Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 2 [The Homogeneity Clause]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Treaty on European Union (TEU)

Abstract

The Union is founded on the values 7–10 of respect for human dignity, 13–14 freedom, 15–17 democracy, 18–23 equality, 24–27 the rule of law 28–30 and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. 31–34 These values are common to the Member States 42–49 in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. 35–41

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Olivi and Santaniello (2005).

  2. 2.

    Penultimate paragraph of the Preamble to the ECSC Treaty (1951).

  3. 3.

    See the Preamble to the EEC Treaty (1957).

  4. 4.

    On the formation of the common system see Case 26/62, Van Gend & Loos (ECJ 5 February 1964) and Case 6/64, Costa v E.N.E.L. (ECJ 15 July 1964), as well as Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal (ECJ 9 March 1978); for a comment on the latter see Condorelli (1978).

  5. 5.

    Case 294/83, Les Verts v Parliament (ECJ 23 April 1986) and in the same sense also Opinion 1/91, European Economic Area (ECJ 14 December 1991).

  6. 6.

    The problem of European identity was placed in the European Community for the fist time, immediately after the first enlargement, in the Heads of State or Government Summit Conference of Copenhagen on 14/15 December 1973 (see The Declaration on European Identity, in Bull EC, December 1973, No. 12, p. 118–122) and connected the common values of the MS: “The Nine wish to ensure that the cherished values of their legal, political and moral order are respected, and to preserve the rich variety of their national cultures. Sharing as they do the same attitudes to life, based on a determination to build a society which measures up to the needs of the individual, they are determined to defend the principles of representative democracy, of the rule of law, of social justice—which is the ultimate goal of economic progress—and of respect for human rights. All of these are fundamental elements of the European Identity”.

  7. 7.

    On the birth of the protection of rights in the European legal system and the method used by the Court of Justice in its case law see Mangiameli (2008a), p. 325 et seqq.

  8. 8.

    See European Commission, Europe and the Challenge of Enlargement, in Bull. EC 1992, Supplement 3.

  9. 9.

    In the Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council, 15/16 October 1999, is written: “From its very beginning European integration has been firmly rooted in a shared commitment to freedom based on human rights, democratic institutions and the rule of law. These common values have proved necessary for securing peace and developing prosperity in the European Union. They will also serve as a cornerstone for the enlarging Union”.

  10. 10.

    On the principle of homogeneity see Ipsen (1990); Temple Lang (1992), p. 23; Schorkopf (2000); Bognetti (2001), p. 245 et seqq.; Constantinesco (2001); Atripaldi and Miccù (2003); Grawert (2012).

  11. 11.

    See Nascimbene and Sanna, in Tizzano (2004), Art. 6 TUE p. 47.

  12. 12.

    Lequiller (1993), p. 17–21 and p. 23.

  13. 13.

    For the provisions on homogeneity in the draft European Constitution see Pinelli (2004), p. 33 seqq., who considers the values to be the “identifying feature of the system”, that “come before the goals which are substantiated by them”.

  14. 14.

    For an overview of the European constitutional events from the Constitutional Treaty to the Treaty of Lisbon see Craig (2010), p. 1–31; Piris (2010), p. 7–63; Mangiameli (2008a), p. 385 et seqq.; Berman (2012).

  15. 15.

    See Council of the European Union, 26 June 2007, no. 11218/07, Note of the Secretary General of the Council of Delegations on: Mandate of the IGC of 2007, points 1 and 3.

  16. 16.

    See Lepsius (2006).

  17. 17.

    Nicolaysen, (2002), p. 164.

  18. 18.

    Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2006), Art. I-2 para 18 (“Bei den Grundsa¨tzen in Abs. 1 handelt es sich um die Strukturmerkmale des freiheitlichen Verfassungsstaats, sie spiegeln das Menschenbild der Aufkla¨rung wider”). However, we must not forget that the more direct references to the Enlightenment and “Reason” were eliminated from the Preamble already at the time of the Constitutional Treaty; see Margiotta Broglio (2006), p. 225.

  19. 19.

    Würmeling (2003), p. 7–8.

  20. 20.

    See De Souza (2007), p. 10 et seqq.

  21. 21.

    See Tatham (2012).

  22. 22.

    See Denninger (2001), p. 450–452; McCrea (2009), p. 85; Margiotta Broglio (2006), p. 225–226; Rossi (2007), p. 55, who identifies the following roots of Europe in the recovery of antiquity carried out in the Middle Ages, in self-government and in the tradition of Roman law, in Christianity or rather in the Jewish-Christian tradition, and in the penetration of the Barbarians which reached its peak in the Sacred Roman Empire.

  23. 23.

    For a deeper exam of the events that have led to the abandonment of the Constitutional Treaty, see Mangiameli (2008a), p. 385 et seqq. However, it is necessary to specify that current Art. 2 TEU recovers the contents of Art. I-2 TCE.

  24. 24.

    Corollaries to the homogeneity principle are, on the one hand, the other paragraphs of Art. 6 TEU-Nice, and on the other hand, the provisions of Art. 7, Art. 46 lit. e and Art. 49 TEU, concerning the possibility to sanction a MS when there is a clear risk of a serious breach of principles as mentioned in Art. 6.1, the possibility to apply the purely procedural stipulations in Art. 7 before the Court, and, finally, the accession to the Union of new European States which respect the principles set out in Art. 6.1.

  25. 25.

