Johannes Graf von Luckner | University of Erfurt (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Johannes Graf von Luckner
German Law Journal
Amidst the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the German Federal Constitutional Court render... more Amidst the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the German Federal Constitutional Court rendered a little-noticed, but potentially far-reaching decision regarding European integration. When it declared the law ratifying the Unitary Patent Court Agreement unconstitutional, it did so because it is a treaty “supplementing or being otherwise closely tied to the EU”, in other words, a satellite treaty, inter-se agreement, or more generally: an international law agreement furthering European integration outside the EU law framework. This commonly used integration technique is therefore going to be a lot more difficult in future whenever Germany is involved. At the same time, the court order gives all German citizens a far-reaching right to have laws ratifying such treaties checked before the Constitutional Court, which is a significant extension compared to its earlier case-law. In future cases of disagreement, EU Member States may have to find different ways to proceed than resorting ...
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat das deutsche Zustimmungsgesetz zum europä‐ ischen Einheitspatent... more Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat das deutsche Zustimmungsgesetz zum europä‐ ischen Einheitspatentgericht für nichtig erklärt, weil es als völkerrechtlicher Ver‐ trag mit „Ergänzungsoder sonstigem besonderen Näheverhältnis zum Integrati‐ onsprogramm der Europäischen Union“ nicht mit verfassungsändernder Mehr‐ heit verabschiedet wurde. Zugleich hat es im Rahmen der Verfassungsbeschwerde die Beschwerdebefugnis in Angelegenheiten der europäischen Integration noch einmal ausgedehnt und auf formelle Fragen erweitert. Im Ergebnis hat es so die europäische Integration mittels völkerrechtlicher Verträge deutlich erschwert. Mittelbar dürfte es damit aber zugleich die Integration innerhalb des Unions‐ rechtsrahmens, zum Beispiel als verstärkte Zusammenarbeit nach Art. 20 EUV, befördern.
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
As long as the UK’s membership in the EU lasted, it had a special position within the Union. This... more As long as the UK’s membership in the EU lasted, it had a special position within the Union. This could be seen particularly well in a peculiar practice that has largely gone unnoticed in the public, namely a series of opt-in decisions that the UK took prior to Brexit but after the Brexit referendum. This contribution raises the question of whether the UK used the pre-Brexit period as a type of ‘last call’, trying to get everything it could of its membership before it ended. To do so, it studies five opt-in decisions, examining their subject matter, the effects of the opt-ins and the outcome of the Brexit negotiations in order to understand the UK’s reasons for integrating further into the EU before withdrawing from it. Uncovering various political and practical motivations, it comes to the conclusion that the initial impression of a ‘last call behaviour’ is not justified.
German Law Journal
Amidst the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the German Federal Constitutional Court render... more Amidst the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the German Federal Constitutional Court rendered a little-noticed, but potentially far-reaching decision regarding European integration. When it declared the law ratifying the Unitary Patent Court Agreement unconstitutional, it did so because it is a treaty “supplementing or being otherwise closely tied to the EU”, in other words, a satellite treaty, inter-se agreement, or more generally: an international law agreement furthering European integration outside the EU law framework. This commonly used integration technique is therefore going to be a lot more difficult in future whenever Germany is involved. At the same time, the court order gives all German citizens a far-reaching right to have laws ratifying such treaties checked before the Constitutional Court, which is a significant extension compared to its earlier case-law. In future cases of disagreement, EU Member States may have to find different ways to proceed than resorting ...
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat das deutsche Zustimmungsgesetz zum europä‐ ischen Einheitspatent... more Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat das deutsche Zustimmungsgesetz zum europä‐ ischen Einheitspatentgericht für nichtig erklärt, weil es als völkerrechtlicher Ver‐ trag mit „Ergänzungsoder sonstigem besonderen Näheverhältnis zum Integrati‐ onsprogramm der Europäischen Union“ nicht mit verfassungsändernder Mehr‐ heit verabschiedet wurde. Zugleich hat es im Rahmen der Verfassungsbeschwerde die Beschwerdebefugnis in Angelegenheiten der europäischen Integration noch einmal ausgedehnt und auf formelle Fragen erweitert. Im Ergebnis hat es so die europäische Integration mittels völkerrechtlicher Verträge deutlich erschwert. Mittelbar dürfte es damit aber zugleich die Integration innerhalb des Unions‐ rechtsrahmens, zum Beispiel als verstärkte Zusammenarbeit nach Art. 20 EUV, befördern.
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
As long as the UK’s membership in the EU lasted, it had a special position within the Union. This... more As long as the UK’s membership in the EU lasted, it had a special position within the Union. This could be seen particularly well in a peculiar practice that has largely gone unnoticed in the public, namely a series of opt-in decisions that the UK took prior to Brexit but after the Brexit referendum. This contribution raises the question of whether the UK used the pre-Brexit period as a type of ‘last call’, trying to get everything it could of its membership before it ended. To do so, it studies five opt-in decisions, examining their subject matter, the effects of the opt-ins and the outcome of the Brexit negotiations in order to understand the UK’s reasons for integrating further into the EU before withdrawing from it. Uncovering various political and practical motivations, it comes to the conclusion that the initial impression of a ‘last call behaviour’ is not justified.