1 Compare Craig, Paul, Competence: Clarity, Containment and Consideration, 29 European Law Review 324 (2004); Bermann, George A., Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States, 94 Columbia Law Review 344 (1998); Konow, Gerhard, Zum Subsidiaritätsprinzip des Vertrages von Maastricht, 46 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 405 (1993).Google Scholar

2 See generally Búrca, Grainne de, Reappraising Subsidiarity's Significance after Amsterdam, Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper, 7/99; Bogdandy, Armin von & Bast, Jürgen, The Vertical Order of Competences, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 65 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2006); Barber, Nicolas W., Subsidiarity in the Draft Constitution, 11 European review of public law (ERPL) 197 (2005). For a critical voice, see Davies, Gareth, Subsidiarity: The wrong Idea, in the wrong Place, at the wrong Time, 43 Common Market Law Review (CML Rev.) 63 (2006).Google Scholar

3 See Konow, supra note 1.Google Scholar

4 Compare with the view of former prime minister from North Rhine-Westphalia. Wolfgang Clement, Europa gestalten – nicht verwalten, Die Kompetenzordnung der Europäischen Union nach Nizza, in Forum Constitutionis Europae, Vorträge zum Europäischen Verfassungsrecht, FCE 3/01 (http://www.whi-berlin.de/clement.htm).Google Scholar

5 See the homepage of the European Convent at: http://european-convention.eu.int.Google Scholar

6 See Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, in Presidency Conclusions of the European Council Meeting in Laeken 19, at http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/68827.pdf.Google Scholar

7 One of the main objectives of the European Convention was to establish a transparent system to better distinguish between competences given to the European Community, on the one hand, and the Member States, on the other hand. Compare the section “A better division and definition of competence in the European Union” in Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, id.Google Scholar

8 Compare CONV 286/02.Google Scholar

9 Declaration of the Heads of State or Government on the Ratification of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (European Council, 16 and 17 June 2005), Document No. SN 117/05, 2, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/85325.pdf.Google Scholar

10 It is certain that – irrespective of the fate of the Constitutional Treaty – a reform of the primary law continues to be in the best interest of the European Union and indispensable in order to work on the “Leftovers of Nice.” For that reason, different solutions have already been discussed among scholars. Regarding the options of a partial ratification despite of the failure of the Constitutional Treaty, see Wuermeling, Joachim, Die Tragische: Zum weiteren Schicksal der EU-Verfassung, 38 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 149 (2005); Jörg Monar, Optionen für den Ernstfall: Auswege aus einer möglichen Ratifizierungskrise des Verfassungsvertrags, 5 Integration 16 (2005).Google Scholar

11 See European council Brussels 15/16 June 2006, presidency conclusions, 16/6/2006 (English), Nr: 10633/06 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/90111.pdf.Google Scholar

12 Protocol No. 2, OJ EC, C 310/207 (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en02070209.pdf), hereinafter “SubsProt”.Google Scholar

13 As to origin and significance of the principle of subsidiarity, in general, see Josef Isensee, Subsidiaritätsprinzip und Verfassungsrecht – Eine Studie über das Regulativ des Verhältnisses von Staat und Gesellschaft (2nd ed., 2001); Lecheler, Helmut, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip – Strukturprinzip einer europäischen Union (1993); Pieper, Stefan, Subsidiarität (1994); Christoph Ritzer, Europäische Kompetenzordnung, Reform der Kompetenzverteilung zwischen der Europäischen Union und den Mitgliedstaaten durch den Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa 72 (2006).Google Scholar

14 See the encyclical of Pope Pius XI. Quadragesimo anno “on reconstruction of the social order”: “Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” See the encyclical online under: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html.Google Scholar

15 Compare Isensee, supra note 13, at71; Calliess, Christian, Subsidiaritäts- und Solidaritätsprinzip in der Europäischen Union - Vorgaben für die Anwendung von Art. 5 (ex-Art. 3b) EGV nach dem Vertrag von Amsterdam 32 (2nd ed. 1999).Google Scholar

16 Blumenwitz, Dieter, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip und die Stellung der Länder und der Regionen in der Europäischen Union, in Gedächtnisschrift für Eberhard Grabitz 1, 5 (Randelzhofer ed.,1995).Google Scholar

