德国联邦议院基于“难以理解的”和“武断的”理由公然和故意违反欧盟法律

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2021004
J. Ziller, D. Galetta
{"title":"德国联邦议院基于“难以理解的”和“武断的”理由公然和故意违反欧盟法律","authors":"J. Ziller, D. Galetta","doi":"10.54648/euro2021004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors believe that the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court contains serious breaches of EU law and is manifestly erroneous. The German judges refuse to apply the CJEU’s judgment and arrogate the power to assess the legality of European Central Bank (ECB) decisions and to review the reasoning of the CJEU, which they qualify as being ‘unintelligible and arbitrary’ for the sole purpose of declaring it ‘ultra vires’. They use the principle of proportionality in a legally incorrect way, ignoring the difference in scope between the latter and the principle of conferral. They make highly questionable use of the principle of democracy and of economic analysis to assess the merits of ECB decisions. A careful analysis of the judgment leads us to wish for the initiation of an infringement procedure.\nBreach of EU law by the judiciary conferral, democratic principle, dialogue between courts, EU competences, infringement procedure, manifest error, primacy, proportionality, ultravires","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Glaring and Deliberate Breaches of EU Law Based on ‘Unintelligible’ and ‘Arbitrary’ Grounds\",\"authors\":\"J. Ziller, D. Galetta\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/euro2021004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The authors believe that the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court contains serious breaches of EU law and is manifestly erroneous. The German judges refuse to apply the CJEU’s judgment and arrogate the power to assess the legality of European Central Bank (ECB) decisions and to review the reasoning of the CJEU, which they qualify as being ‘unintelligible and arbitrary’ for the sole purpose of declaring it ‘ultra vires’. They use the principle of proportionality in a legally incorrect way, ignoring the difference in scope between the latter and the principle of conferral. They make highly questionable use of the principle of democracy and of economic analysis to assess the merits of ECB decisions. A careful analysis of the judgment leads us to wish for the initiation of an infringement procedure.\\nBreach of EU law by the judiciary conferral, democratic principle, dialogue between courts, EU competences, infringement procedure, manifest error, primacy, proportionality, ultravires\",\"PeriodicalId\":43955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Public Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者认为,德国联邦宪法法院的判决严重违反了欧盟法律,显然是错误的。德国法官拒绝适用欧洲法院的判决,并滥用权力来评估欧洲中央银行(ECB)决定的合法性,并审查欧洲法院的推理,他们认为欧洲法院的推理是“难以理解和武断的”,唯一的目的是宣布其“越权”。他们在法律上错误地运用了比例原则,忽视了比例原则与授予原则在范围上的区别。他们利用民主原则和经济分析来评估欧洲央行决策的优点,这一点非常值得怀疑。对判决书的仔细分析使我们希望启动侵权程序。司法授予对欧盟法律的违反,民主原则,法院之间的对话,欧盟权限,侵权程序,明显错误,首要性,比例性,越权性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Glaring and Deliberate Breaches of EU Law Based on ‘Unintelligible’ and ‘Arbitrary’ Grounds
The authors believe that the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court contains serious breaches of EU law and is manifestly erroneous. The German judges refuse to apply the CJEU’s judgment and arrogate the power to assess the legality of European Central Bank (ECB) decisions and to review the reasoning of the CJEU, which they qualify as being ‘unintelligible and arbitrary’ for the sole purpose of declaring it ‘ultra vires’. They use the principle of proportionality in a legally incorrect way, ignoring the difference in scope between the latter and the principle of conferral. They make highly questionable use of the principle of democracy and of economic analysis to assess the merits of ECB decisions. A careful analysis of the judgment leads us to wish for the initiation of an infringement procedure. Breach of EU law by the judiciary conferral, democratic principle, dialogue between courts, EU competences, infringement procedure, manifest error, primacy, proportionality, ultravires
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1