    This point is decisive for the legal interpretation, especially the constitutional one, as the techniques that allow a regression from the provisions (principles) to the values (see Alexy 1986, p. 125 et seqq.), overruling the effects of the process of juridification, substitute the binding nature of the law with the will of the occasional decision maker.

  26. 26.

    A part of the literature, mainly German, deems that the reference to the “values” is to be understood as something that cannot be reduced to the notion of legal principle, but it maintains an axiological nature, in spite of the fact that it is found in the text of the Treaty (for a close examination of this view see Rensmann (2005), p. 57). This approach is linked to the case law of the German Constitutional Court that uses the terminology of values as determinant of given legal effects (see Preuβ 1995, p. 44 et seqq.; Di Fabio 2004, p. 1; Ritter 2010, p. 1110). There are also those who consider the distinction between principles and values irrelevant in that both need to be transformed into concrete rules in order to be applied (see Hanschmann 2008, p. 267). Without denying the importance that values may have as constitutive elements of an entity like a State or the EU, the issue of their legal importance is quite distinct from their axiological and identity nature since for the law, the values underlying a regulation are never included in the process for the application of that regulation because legally they are parameters for evaluating the behaviour of individuals (or states) with legally important consequences. For this reason the prevailing legal literature has been quite uneasy about making reference to the values (see Calliess 2004; Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert 2006), Art. I-2 para 17–20, who states: “Rechtlich beschreiben [die Werte] Güter, die eine Rechtsordnung als vorgegeben oder aufgegeben anerkennt”) and it is not even right to state that they are equivalent to principles since—as shown by the Courts that have recourse to values—while the principles can be interpreted according to the rules of legal hermeneutics, values in a legal context remain undetermined and their use is a cover-up for political operations on the law (so-called balancing) by judges.

  27. 27.

    In this regard see D’Atena (2001); moreover, with reference to external action by the Union “on the international scene”, Art. 21 TEU, which invokes the same elements of homogeneity (“democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity”) and states that they are “principles” (“which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world”); → Art. 21 para 9–10.

  28. 28.

    On the homogeneity principle see Ipsen (1990); Schorkopf (2000); Constantinesco (2001); Atripaldi and Miccù (2003); Grawert (2012). On the provisions concerning homogeneity in the EU Constitution Project see also Würmeling (2003), p. 7–8, who underlines that “the values and aims reflect the Christian conception of mankind as well as the principle of democracy, the rule of law, and solidarity” (our translation); Pinelli (2004).

  29. 29.

    Something similar to the provision made by the Italian Constitution in Art. 3(2), giving to the Republic the duty to remove the obstacles of an economic or social nature.

  30. 30.

    According to the consolidated teaching of Hesse (1999).

  31. 31.

    See Case 283/81, CILFIT (ECJ 6 October 1982).

  32. 32.

    See MacCormick and Weinberger (1986); MacCormick (1999).

  33. 33.

    See Häberle (1989), p. 916 et seqq.; Häberle (2004), p. 250 et seqq.

  34. 34.

    See Case 44/79, Hauer (ECJ 13 December 1979). For a consideration of this method of the ECJ case law see Mangiameli (2008a), p. 325 et seqq.

  35. 35.

    See Speer (2003), p. 981; Toggenburg (2003); Rensmann (2005); Spaemann (2001).

  36. 36.

    See Politi (2006).

  37. 37.

    See Olivetti (2001); Borowsky, in Meyer (2003), Art. 1 para 1–43; Höfling, in Tettinger and Stern (2006), Art. 1 GrCh para 1–32.

  38. 38.

    Case C-36/02, Omega (ECJ 14 October 2004) para 41.

  39. 39.

    Herdegen (2001), p. 773 et seqq.

  40. 40.

    See Herdegen, in Maunz and Dürig (2003), Art. 1 GG para. 93–109.

  41. 41.

    See Grossi (2003), p. 14.

  42. 42.

    Meyer, in Meyer (2003), Präambel para 33.

  43. 43.

    See Mangiameli (2009).

  44. 44.

    The principle of respect for the “human person” is now contained in many other contemporary Constitutions. For the Italian Constitution of 1947, reference is made to Art. 2, 3, 27 and 32 (see Lombardi (1968), p. 1082) and for the 1949 Fundamental Law of Bonn, to Art. 1 (see Dürig (1956); Herdegen, in Maunz and Dürig (2003), Art. 1 GG).

  45. 45.

    See Dürig, in Maunz and Dürig (1958), Art. 1 GG para 73 et seqq.

  46. 46.

    Preamble to the EEC Treaty (1957), paragraph 8.

  47. 47.

    See Schwarze, in Schwarze (2012), Art. 2 para 4.

  48. 48.

    See Stumpf, in Schwarze (2000), Art. 6 para 21–30. See also Schorkopf (2000), p. 85: “Politische Freiheit la¨ßt sich einerseits als Unabhängigkeit des Individuums von der Einmischung anderer insbesondere des Staates, verstehen. Andererseits könnte Freiheit ebensogut auf der kollektiven Kontrolle über das gemeinsame Leben beruhen. In der zweitgenannten Freiheitsvorstellung erscheint Freiheit als Bedingung der Selbstgestaltung, d.h., Herrschaft wird akzeptiert, wenn das Individuum an ihr Teil hat oder sie aufgrund der eigenen Zustimmung eingerichtet wird”; Schmitt Sydow (2001), p. 290: “La liberté peut se définir sous deux angles:—d’une manière positive, elle signifie l’autodétermination de l’individu, y compris par le contrôle collectif de la vie en société;—d’une manière négative, elle signifie l’indépendence de l’individu et sa protection contre les interventions non justifiées d’autrui, y compris et surtout de l’Etat, aussi démocratique soit-il”; Nascimbene and Sanna, in Tizzano (2004), Art. 6 TUE p. 48: “the notion of freedom […] is to be taken, on the one hand, as the sphere of autonomy of citizens vis-à-vis public authorities and, on the other, as limit to the interference of public powers in the person’s privacy”.