17 This principle is as well known as the “principle of attributed competences” or by the term “enumerated powers.” Compare von Bogdandy & Bast, supra note 2, at 340.Google Scholar

18 Compare Merten, Detlef, Die Subsidiarität Europas 77, 78 (1993); Calliess, Christian, Art. 5, in Kommentar des Vertrages über die Europäische Union und des Vertrages zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft - EUV/EGV margin note 6 (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 2nd ed. 2002).Google Scholar

19 At http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/11997E/htm/11997E.html#0105010010. This protocol plays an important role in primary community law regarding issues of practicability and justiciability. Compare Art. 311 EC.Google Scholar

20 Should the principle be interpreted as a rule concerning the division of competences, the respective competence would remain with the Member States until it was shifted to the Community according to sec. 2 of Art. 5 EC. Compare Merten, Detlef, supra note 18, at 81; Kahl, Wolfgang, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Subsidiaritätsprinzips nach Art. 3b EG-Vertrag, 118 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 414, 433 (1993); Schmidhuber, Peter M. & Hitzler, Gerhard, Die Verankerung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips im EWG-Vertrag - ein wichtiger Schritt auf dem Weg zu einer föderalen Verfassung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 11 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 720, 722 (1992).Google Scholar

21 Moersch, Wolfram, Leistungsfähigkeit und Grenzen des Subsidiaritätsprinzips - Eine rechtsdogmatische und rechtspolitische Studie 331 (2001); Streinz, Rudolf, Die Abgrenzung der Kompetenzen zwischen der Europäischen Union und den Mitgliedstaaten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Regionen, 47 Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter (BayVBl) 481, 486 (2001).Google Scholar

22 Compare Zuleeg, Manfred, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip im Europarecht - Inhalt, Justiziabilität, Entwicklung -, in Mélanges en hommage à Fernand Schockweiler 640 (Rodriguez a.o. ed., 1999). For further details to the debate about a two-part or three-part analysis, compare Ritzer, supra note 13, at 82.Google Scholar

23 The Commission takes the view in its “Communication […] to the Council and the European Parliament concerning the principle of subsidiarity” that the notion of exclusive competences needs to be interpreted in a broad way. For that reason it encompasses not only the areas expressly mentioned as exclusive, but also the areas of the four fundamental freedoms, the general rules on competition, the common organization of agricultural markets, and the essential elements of transport policy. Art. 71 lit. a and b EC, (reprinted in Merten, supra note 18, at 112.). Art. 71 sec. 1 lit. a and b presumably referring to ECJ, decision of 22 May 1985, Case 13/83, 1985 E.C.R. 1513 (European Parliament/Council).Google Scholar

24 Some scholars go even further and consider the establishment of a common market (Art. 94 et seq. EC) an exclusive competence of the Community. See Müller-Graff, Peter, Binnenmarktauftrag und Subsidiaritätsprinzip?, 159 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 66 (1995). Some scholars follow the view that the notion of exclusive competence is extrinsic to the Treaty and just a mere consequence of the Primacy of Community Law. See Everling, Ulrich, Subsidiaritätsprinzip und “ausschließliches” Gemeinschaftsrecht – ein “faux problème” der Verfassungsauslegung, in Verfassungsstaatlichkeit - Festschrift für Klaus Stern zum 65. Geburtstag 1234 (Burmeister ed., 1997).Google Scholar

25 Also, this interpretation is contradictory to the fact that, for example, the competence for the harmonization of law requires that the competence in this area still remains with the Member States. See Calliess, Christian, supra note 18, at margin number 24; Jarass, Hans D., Die Kompetenzverteilung zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und den Mitgliedstaaten, 121 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 173, 190 (1996).Google Scholar

26 The ECJ has implicitly disagreed with a narrow interpretation in its decision on the biopatentdirective, by explicitly reviewing Art. 5 sec. 2 EC – in opposition to the comments made by the Advocate General. Case C-377/98, Biopatent Directive, 2001 E.C.R. I-7079, para. 30. See Colneric, Ninon, Der Gerichtshof der europäischen Gemeinschaft als Kompetenzgericht, 13 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 175, 184 (2002).Google Scholar

