In addition, he states that «a concept demanding protection for a fundamental right must not be confused with an attack on the national identity or, more specifically the national
constitutional identity of a Member State.»
Indeed, it should be up to national courts to assess whether EU law infringes
the constitutional identity of the Member State but the opinion of Bot is de facto reversing this common ground.
Not exact matches
139] This is interesting, because as far as I am aware the CJEU has not yet held that
Member States are able to derogate from provisions
of secondary EU law on the basis
of their national
constitutional identity.
«The Union shall respect the equality
of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national
identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and
constitutional [my Italics], inclusive
of regional and local self - government.»
On the other side, instead
of recognizing the interpretation
of the principle
of legality as a part
of the Italian
constitutional identity, the Court maintained that this interpretation is part
of the «
constitutional traditions common to the
Member States» pursuant to Art. 6.3 TUE..
Bot turns the clock back to Gauweiler, and by literally pointing out that «in that regard, the order for reference reminds me
of the question for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Bundesverfassungsgericht» (para. 10) is de facto disregarding an important assist offered by the ICC that in its order has framed the request for preliminary ruling more on the grounds
of the difference between
Member States
constitutional traditions than on the notion
of constitutional identity.
The use
of the
constitutional identity clause, then, should be revisited, in primis among those scholars who have overweighed the respect
of the national
identity as a «problem - solver», i.e. a means to reconcile the differences between
Member States and the Union as far as a different degree
of protection
of fundamental rights is concerned.
Smlouvyo 4, paragraph 2
of the European Union and Article 3, paragraph 1
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (or Article 4
of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004), the fact that the Czech authorities could zaokolností what vprojednávané things, provide preferential treatment (kdávce compensatory allowance at the age where the amount
of benefits granted under Article 20
of the Treaty concluded 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and the Slovak Republic on Social Security and Council Regulation (EC) No 1408 to 1471 (Regulation č.883 / 2004) lower than the dose that would be received, if the pension calculated under the laws
of the Czech Republic), only citizens
of the Czech Republic, if ktakovému treatment creates a fundamental right to security in old age unloaded by the
Constitutional Court
of the Czech Republic specifically in relation kdobám pension acquired vzaniklé CSFR and perceived as part
of the national
identity, and, if such treatment is stonarušit right
of free movement
of workers as a fundamental right
of the Union, a situation kdybyposkytnutí reciprocal treatment accorded to nationals
of EU
Member States kteřítakézískali vzaniklé CSFR equivalent
of pension security led kvýznamnému threat from the financial stability
of the pension fund
of the Czech Republic?