  49. 49.

    Di Salvatore (2006), p. 92.

  50. 50.

    See Mangiameli (2009).

  51. 51.

    See Villani (2011), p. 33; as well as Di Salvatore (2006), p. 92.

  52. 52.

    See Piris (2010), p. 112–145. Besides envisaging the democratic principle in Art. F TEU-Maastricht, later Art. 6.1 TEU-Nice, refer to the 6th (now 7th) recital of the Preamble: “Wishing to further strengthen the democratic and efficient functioning of the institutions in order to enable them to perform the tasks assigned to them more effectively in a single institutional context”.

  53. 53.

    On the democratic principle see Di Lello (2006); Mangiameli (2012).

  54. 54.

    See also Art. 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”.

  55. 55.

    “Respect for and maintenance of parliamentary democracy and human rights in all member States are essential elements of the membership in the Community.”

  56. 56.

    Case 138/79, Roquette Frères v Council (ECJ 29 October 1980) para 33, 34. See also Case C-65/93, Parliament v Council (ECJ 30 March 1995); Case C-21/94, Parliament v Council (ECJ 5 July 1995); Case C-392/95, Parliament v Council (ECJ 10 June 1997); Case C-408/95, Eurotunnel (ECJ 11 November 1997).

  57. 57.

    See the critical position of Moravcsik (2002); Majone (2006); Foellesdal and Hix (2006).

  58. 58.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2134/92 et al. (Judgment of 12 October 1993)—Maastricht (in BVerfGE 89, 155).

  59. 59.

    See Ipsen (1994), p. 4; Winkelmann (1994), p. 65 et seqq.

  60. 60.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvR 2134/92 et al. (Judgment of 12 October 1993) para 54 et seqq.—Maastricht (in BVerfGE, 89, 155 [170–173]).

  61. 61.

    See Oeter (2003); Wessel (1996); Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 14–40 (p. 33 et seqq.); Schütze (2012), p. 74 et seqq.

  62. 62.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 280, 295—Lisbon (in BVerfGE 123, 267 [371 et seq., 379 et seq.]). For comments on this judgment see: Grimm (2009); Jestaedt (2009); Khushal Murkens (2009); Piris (2010), p. 141 et seqq.; Ruffert (2009); Schönberger (2009); Thym (2009a, b); Wahl (2009); Magnon (2010); Bußjäger (2010); Wiederin (2010); Müller-Graff (2010); Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 2 para 22–24; Abels (2011); van Ooyen (2011); Lhotta et al. (2012). In Italian literature see: Cassese (2009); Pojares Maduro and Grasso (2009); Ziller (2009); Anzon Demmig (2010); Cannizzaro and Bartoloni (2010); Cantaro (2010); Mangiameli (2010b); Fossum and Menéndez (2012).

  63. 63.

    See Mangiameli (2012).

  64. 64.

    See Braga (2006), p. 299–330.

  65. 65.

    See Benedettelli (1989); Dashwood and O’Leary (1997); Tesauro (1999).

  66. 66.

    For a close examination of Art. 12 EC cf. Di Salvatore (2002), p. 98 et seqq. as well as Chiti (2000), p. 870 et seqq.

  67. 67.

    On Art. 13 EC see Chiti (2000), p. 870 et seqq.

  68. 68.

    For an in-depth comparison between the principle of equality in the Italian system and in the Community system cf. Ghera (2003). For a reconstruction of the development of the case law of the Court of Justice on the principle of equality see Toriello (2000), p. 255 et seqq. and Sorrentino (2001).

  69. 69.

    In Art. 14 the Court of Strasbourg attaches an accessory and subsidiary nature to the other provisions of the Convention that ensure the enjoyment of individual rights and freedoms (Joined Cases 1474/62 et al., Belgian language case (ECtHR GC 23 July 1968) para 9) and also the instances of non discrimination contained in the article are not deemed to be exhaustive, but only descriptive (Joined Cases 5100/71 et al., Engel et al.v Netherlands (ECtHR 8 June 1976) para 72). Art. 5 of Protocol 7 imposes the obligation on the States to “provide a legislative framework in which spouses have equal rights and duties” (Case 31061/96, Cernecki v Austria (ECtHR 11 June 2000); Case 71099/01, Monory v Hungary and Romania (ECtHR 17 February 2004) para 4; Case 7198/04, Iosub Caras v Romania (ECtHR 27 June 2006) para 56).

  70. 70.

    See Case 810/79, Überscha¨r (ECJ 8 October 1980). See also Joined Case 117/76 and 16/77, Ruckdeschel et al. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen (ECJ 19 October 1977) and Case 59/83, Biovilac v EEC (ECJ 6 December 1984).

  71. 71.

    See, among the many: Joined Cases 17/61 and 20/61, Klo¨ckner-Werke AG et al. v ECSC High Authority (ECJ 13 July 1962); Case 106/81, Kind v EEC (ECJ 15 September 1982); Case 283/83, Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz (ECJ 13 November 1984); Case 167/88, Association générale des producteurs de blé and autres céréales v ONIC (ECJ 8 June 1989).

