While introducing the participants to the Symposium, the Editorial aims to highlight the main consequences of the PSPP judgment as regards the future inter-institutional activity at the national and supranational levels and offers a key to ease the troublesome communication between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice. Particularly, the authors suggest that the two courts speak two different languages when it comes to a judicial review of the conferral: Luxembourg refers to proportionality, whereas Karlsruhe has actually in mind an essentiality scrutiny. Essentiality is a concept that, despite looking quite anew in the European legal discourse, is not unknown at all to judicial reasoning at German and at the EU level, and may help strengthening the communicative bridges between the national courts and the Court of Justice.
Symposium: PSPP (BVerfG, 5 May 2020) and the Future of the European Integration - Editorial
Vosa G
2020-01-01
Abstract
While introducing the participants to the Symposium, the Editorial aims to highlight the main consequences of the PSPP judgment as regards the future inter-institutional activity at the national and supranational levels and offers a key to ease the troublesome communication between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice. Particularly, the authors suggest that the two courts speak two different languages when it comes to a judicial review of the conferral: Luxembourg refers to proportionality, whereas Karlsruhe has actually in mind an essentiality scrutiny. Essentiality is a concept that, despite looking quite anew in the European legal discourse, is not unknown at all to judicial reasoning at German and at the EU level, and may help strengthening the communicative bridges between the national courts and the Court of Justice.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