27 Among them are the commercial policy, substantive law of customs, the protection of resources for fishing, and the law of internal organisation and procedure; the same must be true, for logical reasons, for areas connected with the monetary union. See Art. 105 et seq. EC. See also Zuleeg, Manfred, Art. 5, in I Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft margin note 7 (Hans von der Groeben & Jürgen Schwarze eds., 6th ed. 2003); Börries, Reimer von, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip im Recht der Europäischen Union, 29 Europa-recht (EuR) 263, 274 (1994); Börries, Reimer von, Gedanken zur Tragweite des Subsidiaritätsprinzips im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht, in Europarecht, Kartellrecht, Wirtschaftsrecht - Festschrift für Arved Deringer 22 (Ulrich Everling ed., 1993).Google Scholar

28 It is irrelevant, from the view of the European Community, on what national level the action is taken.Google Scholar

29 Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat und an das Europäische Parlament betr. das Subsidiaritätsprinzip (reprinted in Merten, supra note 18, at 112. Compare No. 4 and No. 5 of the Protocol of Subsidiarity, supra note 12.Google Scholar

30 Compare Conclusions of the Council of Edinburgh of 12 Dezember 1992 (published in German Calliess, supra note 15, at 391); Interinstitutional Agreement on Procedures for Implementing the Principle of Subsidiarity 1993/XX, 1993 O.J. (C 329/132) (EC) (republished in German in 20 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (EuGRZ) 602 (1993)).Google Scholar

31 According to No. 1 of the Protocol in exercising the powers conferred on it, each institution shall ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is complied with.Google Scholar

32 Any proposed Community legislation has to state the reasons on which it is based, also having considered the financial or administrative burden falling upon the Community, national governments, local authorities, economic operators and citizens. See No. 4 and No. 9 of the Protocol; Art. 253 EC.Google Scholar

33 The Commission submits an annual report to the European Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and to the Economic and Social Committee on the application of Art. 5 EC (No. 9 of the Protocol). The Council takes this report into account in its report on the progress achieved by the Union that it is required to submit to the Parliament in accordance with Art. 4 EU. It considers the consistency of each proposal of the Commission as well as amendments that the Council itself, or the Parliament, envisage making with respect to the principle of subsidiarity (Nos. 10 et seq. of the Protocol).Google Scholar

34 See, e.g., Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health, para. 99, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004J0154:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

35 See Börries, von, supra note 27, at 283.Google Scholar

36 See Zuleeg, , supra note 22, at 642.Google Scholar

37 See No. 13 Subs. Prot; Moersch, supra note 21, at 305; Pieper, supra note 13, at 271. According to a different opinion the principle of subsidiarity is only an abstract political guideline and – because of its indefinite character – could not serve as a basis for precise legal consequences. See Grimm, Dieter, Effektivität und Effektivierung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips, 77 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 7 (1994); Lienbacher, Georg, Art. 5, in EU-Kommentar para. 25 (Jürgen Schwarze ed., 2000); Schweitzer, Michael & Fixson, Oliver, Subsidiarität und Regionalismus in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 14 Juristische Ausbildung (Jura) 579, 582 (1992).Google Scholar

38 Case T-29/92, SPO, 1995 E.C.R. II-289.Google Scholar

39 As to the different approaches, see Pieper, supra note 13, at 197; Calliess, supra note 15, at 35.Google Scholar

40 Case T-29/92, SPO, 1995 E.C.R. II-289, para. 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Cases C-36/97 and C- 37/97, Kellinghusen, , 1998 E.C.R. I-6337, para.Google Scholar

42 Case C 209/94, Buralux, , 1996 E.C.R. I-615.Google Scholar

43 The plaintiffs referred to EC-regulation No. 259/93 which unified the rules for the conveyance of garbage on a European level. According to this regulation the Member States can pass acts to prohibit the conveyance of garbage in general or in part.Google Scholar

44 AG Lenz, Advocate General's Opinion of 23 November 1995, Case C-209/94, ECR 1996, I-615, para. 83 et seq. (Buralux).Google Scholar

45 Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplement.Google Scholar

46 Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health, para. 102, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=CELEX:62004J0154:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

47 Case C-415/93, Bosman, , 1995 E.C.R. I-4921.Google Scholar

48 AG Lenz, Advocate General's Opinion of 20 September 1995, Case C-415/93, ECR 1995, I-4930, para. 130. (Bosman).Google Scholar