  72. 72.

    See Case 152/73, Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost (ECJ ECJ 12 February 1974).

  73. 73.

    See Council Directive No. 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, O.J. L 45/19 (1975); as well as Council Directive No. 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, O.J. L 39/40 (1976).

  74. 74.

    On this point cf. Mori (1998), p. 571; Fasano and Mancarelli (2001); Novi (2004), p. 1239.

  75. 75.

    Case C-285/98, Kreil v Germany (ECJ 11 January 2000). For comments on the decision see Di Salvatore (2001) and Ruggeri (2001).

  76. 76.

    Cf. for example Case 96/80, Jenkins v Kingsgate (ECJ 31 March 1981); Case 170/84, Bilka v Weber von Hartz (ECJ 13 May 1986); Case C-33/89, Kowalska v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (ECJ 27 June 1990); Case C-184/89, Nimz (ECJ 7 February 1991); Case C-243/95, Hill and Stapleton v The Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance (ECJ 17 June 1998).

  77. 77.

    See Case C-409/95, Marschall (ECJ 11 November 1997); Cafalà (1998), p. 219; Izzi (1998), p. 675; Schiek (1998), p. 155.

  78. 78.

    See Case C-158/97, Badeck (ECJ 28 of 2000); Salazar (2000); Case C-407/98, Abrahamsson (ECJ 6 July 2000); Caielli (2000).

  79. 79.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, 2 BvE 2/08 et al. (Judgment of 30 June 2009) para 281 et seqq.—Lisbon.

  80. 80.

    On this, see Mangiameli (1998).

  81. 81.

    Case 9267/81, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (ECtHR 2 March 1987) para 54. In Case 39424/02, Kovach v Ukraine (ECtHR 7 February 2008) para 49, the ECHR endorses this approach on electoral systems and points out that “In this field, Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation, provided that they ensure equality of treatment for all citizens. It does not follow, however, that all votes must necessarily have equal weight as regards the outcome of the election, or that all candidates must have equal chances of victory. Thus no electoral system can eliminate ‘wasted votes’”.

  82. 82.

    The rule was asserted with the Treaty of Nice; up until that time the Treaties indicated a fixed number of judges that was not to coincide with the number of MS, also because there always had to be an odd number, nor could the Treaty envisage the obligation of nationality, and so the judges of the Court could be citizens of third countries, or there could be several judges of the same nationality; on these questions see Adam and Tizzano (2010), p. 260 (fn. 5).

  83. 83.

    See Piris (2010), p. 217.

  84. 84.

    See Case C-294/83, Les Verts v Parliament (ECJ 23 April 1986) para 23.

  85. 85.

    See Case C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistía v Council (ECJ 27 February 2007) para 51; C-355/04 P, Segi v Council (ECJ 27 February 2007) para 51: “As is clear from Article 6 EU, the Union is founded on the principle of the rule of law and it respects fundamental rights as general principles of Community law. It follows that the institutions are subject to review of the conformity of their acts with the treaties and the general principles of law, just like the Member States when they implement the law of the Union”. See also Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld (ECJ 3 May 2007) para 45.

  86. 86.

    On this issue, cf. Mengozzi (1996); Lorello (1998), p. 80–86; Orlandi (2002); Toniatti, (2002), p. 503 et seqq.; Magrassi (2002); Caracciolo (2003), p. 84–87; Schwarze (2004), p. 1279.

  87. 87.

    See Giafrancesco (2006); Pechstein, in Streinz (2012) Art. 2 para 6; Stumpf, in Schwarze (2000), Art. 6 para 7; Classen (2008), p. 8–9; Kraus (2008), p. 110.

  88. 88.

    See Dicey (1982), p. 107–122; Raz (1977), p. 195.

  89. 89.

    See Mayer (1895), pp. 64–70; Bäumlin (1987); Forsthoff (1964) (trad.it. 1973); Kunig (1986); Jouanjan (2001); Schmidt-Aβman (1995); Schmidt-Aβman (2004); Sobota (1997).

  90. 90.

    See Costa and Zolo (2006).

  91. 91.

    See Case C-90/95, De Compte v Parliament (ECJ 17 April 1997) para 35; Case 120/86, Mulder (ECJ 28 April 1988) para 24; Case 98/78, Racke (ECJ 25 January 1979) para 20; Case 169/80, Gondrand Freres (ECJ 9 July 1981) para 17; Case 222/86, Unectef v Heylens (ECJ15 October 1987) para 15

  92. 92.

    Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 2 para 35.

  93. 93.

    See Michetti (2006).

  94. 94.

    See Hilf and Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2011), Art. 2 para 36; Pechstein, in Streinz (2012) Art. 2 para 7.

  95. 95.

    Villani (2004), p. 73; Pernice (2008); Dutheil de la Rochere (2009).

  96. 96.

    See Case 29/69, Stauder (ECJ 12 November 1969); Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (ECJ 17 December 1970); Case 4/73, Nold (ECJ 14 May 1974); Case 44/79, Hauer (ECJ 13 December 1979); Case 5/88, Wachauf (ECJ 13 July 1989).

  97. 97.

    Rottola (1978), p. 222; Grementieri (1979), p. 4; Magagni (1979), p. 880; Tosato (1984), p. 715; Gaja (1988), p. 574; Tesauro (1992), p. 440; Chiti (1996), p. 963; Scudiero (1997), p. 263; in general for the German literature Streinz (1989), p. 47.

