Zur Kontrolle der Vorlagepflicht des Art. 267 Abs. 3 AEUV durch das BVerfG - Zugleich Besprechung der Entscheidung des BVerfG, Beschl. v. 5.1.2021

Zur Kontrolle der Vorlagepflicht des Art. 267 Abs. 3 AEUV durch das BVerfG - Zugleich Besprechung der Entscheidung des BVerfG, Beschl. v. 5.1.2021 – 1 BvR 1771/20, Air Berlin

DOI:	https://doi.org/10.9785/gpr-2021-180404
URL:	https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.9785/gpr...
Dokumenttyp:	Zeitschriftenartikel
Erscheinungsjahr:	2021
Titel einer Zeitschrift oder einer Reihe:	GPR : Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union
Band/Volume:	18
Heft/Issue:	4
Seitenbereich:	156-162
Ort der Veröffentlichung:	Köln [u.a.]
Verlag:	Otto Schmidt [u.a.]
ISSN:	2364-7205 , 1612-9229 , 2364-7213 , 2193-9519
Sprache der Veröffentlichung:	Deutsch
Einrichtung:	Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaft und Volkswirtschaftslehre > Bürgerl. Recht, Deutsches u. Europ. Wirtschafts- u. Arbeitsrecht (Kainer 2012-)
Fachgebiet:	340 Recht
Abstract:	The German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) plays an impor- tant role in the structure of the court system of the European Union. It is not only the guardian of the German constitution (Grundgesetz), but also the only body in Germany that can monitor compliance with the obligation to make a reference under Article 267 (3) TFEU: Based on Article 101 (1) Grund- gesetz, the BVerfG reviews whether courts of last instance have violated the right to the lawful judge by failing to submit preli- minary questions relevant to the decision to the CJEU. In this respect, however, the BVerfG only exercises a limited judicial review, checking merely for arbitrariness of the decision to not seize the CJEU. This does not meet the requirements of EU law (effet utile) and the resulting responsibility of the BVerfG for the uniformity of EU law. On the basis of a recent BVerfG order concerning the dismissal protection suits against the insol- vency administrator of AirBerlin, this article shows that the BVerfG does not always take its responsibility for the cohe- rence of the Union legal order seriously enough. The preliminary ruling procedure is of paramount importance in the EU’s decentralized court system: the CJEU cannot fulfill its function of ensuring the unity and coherence of the interpretation and application of Union law if the relevant questions of interpretation are not referred to it. According to the CILFIT case law of the CJEU, exceptions to the obligation under Article 267 (3) TFEU to refer questions on the interpretation of EU law to the CJEU are therefore only permissible under narrow conditions. To give this obligation full effectiveness and to en- sure the uniformity of EU Law, the BVerfG – functionally also a court of the EU – should change its limited standard of re- view on compliance with the obligation of last instance courts to refer questions to the CJEU. To bring its jurisprudence in line with the relevant case law of the CJEU, the BVerfG should in particular require a substantive reasoning by courts who de- cide to not ask preliminary questions to the CJEU in cases that depend on the interpretation of EU law.