User:Wyndham Freeman/Solange II
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Changelog
[edit]Added many more details in the facts section and the entire significance section.
Added
[edit]Facts
[edit]The appellant applied for an import license and was refused. The appellant challenged the import licensing regime (Regulation 2107/74) in the Frankfurt Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht), but the case was dismissed. The court held that the regulation was passed in accordance with the objectives of art. 39 EC (art. 45 TFEU) [1].
The case was appealed to the Federal Supreme Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), which suspended the case and sent a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ responded that the regulation was valid. In response, the appellant appealed to the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC, BverfGE, Bundesverfassungsgericht), citing several breaches of German constitutional rights [2]. The appellant claimed that, following with the judgment of Solange I, the GFCC should disapply EU law which conflicts with the fundamental rights protection afforded in the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) [3].
Judgment
[edit]German Federal Constitutional Court
[edit]The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ultimately rejected the complaint.
since the 1974 Solange I decision,
Significance
[edit]In contrast to the earlier Solange I decision, the Federal Constitutional Court accepted the judgment of the ECJ as binding and final in Germany [4]. It is notable that the GFCC did not give up its competence to scrutinize EU law in light of the German Basic Law's fundamental rights [5]. Rather they suspended this scrutiny, to be renewed if a case could demonstrate a decline of fundamental rights standards in the EU below those guaranteed by the Basic Law [6].
Additionally, both Solange I and Solange II demonstrate an atmosphere of constructive argument within the European courts [7]. The Solange Doctrine of the GFCC helped the ECJ and EU institutions to eventually develop their own systems of fundamental rights protection, offering an equal or higher level of protection than the German Basic Law [8].
- ^ "BVerfGE 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83 Solange II-decision". Texas Law. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "BVerfGE 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83 Solange II-decision". Texas Law. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "BVerfGE 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83 Solange II-decision". Texas Law. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "BVerfGE 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83 Solange II-decision". Texas Law. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ ""Solange" doctrine – its development and the relevance today" (PDF). Pravna fakulteta Maribor. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) p. 7-8. - ^ "A New European Fundamental Rights Court: The German Constitutional Court on the Right to Be Forgotten". European Papers. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ ""Solange" doctrine – its development and the relevance today" (PDF). Pravna fakulteta Maribor. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) p. 9. - ^ ""Solange" doctrine – its development and the relevance today" (PDF). Pravna fakulteta Maribor. Retrieved 10 May 2024.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) p. 11.