  98. 98.

    See Mangiameli (2010a).

  99. 99.

    See Nascimbene (1994), p. 233; Pagano (1996), p. 163; Negri (1997), p. 785; Stumpf (2000), p. 81; Kingreen, in Calliess and Ruffert (2007), Art. 6 EUV para 31–41.

  100. 100.

    Mangiameli (2008a), p. 57.

  101. 101.

    Mangiameli (2008a), p. 60.

  102. 102.

    Wolfrum (2010), §143 Rn. 31.

  103. 103.

    Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin O.J. L 180/22 (2000).

  104. 104.

    Blanke (2013).

  105. 105.

    This article relates also to Art. 19 TFEU.

  106. 106.

    On the accession procedure and on the requirements that candidate states need to fulfil, see → Art. 49 para 6 in which a criticism is made on the exceedingly discretionary modalities with which the elements of the homogeneity clause, and, in particular, the principle of respect for fundamental principles, are verified.

  107. 107.

    Lequiller (1993), p. 23.

  108. 108.

    See Cavino (2006).

  109. 109.

    On European citizenship see first of all Grabitz (1970); Ipsen (1972), p. 187–188 (note 10); Magiera (1987); Grawert (1984); Cuocolo (1991); Everling (1992); Lippolis (1994); Randelzhofer (1995); Cassese (1996); Cartabia (1996); Castorina (1997); Azzena (1998), p. 49 et seqq.; Bartole (2000); Schilling (2000), p. 17; Constantinesco (2004).

  110. 110.

    Ipsen and Nicolaysen (1964); on Rechtsstellung of the Marktbürger, see also Ipsen (1972), p. 715 et seqq.

  111. 111.

    On the political meaning of the concept of citizenship of the Union see for instance Tomuschat (1999).

  112. 112.

    See Grossi (2004), p. 437 et seqq.; Cantaro and Magnani (2004), p. 51 et seqq.

  113. 113.

    See, with regard to the link between the two provisions, and on the relationship between the concepts of “Bürgernähe” and “Subsidiarität”, Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2007), Art. 1 EUV para 39–45, who points out that from this derives a “Kompensation für den kulturellen Identitätsverlust”. On the principle of proximity see Lombardi (2006); on the principle of subsidiarity see Moscarini (2006).

  114. 114.

    See Stewing (1992), p. 1518, for whom the principle of subsidiarity is “ein politisches Strukturprinzip zur Aufgabenverteilung: Der Grundsatz ist jedoch zu unbestimmt, um allein als Kompetenzabgrenzungsregel weiterzuhelfen”; against this view Calliess, in Calliess and Ruffert (2007), Art. 5 EGV para 8, 15 and 19; on this point see also Grabitz (1992), p. 149; in the Italian literature see Orsello (1993); Strozzi (1994), p. 362; Caretti (1995), p. 128; D’Agnolo (1999), p. 52; D’Atena (1997), p. 607; D’Atena (2005); Moscarini (1999); Moscarini (2003), p. 28 et seqq.; Vanoni (2004).

  115. 115.

    On the identity of MS see Magnani (2006); Di Salvatore (2008) and now von Bogdandy and Schill (2010).

  116. 116.

    On this point see Walkenhorst (1999), p. 160 et seqq.

  117. 117.

    Mangiameli (2010b).

  118. 118.

    This refers to the famous debate between Grimm (1996), p. 361 et seqq. and Habermas (1996), p. 372 et seqq.; more generally on this problem see Scoditti (2001); Dellavalle (2002).

  119. 119.

    See the positions upheld in the Lisbon judgment on representation in the EP and on the expression “European citizens” and the criticisms → para 23.

  120. 120.

    See Mangiameli (2008b).

  121. 121.

    On the political parties in Europe, see Huber (1999); Lippolis (2002).

  122. 122.

    See Mangiameli (2012).

  123. 123.

    Mangiameli (2008a), p. 49 et seqq.

  124. 124.

    As pointed out by Cavino (2006), p. 572 and 577, the fact that a citizen belongs to his people does not constitute a disruptive element for European society, provided that the identity of each people is only the special manifestation of how it upholds the common values, and the States of the Union have the task of providing the formal instruments so that its peoples may freely embrace, in their specific way, the values shared by all European citizens.

  125. 125.

    Cf. Duchesne (2004).

  126. 126.

    Cf. Habermas (2003), p. 107: “this identity formation is due to a painful abstraction process, whereby democratic citizens have outgrown the local and dynastic loyalties reaching the awareness that they all belong to the same nation”.

  127. 127.

    See Craig (2002); Landfried (2002); Reposo (2002); Cassese (2002); Della Cananea (2003), p. 3 et seqq.; Jacqué (2004).

  128. 128.

    Cf. Costa (2004).

  129. 129.

    See Cavino (2006), p. 581 et seqq.

  130. 130.

    Cf. Mikkeli (1998) (Italian translation 2002), p. 14 et seq.

  131. 131.

    Schmitt (2008), p. 388, this expression, to which Schmitt reconnected the United States of America and the German Reich of the Weimar Constitution, excluding that it was a federation, means a new form of state in which are recovered elements of a previous federal organisation, but indeed it should be a unitary state, with only people and with the abolition of the state character of the Member States, in which the matter of sovereignty is solved in the only sovereignty of the central State (p. 508).

  132. 132.

    Schmitt (2008), p. 389.

