At the invitation of the Latvian Constitutional Court, the constitutional courts of the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) exchanged views on their work for the first time in order to promote mutual understanding of each other’s approaches while respecting legal traditions and sometimes differences of opinion, at a conference held in Riga on 2 and 3 September.
“While we are speaking only through our judgements, genuine understanding is impossible, this could rather lead to conflicts. Therefore it is very important that Riga is the place where, for the first time in the history of the European Union, all constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the European meet at a round table to harmonise law that is applied in the European Union’s space”, said the President of the Latvian Constitutional Court, Sanita Osipova, according to the transcript of the press conference she held on Friday 3 September with the President of the Court, Koen Lenaerts.
No memorandum of understanding was adopted at the conference, the aim being to initiate a dialogue on thorny issues. One of these concerns the friction that has arisen in recent years with constitutional court judgments that have called into question the primacy of EU law.
In May 2020, the German Constitutional Court challenged the proportionality of a CJEU judgment that validated the ECB’s quantitative easing operation (see EUROPE 12480/17). In June, the European Commission took the case to court, accusing the Karlsruhe court of undermining the rule of EU law (see EUROPE 12737/26).
“The German Federal Constitutional Court was the first one to bring into its judgements the concept of constitutional identity. The Court of Justice of the European Union is ready to respect the national constitutional identity but criteria are needed”, said Ms Osipova. According to her, “this is the beginning of an important process to harmonise understanding, leaving to the nation states this possibility to function within the framework of their constitutional identity, which, first and foremost, is protected by constitutional courts”.
Mr Lenaerts recalled that no Member State can join the EU in a sovereign manner if it does not respect the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU, citing “treating people with respect, freedom, democracy, the rule of law principle, creating an independent system of courts, likewise, respecting fundamental human freedoms”.
Not all Member States officially recognise same-sex marriage, as States are sovereign in family law matters and the EU cannot interfere in this area, he said. However, he argued, States cannot restrict the free movement of same-sex married people in the EU.
The Court’s objective is therefore to find a middle ground between the fundamental values of the EU and the discretion of the States. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)