49 This is contrary to the fact that the competence to harmonize requires that some competence was still left to the Member States, which again leads to the assumption of a shared competence between Community and Member States. See supra note 22.Google Scholar

50 Case C-415/93, Bosman, 1995 E.C.R. I-4921, para. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 “Finally, the principle of subsidiarity, as interpreted by the German Government to the effect that intervention by public authorities, and particularly Community authorities, in the area in question must be confined to what is strictly necessary, cannot lead to a situation in which the freedom of private associations to adopt sporting rules restricts the exercise of rights conferred on individuals by the Treaty.”Google Scholar

52 Case C-11/95, Commission v. Belgium, 1996 E.C.R. I-4115.Google Scholar

53 AG Lenz, Advocate General's Opinion of 30 April 1996, Case C-11/95, Case 1996, I-4115, para. 60. (Commission/Belgium).Google Scholar

54 Case C-11/95, Commission v. Belgium, 1996 E.C.R. I-4115, para. 52.Google Scholar

55 See Schima, Bernhard, Die Beurteilung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips durch den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 54 Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung (ÖJZ) 761, 766 (1997).Google Scholar

56 The Advocate Generals had already discussed issues concerning the principle of subsidiarity in their opinions, which have not been adopted, however, by the European Court of Justice. See Calliess, supra note 15, at 351.Google Scholar

57 Case C-233/94, Deposit-guarantee Schemes, 1997 E.C.R. I- 2405.Google Scholar

58 AG Léger, Advocate General's Opinion of 10 December 1996, Case C-223/94, ECR 1997, I- 2405, para. 80 et seq. (deposit-guarantee schemes).Google Scholar

59 Case C-233/94, Deposit-guarantee Schemes, 1997 E.C.R. I- 2405, para. 24.Google Scholar

60 Compare Calliess, supra note 15, at 330. An example of a too formalistic reasoning can be found at Schima, supra note 55, at 769.Google Scholar

61 Case C-84/94, Directive Concerning Working Time, 1996 E.C.R. I-5755.Google Scholar

62 Id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

63 AG Léger, Advocate General's Opinion of 12 March 1996, Case C-84/94, ECR 1996, I-5758, para. 125 et seq. (directive concerning working time).Google Scholar

64 Case C-84/94, Directive Concerning Working Time, 1996 E.C.R. I-5755, para. 12–45.Google Scholar

65 See Schima, supra note 55, at 767; Marion Simm, Der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften im föderalen Kompetenzkonflikt 150, note 593 (1998).Google Scholar

66 Case C-84/94, Directive Concerning Working Time, 1996 E.C.R. I-5755, para. 47.Google Scholar

67 Compare Simm, supra note 65, at 151.Google Scholar

68 Case C-84/94, Directive Concerning Working Time, 1996 E.C.R. I-5755, para. 47.Google Scholar

69 This is referred to at AG Léger, Advocate General's Opinion of 12 March 1996, Case C-84/94, ECR 1996, I-5758, para. 124 (directive concerning working time).Google Scholar

70 Case C-376/98, Ban on Advertising of Tobacco Products, 2000 E.C.R. I-8419.Google Scholar

71 AG Fennelly, Advocate General's Opinion of 15 June 2000, Case C-376/98, C-74/99, ECR 2000, I-8419, para. 131 et seq. (ban on advertising of tobacco products).Google Scholar

72 Case C-376/98, Ban on Advertising of Tobacco Products, 2000 E.C.R. I-8419, para. 76.Google Scholar

73 AG Jacobs, Advocate General's Opinion of 14 June 2001, Case C-377/98, ECR 2001, I-7079, para. 77 et seq. (Biopatent-directive).Google Scholar

74 Case C-377/98, Biopatent-directive, 2001 E.C.R. I-7079, para. 30.Google Scholar

75 Id. at para. 33.Google Scholar

76 AG Jacobs, Advocate General's Opinion of 14 June 2001, Case C-377/98, ECR 2001, I-7079, para. 59 (Biopatent-directive).Google Scholar

77 Case C-491/01, Tabakprodukt, , 2002 E.C.R. I-11453, para. 177. See Calliess, Christian, Kontrolle zentraler Kompetenzausübung in Deutschland und Europa: Ein Lehrstück für die Europäische Verfassung - Zugleich eine Besprechung des Altenpflegegesetz-Urteils des BVerfG, 20 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (EuGRZ) 181 (2003).Google Scholar