  133. 133.

    With this regard the analysis carried out by Hesse (1962) is emblematic.

  134. 134.

    See Dahl (2003).

  135. 135.

    In the German case, this process is just compensated with the participation of Länder to the federal legislative procedure, through the Bundesrat.

  136. 136.

    On this point see Kaufmann (1997).

  137. 137.

    See Art. F.1 TEU-Maastricht: “The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy.” With the Treaty of Amsterdam and the introduction of the homogeneity principle (Art. 6.1 TEU), the wording is appreciably different, as the democratic element is inserted in the homogeneity and Art. 6.3 TEU limits itself to stating that “[t]he Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States”.

  138. 138.

    The matter of identity was especially raised by the Federal Republic of Germany, with reference to the impact of the European integration process on Germany’s internal federalism, with the progressive loss of “statuality” by the La¨nder.

  139. 139.

    On the connection between homogenity and identity, see now Grawert (2012).

  140. 140.

    Scharpf (1994), p. 94 et seqq., according to whom “a European Union cannot develop according to the scheme of a nation-state—not even a federal one. If it wants to survive it has to respect and protect the vitality and autonomy of its constitutive components in their institutional and cultural diversity in a way that is even more intense as it usually is in federal states” (our translation).

  141. 141.

    In this regard see Pernice (2001), p. 184 et seqq.

  142. 142.

    See Cantaro (2006); Di Salvatore (2008).

  143. 143.

    So Triepel (1917), p. 441 and 444, but see also his incipit at p. 1: “the distribution of material and formal competences between the two institutions [Bundesstaat and Bundesglieder] […] constitutes the most elegant part of the ‘master plan’ that rules the relationship between Federal State and its Member States”; our translation.

  144. 144.

    Sorrentino (1999), p. 1653–1655, dreads a danger for the principles of the welfare State characterising the Italian Constitution, where the European order provides for the principle of a market economy. However, we must underline that in reality the tension between the two can be solved without transforming “social utility into freedom of competition”, because “the problem of balance between different values” is solved by EU law by offering different ways of realization for both purposes.

  145. 145.

    The principle was expressed in Art. I-6 TCE, according to which “[t]he Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States”. In the Treaty of Lisbon, Art. I-6 TCE is not formally recovered, but its substance lies in the Declaration No. 17 concerning primacy. This does not diminish at all the strength of the principle that is established in the case law and is considered one of the fundamental cornerstones of the European order (→ Declaration No. 17 para 1).

  146. 146.

    Think about the fact that the contents of the MS’ constitutions do not depend on the point of view of the matters treated by the distribution of competences, so some rules belonging to the sphere of the European competences cannot be included in them while they can include repetitions of rules of EU law.

  147. 147.

    From this point of view, for example, the constitution of a MS can repeat a rule providing the “protection of competition” (so Art. 117.2 lit. e of the Italian Constitution), but cannot contradict, in the evolution of its legislation, the EU competition law.

  148. 148.

    So, this innovation from the point of view of the perception of the integration process is not at all secondary, and really avoids dealing with the objections of those who affirm, on the basis of the disapplication of state law, that the legal effects of the primacy principle are too limited compared to the relation of public law, and hence is unable to determine—as is the case for EU law—the illegitimacy of the internal rule (against this see von Bogdandy and Schill, 2010).

    Moreover, apart from possible future developments, it is not possible—currently—to hypothesise; it is not said at all that the disapplication of the state law, with which the antinomy between EU law and internal law is solved, does not act on the basis of the presence of a flaw that makes outlawed the same statutory law. The choice between disapplication and nullification, in fact, does not depend on the existence or not of a flaw of legitimacy of the statutory law, but simply on the fact that the jurisdiction where the legal proceeding has been instituted is, or is not, qualified to declare the nullification of the statutory law. Another matter concerns the possibility of the declaration of illegitimacy due to provisions of internal law that protect the integration process (i.e. Art. 11, combined with Art. 117 Italian Constitution, and Art. 23 GG). On this point, we must not forget a certain ambiguity of the Court of Justice that has demanded, at least beginning from the judgment in Case 6/64, Costa v E.N.E.L (ECJ 15 July 1964), that the MS provides for the removal of the statutory law in contrast with EU law.

  149. 149.

    The same is valid also for the objectives that the European Constitution provides that must be realised in the social organisation, for “a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail”.

  150. 150.

    See Rossi (2012), p. 91 et seqq. Meanwhile, the formulation of the objectives in Art. 3 TEU is so wide that any part of the state life could be considered ruled out, in principle, by Union interference.

