was a disproportionate violation of their right to conduct a business under the German constitution ( Grundgesetz), because it did more than was necessary to achieve the public objective at hand. The Common Agricultural Policy permitted exports only by exporters who obtained an export licence, on a deposit of money, that could be forfeited if they failed to make the export during the licence’s validity period. Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (1970) Case 11/70 is an EU law case and German constitutional law case concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and the laws of the European Union.
0 kommentar(er)