78 Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health, para. 106, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=CELEX:62004J0154:EN:HTML.Google Scholar

79 Id. at para. 104.Google Scholar

80 Davies, supra note 2, at 75; Kenntner, Markus, Das Subsidiaritätsprotokoll des Amsterdamer Vertrags – Anmerkungen zum Begrenzungscharakter des gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Subsidiaritätsprinzips, 51 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2871, 2874 (1998); Konow, supra note 1. Combining both aspects, see Peter M. Schmidhuber, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip im Vertrag von Maastricht, 108 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl) 418 (1993). This view seems to be confirmed in No. 3 of the Protocol of Subsidiarity, according to which, first, the principle of subsidiarity does not question the competences of the Community, second, the principle of subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and, third, actions of the Community can be extended within its competences. Critical statements of the Committee of the Regions remained a dull sword due to their lack of binding authority. See thereto, on the one hand, the resolutions of the German Upper House (Bundesrat) from December 18, 1992, BR–DRs. 810/92, II.3, 3 and, on the other hand, Konow, supra note 1, at 411.Google Scholar

81 A less effective instrument seems to be the rigorous disapproval by one Member State within the Council, even more since decisions are often taken by qualified majority. It seems much more promising to bring forward potential concerns in a constructive way. See Rompe, Sibylle, Der Subsidiaritätsbericht der Bundesregierung für 1999, Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung (ZG) 275 (2000). Compare the reports on subsidiarity of the German Government of 1999 and 2000: 12 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 111 (2001) and 13 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 3 (2002). Compare, further, remarks, according to which attention is paid to the compliance with the principle of subsidiarity by the Member States and the Regions and its compliance is demanded, challenges, however, are explicitly reserved to problematic constellations. Compare the reports on subsidiarity of the German Länder, the Upper House (Bundesrat) and the Government, e.g. Bundestagsdrucksachen BT-DRs.14/4017, BR-DRs.508/00 bzw. BT-DRs.12/7132, 13, No. 43; BT-DRs.13/10109, 14, Nr. 11; BR-DRs.215/99, 18, No. 31: 12 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 111 (2001); 13 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 3 (2002).Google Scholar

82 Compare the report of the Chairman of the Group on Subsidiarity of the European Convent of September 23, 2003, CONV 286/02, 2.Google Scholar

83 Calliess, Christian, Der Binnenmarkt, die europäische Kompetenzordnung und das Subsidiaritätsprinzip im Lichte der neuen Europäischen Verfassung, in Europarecht im Zeitalter der Globalisierung: Festschrift für Peter Fischer 417 (Heribert Köck & Alina Lengauer & Georg Ress eds., 2004).Google Scholar

84 Protocol No. 2 of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe,: OJ C 310/207 of 16 December 2004.Google Scholar

85 Wuermeling, , supra note 10, at 151; Monar, supra note 10, at 16.Google Scholar

86 Wuermeling, , supra note 10, at 152; Monar, supra note 10, at 22, 26.Google Scholar

87 Wuermeling, , supra note 10, at 152.Google Scholar

88 OJ 2004 C 310/207 of 16 December, 2004.Google Scholar

89 Motivated by two members of the Convent, the Prime Minister of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Erwin Teufel, and the British Member of the European Parliament, Duff. Comp. CONV 724/03, 62. This, however, does not constitute a substantive change, since so far the test following the not-sufficient-criteria has taken into account every national level of the Member States.Google Scholar

90 The words “and therefore” would have been replaced by the words “but rather”, which would have underlined the cumulative relation between the two criteria as parts of a two-fold test. See Stewing, Clemens, Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip als Kompetenzverteilungsregel im Europäischen Recht, 107 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl) 1518 (1992); Clemens Stewing, Subsidiarität und der Föderalismus in der Europäischen Union 108 (1992). Following this, there should not be a presumption in favour of the smallest unit. Rather the Community should feel encouraged to further expand its competences.Google Scholar

91 BullEC 12–1992, 1 (13 et seq.) No. I.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92 OJ 1993 C 329/135; 20 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (EuGRZ) 603 (1993).Google Scholar