Table of Cases

ECJ

  • ECJ 13.07.1962, Joined Cases 17/61 and 20/61, Klöckner-Werke AG et al. v ECSC High Authority, ECR 325 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 05.02.1964, 26/62, Van Gend & Loos, ECR 1 [cit. in para 2]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 15.07.1964, 6/64, Costa v E.N.E.L., ECR 1195 [cit. in para 2]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.11.1969, 29/69, Stauder v Stadt Ulm, ECR 419 [cit. in para 32]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 17.12.1970, 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, ECR 1125 [cit. in para 32]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 12.02.1974, 152/73, Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost, ECR 153 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 14.05.1974, 4/73, Nold, ECR 491 [cit. in para 32]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 19.10.1977, Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77, Ruckdeschel et al. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, ECR 1753 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 09.03.1978, 106/77, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal; ECR 629 [cit. in para 2]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 25.01.1979, 98/78, Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz, ECR 69 [cit. in para 30]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 13.12.1979, 44/79, Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz; ECR 3727 [cit. in para 32]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 15.09.1982, 106/81, Kind v EEC, ECR 2885 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 08.10.1980, 810/79, U¨berscha¨r, ECR 2747 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 29.10.1980, 138/79, Roquette Frères v Council, ECR 3333 [cit. in para 19]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 31.03.1981, 96/80, Jenkins v Kingsgate, ECR 911 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 09.07.1981, 169/80, Gondrand Freres, ECR 1931 [cit. in para 30]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 06.10.1982, 283/81, CILFIT, ECR 3415 [cit. in para 12]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 13.11. 1984, 283/83, Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz, ECR 3791 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 06.12.1984, 59/83, Biovilac v EEC, ECR 4057 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 23.04.1986, 294/83, Les Verts v Parliament, ECR 1339 [cit. in para 2 and para 28]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 13.05.1986, 170/84, Bilka v Weber von Hartz, ECR 1607 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 15.10.1987, 222/86, Unectef v Heylens, ECR 4097 [cit. in para 30]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 28.04.1988, 120/86, Mulder, ECR 2321 [cit. in para 30]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 08.06.1989, 167/88, Association générale des producteurs de blé et autres céréales v ONIC, ECR 1653 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 13.07.1989, 5/88, Wachauf, ECR 2609 [cit. in para 32]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 27.06.1990, C-33/89, Kowalska v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, ECR I-2591 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 07.02.1991, C-184/89, Nimz, ECR I-297 [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 14.12.1991, Opinion 1/91, European Economic Area, ECR I-6079 [cit. in para 2 and para 19]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 30.03.1995, C-65/93, Parliament v Council, ECR I-643 [cit. in para 19]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 05.07.1995, C-21/94, Parliament v Council, ECR I-1827 [cit. in para 19]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 17.04.1997, C-90/95, De Compte v Parliament, ECR I-1999 [cit. in para 30]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 10.06.1997, C-392/95, Parliament v Council, ECR I-3213 [cit. in para 19]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 11.11.1997, C-408/95, Eurotunnel, ECR I-6315 [cit. in para 19]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 11.11.1997, C-409/95, Marschall, ECR I-6363 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 17.06.1998, C-243/95, Hill and Stapleton v The Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance, ECR I-3739 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 11.01.2000, C-285/98, Kreil, ECR I-69 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 28.03.2000, C-158/97, Badeck, ECR I-1875 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 06.07.2000, C-407/98, Abrahamsson, ECR I-5539 [cit. in para 25]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 14.10.2004, C-36/02, Omega, ECR I-9609 [cit. in para 13]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 27.02.2007, C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistía v Council, ECR I-1579 [cit. in para 28]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 27.02.2007, C-355/04 P, Segi v Council, ECR I-1657 [cit. in para 28]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 03.05.2007, C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld, ECR I-3633 [cit. in para ]

    Google Scholar 

ECtHR

  • ECtHR GC 23.07.1968, 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64 Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 08.06.1976, 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72, Engel et al. v Netherlands [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 02.03.1987, 9267/81, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium [cit. in para 26]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 11.06.2000, 31061/96, Cernecki v Austria [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 17.02.2004, 71099/01, Monory v. Hungary and Romania [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 27.06.2006, 7198/04, Iosub Caras v Romania [cit. in para 26]

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 07.02.2008, 39424/02, Kovach v Ukraine [cit. in para 24]

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Abels, M. (2011). Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die Integration Europas. Verfassungsrechtliche Möglichkeiten und Grenzen untersucht am Karlsruher Lissabon-Urteil. Munich: AVM Akademische Verlagsgemeinschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, R., & Tizzano, A. (2010). Lineamenti di Diritto dell’Unione europea. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R. (1986). Theorie der Grundrechte. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzon Demmig, A. (2010). I Tribunali costituzionali e l’integrazione europea: da Maastricht a Lisbona. Diritto e società, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atripaldi, V., & Miccù, R. (2003). L’omogeneità costituzionale nell’Unione Europea. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azzena, L. (1998). L’integrazione attraverso i diritti. Dal cittadino italiano al cittadino europeo. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartole, S. (2000). La cittadinanza e l’identità europea. Quaderni costituzionali, 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäumlin, R. (1987). Der deutsche Rechtsstaat. Evangelisches Staatslexikon (S. 2806–2818, 3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Kreuz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedettelli, M. V. (1989). Il giudizio di eguaglianza nell’ordinamento giuridico delle Comunità europee. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, P. (2012). From Laeken to Lisbon: The origins and negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU law after Lisbon (pp. 4–39). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, H.-J. (2013). Völker- und europarechtliche Vorgaben des Minderheitenschutzes. Eine Analyse vor dem Hintergrund des Minderheitenschutzes in der Türkei. In A. Scherzberg, O. Can, & I. Dogan (Eds.), Minderheitenschutz und Dezentralisierung der Staatsorganisation. Berlin: LIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bognetti, G. (2001). Lo speciale federalismo dell’Unione Europea. In A. M. Petroni (Ed.), Modelli giuridici ed economici per la Costituzione europea (pp. 245–320). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga, G. (2006). Il principio di eguaglianza nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 299–330). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bußjäger, P. (2010). Folgerungen aus dem Lissabonurteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Juristische Blätter, 273–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cafalà, L. (1998). Le “quote condizionate” a favore delle donne al vaglio della Corte di Lussemburgo. Riv. it. dir. lavoro, II, 214–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caielli, M. (2000). Un’altra Judgment della Court of Justice sulle azioni positive in favore del lavoro femminile. Dir pubbl comp eur, 1589–1594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C. (2004). Europa als Wertegemeinschaft – Integration und Identität durch europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Juristen Zeitung, 1033–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2006). Verfassung der Europa¨ischen Union. Kommentar der Grundlagenbestimmungen. Munich: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2007). EUV/EGV, Kommentar (3rd ed.). Munich: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (Eds.). (2011). EUV/AEUV. Kommentar. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro, E., & Bartoloni, M. E. (2010). Continuità, discontinuità e catastrofismo. Sulle reazioni della dottrina al Lissabon-Urteil. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantaro, A. (2006). Il rispetto delle funzioni essenziali dello stato. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 507–565). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantaro, A. (2010). Democrazia e identità costituzionale dopo il “Lissabon Urteil”. L’integrazione protetta. Teoria del diritto e dello Stato, 32–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantaro, A., & Magnani, C. (2004). L’ambiguo preambolo: atto formalmente internazionalistico, dichiarazione sostanzialmente costituzionale. Rass Dir. Pubb. Eur. 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caracciolo, I. (2003). La rilevazione dei valori democratici nell’Unione europea. Editoriale Scientifica: Una proiezione internazionale per l’identità giuridica occidentale. Naples.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caretti, P. (1995). Il principio di sussidiarietà e i suoi riflessi sul piano dell’ordinamento comunitario e sul piano dell’ordinamento nazionale. In Associazione italiana dei costituzionalisti (Ed.), Le prospettive dell’Unione europea e la Costituzione (pp. 128–152). Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartabia, M. (1995). Cittadinanza europea. In Enc. Giur. Aggiomomento (p. 1–11). Rome: Treccani

