(1) BVerfG, 2nd Chamber of the First Senate, Decision 1 BvR 1036/99 of 9 January 2001 and BVerfG, 1st Chamber of the First Senate, Decision 1 BvR 481/01 of 10 May 2001.Google Scholar

(2) See Weiler, J.H.H., The Least Dangerous Branch: A Retrospective and Prospective of the ECJ in the Arena of Political Integration, in: The Constitution of Europe, p. 188, at 193.Google Scholar

(3) J. Golub, The Politics of Judicial Discretion: Rethinking the Interaction between National Courts and the ECJ, West European Politics 19/2 (1996), p. 360–385; see also K. Alter, The European Union\'s Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spillover or Backlash, International Organization 54 (2000), p. 489, at 506.Google Scholar

(4) BVerfG 73, 339, 366 et seq. (Solange II).Google Scholar

(5) Council Directive 86/457/EEC on specific training in general medical practice. This directive was replaced but not changed in the here relevant substance by Council Directive 93/16/EEC to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications.Google Scholar

(6) See the Commission\'s Press Release, IP/00/401.Google Scholar

(7) BVerfG, 3rd Chamber of the Second Senate, 2BvR1642/91 of 29 November 1991, in: NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR VERWALTUNGSWISSENSCHAFT (NVwZ) 1992, p. 360; BVerfGE 82, 159, 195.Google Scholar

(8) S. Kadelbach, Der Einfluß des Europarechts auf das deutsche Planungsrecht, Festschrift Hoppe (2000), p. 897, 906.Google Scholar

(9) See the judgment of the Oberverwaltungsgericht of 19 February 2001, 2 Bs 370/00, II B 2 b,.Google Scholar

(10) BVerfGE 73, 339, 378–381.Google Scholar

(11) BVerfG, Decision of the 2nd Senate of 7 June 2000, 2 BvL 1/97, para. 62, Error! Bookmark not defined.Google Scholar

(12) See Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decision of 12 October 1993 − 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, published in: BVerfGE 89, 155; the commentary to this case is simply abundant. For a first orientation, see, e.g. F. Mayer, Kompetenzüberschreitung und Letztentscheidung (2000), p. 98–120; M. Zuleeg, The European Constitution under Constitutional Constraints: The German Scenario, European Law Review 22 (1997), p. 19.Google Scholar

(13) I. Pernice, Art. 23, in: Dreier, Grundgesetz-Kommentar, para. 30.Google Scholar

(14) BVerfG, 3rd Chamber of the Second Senate, 2 BvR 1096/92 of 9 July 1992, NVwZ 1993, p. 883. The Chamber incorrectly cites to another decision on the same page.Google Scholar

(15) BVerfGE 95, 173.Google Scholar

(16) Council Directive 89/622/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products.Google Scholar

(17) T. Stein, Etikettierung von Tabakerzeugnissen und Warnhinweise, Europarecht 1997, p. 169, at 171; U. Di Fabio, Produkte als Träger fremder Meinungen, NJW 1997, p. 2863, at 2864.Google Scholar

(18) See already Chr. Tomuschat, Aller guten Dinge sind III?, Europarecht 1990, p. 340.Google Scholar

(19) BVerfGE 95, 173, 180. This assumption, however, is questionable. Arguably, one can seek a declaratory jugdment before the Administrative Courts against the validity of a governmental regulation, see BVerwG, NJW 2000, 3584 and the case note by F. Hufen, Juristische Schulung 2001, p. 406–408.Google Scholar

(20) There was only a vague statement that it need not be considered “if the directive was valid under EC law\“, see BVerfGE 95, 173, 181. In other words, even if the directive violated European fundamental rights, the German government would have been entitled to enact such a regulation. European fundamental rights and a reference to the ECJ would only have been considered, if such an independent German regulation would violate the German constitution.Google Scholar