93 One basis for the distribution of the subjects was a report set up by a working group of the European Parliament which referred to the “current division of competences” according to current Community Law. Therefore part of the exclusive competence of the Community was considered primarily competences that have already been declared exclusive by the case law of the European Court of Justice. See European Parliament, Committee for Constitutional Issues, Allain Lamassoure (reporter): Report on the division of competences between the European Union and the Member States (2001/2024[INI]), 20 et seq. at http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/documents/other/oth150601_en.pdf.Google Scholar

94 The internal market according to Art. I-14 sec. 2 lit. a) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe would be part of the shared competence, which would have expressly rendered the principle of subsidiarity applicable also for measures on the basis of harmonization of the internal market.Google Scholar

95 Even though it was sporadically demanded to keep the list of competences contained in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe by any means, a “fast” reform seems difficult, since this part reaches out to all other areas of Primary Law.Google Scholar

96 Art. 2 SubsProt.Google Scholar

97 The Commission, however, within its consultations shall “where appropriate, take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged”, Art. 2 SubsProt.Google Scholar

98 Schröder, Meinhard, Vertikale Kompetenzverteilung und Subsidiarität im Konventsentwurf für eine europäische Verfassung, 59 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 8, 11 (2004); Glietsch, Carsten, Kommunale Forderungen im EU-Verfassungsentwurf weitgehend berücksichtigt, Die Gemeinde 674, 676 (2003); Grawert, Rolf, Wie soll Europa organisiert werden? – Zur konstitutionellen “Zukunft Europas” nach dem Vertrag von Nizza, 38 Europa-Recht (EuR) 971, 983 (2003); Hrbek, Rudolf, Die deutschen Länder und der Verfassungsentwurf des Konvents, 3 Integration 357, 365 (2003).Google Scholar

99 Art. 5 SubsProt.Google Scholar

100 Comp. also No. 4 of the previous Subs. Prot.Google Scholar

101 Generally, on the role of the national parliaments, see Maurer, Andreas, Parlamentarische Demokratie in der Europäischen Union. Der Beitrag der nationalen Parlamente und des Europäischen Parlaments (2002).Google Scholar

102 Report of the Chairman of the Group on Subsidiarity of the European Convent of September 23, 2003, CONV 286/02, 5.Google Scholar

103 An exertion of influence already takes place in the existing system (see the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union [COSAC], n. 132).Google Scholar

104 Art. 4 Subs. Prot.Google Scholar

105 Comp. Art. 6 Subs. Prot in connection with Art. 3 of the “Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union”, see also Protocol No. 1 of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJ EC C 310/204 (under http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en02040206.pdf).Google Scholar

106 Mager, Ute, Die Prozedualisierung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips im Verfassungsentwurf des Europäischen Konvents - Verbesserter Schutz vor Kompetenzverlagerung auf die Gemeinschaftsebene?, 6 Zeitschrift für Europäische Studien (ZEuS) 471, 478 (2003); Schröder, supra note 98, at 12.Google Scholar

107 Art. 7 Subs. Prot.Google Scholar

108 As to questions concerning the space of freedom, security and justice a quorum of a quarter of votes is sufficient.Google Scholar

109 This procedure does not depend on (as proposed in between) a preceding statement supported by reasons.Google Scholar

110 Meyer, Jürgen & Hölscheidt, Sven, Die Europäische Verfassung des Europäischen Konvents, 14 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 613, 621 (2003); Läufer, Thomas, Der Europäische Gerichtshof - moderate Neuerungen des Verfassungsentwurfs, 3 Integration 510, 516 (2003); Ruffert, Matthias, Schlüsselfragen der Europäischen Verfassung der Zukunft; Grundrechte – Institutionen – Kompetenzen – Ratifizierung, 39 Europa-recht (EuR) 165, 182 (2004); Martina Lais, Die Rolle der nationalen Parlamente in einer künftigen europäischen Verfassung, 6 Zeitschrift für Europäische Studien (ZEuS) 187, 208 (2003).Google Scholar

111 Compare the contribution of the Committee of the Regions to the European Convent, CdR 127/2002, 6Google Scholar

112 Like this Art. 8 Subs. Prot. (emphasis added).Google Scholar

113 See Art. 8 Subs. Prot.Google Scholar

114 Compare one of the members of the Convent, Wuermeling, Joachim, Kalamität Kompetenz: Zur Abgrenzung der Zuständigkeiten in dem Verfassungsentwurf des EU-Konvents, 39 Europarecht 216, 225 (2004).Google Scholar

115 Id.Google Scholar

116 Zuleeg, , supra note 27, at margin number 37.Google Scholar

117 Möschel, Wernhard, Subsidiaritätsprinzip und europäisches Kartellrecht, 48 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 281 (1995).Google Scholar

118 As to the differences between the principle of subsidiarity in the broad and in the narrow sense, see Calliess, supra note 18, at. 5, margin note 3.Google Scholar

119 See Schilling, Theodor, A New Dimension of Subsidiarity: Subsidiarity as a Rule and a Principle, 14 Yearbook of European Law (Yb.Eu.Law) 203 (1994).Google Scholar

120 Dworkin, Ronald, Taking rights seriously (1977), 24.Google Scholar

121 Schilling, supra note 119. Ludwigs, Markus, Rechtsangleichung nach Art. 94, 95 EG Vertrag 136 (2004) (Dealing with this issue and pleading for the principle of subsidiarity as a general principle, that in particular is to be used for a narrow interpretation of the basis of competence.).Google Scholar

122 Schilling, , supra note 119, at 213. (referring to Ronald Dworkin, supra note 120).Google Scholar

123 Dworkin, , supra note 120, at 24.Google Scholar

124 Schilling, , supra note 119, at 215.Google Scholar

125 “A pervading principle.” Id. at 217.Google Scholar

126 Ludwigs, , supra note 121, at 136.Google Scholar

127 Mager, , supra note 106, at 480; Wuermeling, , supra note 114; Lais, supra note 110, at 214.Google Scholar

128 The fact that the national members of parliament are much closer to their citizens could possibly lead to a higher acceptance of and trust in the European decision making process, which could at the end also lead to a decrease in the often regretted democratic deficit of the European Community. Mager, supra note 106 (citing Niklas Luhmann, Legitimation durch Verfahren (1969)).Google Scholar

129 Sommermann, Karl-Peter, Verfassungsperspektiven für die Demokratie in der erweiterten Europäischen Union: Gefahr der Entdemokratisierung oder Fortentwicklung im Rahmen europäischer Supranationalität, 56 Die öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 1009, 1013 (2003).Google Scholar

130 Similarly Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast & Dietrich Westphal, Die vertikale Kompetenzordnung im Entwurf des Verfassungsvertrages, 3 Integration 414, 420 (2003); Oppermann, Thomas, Eine Verfassung für die Europäische Union – Der Entwurf des Europäischen Konvents, 118 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl) 1165, 1171 (2003); Ruffert, supra note 110, at 182.Google Scholar

131 At the end the success of the new provisions will be measured by the case law of the European Court of Justice. Epping, Volker, Die Verfassung Europas?, 58 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 821, 827 (2003); Knöll, Ralf & Bauer, Michael W., Der Konvent zur Zukunft der EU – eine Zwischenbilanz aus Sicht der deutschen Länder, 22 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 446, 447 (2003).Google Scholar

132 “Conférence des Organes spécialisés en Affaires communautaires”: COSAC is a co-operation between committees of the national parliaments dealing with European affairs as well as representatives from the European Parliament. This organization was created in May 1989 in Madrid, where the speakers of the Parliaments of the EU Member states agreed on strengthening the role of the national parliaments in relation to the community process. See http://www.cosac.org.Google Scholar

133 As to the current situation in national parliaments, see Maurer, Andreas & Kietz, Daniela, Die neuen Rechte der nationalen Parlamente: Umsetzungsprobleme und Empfehlungen, discussion paper, March 2004, (http://www.swp-berlin.org), 11 et seq.Google Scholar

134 Compare Mauer, Andreas & Becker, Peter, Die Europafähigkeit der nationalen Parlamente: Herausforderungen des EU-Verfassungsvertrags für den deutschen Parlamentarismus, SWP-Studie 2004/S 23, 2004, (http://www.swp-berlin.org), 18.Google Scholar

135 Compare Marcus ter Steeg, Eine neue Kompetenzordnung für die EU – Die Reformüberlegungen des Konvents zur Zukunft Europas, 14 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 325, 328 (2003); Danwitz, Thomas von, Grundfragen einer Verfassungsbindung der Europäischen Union, 58 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 1125, 1131 (2003).Google Scholar