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, S. (1996). La cittadinanza europea e le prospettive di sviluppo dell’Europa. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 869–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, S. (2002). La costituzione europea: elogio della precarietà. Quaderni costituzionali, 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, S. (2009). L’Unione europea e il guinzaglio Tedesco. Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 1003–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castorina, E. (1997). Introduzione allo studio della cittadinanza. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavino, M. (2006). I valori di una società europea pluralista. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 567–584). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti, E. (1996). La tutela dei diritti dell’uomo nell’ordinamento comunitario. Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 959–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiti, G. (2000). Il principio di non discriminazione e il Trattato di Amsterdam. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 851–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen, C. D. (2008). Rechtsstaatlichkeit als Primärrechtsgebot in der Europäischen Union – Vertragsrechtliche Grundlagen und Rechtsprechung der Gemeinschaftsgerichte. Europarecht (Suppl 3), 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli, L. (1978). Il caso Simmenthal e il primato of diritto comunitario: due Corti a confronto. Giurisprudenza costituzionale, 669–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinesco, V. (2001). L’intégration des principes constitutionnels nationaux dans le Traité: l’article 6 § 1 du Traité sur l’Union (ex–F § 1), tel que modifié par le Traité d’Amsterdam. In H. Gaudin (Ed.), Droit constitutionnel Droit communautaire. Vers un respect réciproque mutuel? (pp. 299–311). Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinesco, V. (2004). La citoyenneté de l’Union: une “vraie” citoyenneté? In L. S. Rossi (Ed.), Vers une nouvelle architecture européenne. Le projet de traité-constitution (pp. 203–214). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. (2004). La cittadinanza europea: diritti, identità, confini. In C. Malandrino (Ed.), Un popolo per l’Europa unita (pp. 87–121). Olschki: Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P., & Zolo, D. (2006). Lo stato di diritto: Storia, teoria, critica. Milan: Feltrinelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. (2002). Costituzioni, costituzionalismo e l’Unione europea. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 357–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty. Law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P., & De Búrca, G. (2011). The evolution of EU law (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuocolo, F. (1991). La cittadinanza europea (prospettive costituzionali). Politica del diritto, 659–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agnolo, G. (1999). La sussidiarietà nell’Unione europea. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Atena, A. (1997). Il principio di sussidiarietà nella Costituzione italiana. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 603–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Atena, A. (2001). I principi e i valori costituzionali, in Lezioni di diritto costituzionale. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Atena, A. (2005). Modelli Federali e sussidiarietà nel riparto delle competenze normative tra l’Unione europea e gli Stati membri. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (2003). Quanto è democratica la Costituzione Americana? (Italian translation). Rome: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood, A., & O’Leary, S. (1997). The principle of equal treatment in EC law. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Souza, E. (2007). Enlargement of the EU. In Bruges Political Research Papers/Cahiers de recherche politique de Bruges, No. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Cananea, G. (2003). L’Unione europea. Un ordinamento composito. Rome: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellavalle, S. (2002). Una Costituzione senza popolo? La Costituzione europea alla luce delle concezioni del popolo come “potere costituente”. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denninger, E. (2001). Integratione und Identität. Bitte um etwas Nachdenklichkeit. Kritische Justiz, 34(3), 442–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Fabio, U. (2004). Grundrechte als Werteordnung. Juristen Zeitung, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Lello, C. (2006). Il principio democratico nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 195–234). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Salvatore, E. (2001). Forze armate e libertà di lavoro delle donne, tra diritto comunitario e Grundgesetz: il caso Kreil. Dir pubbl comp eur, 767–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Salvatore, E. (2002). Principio di non discriminazione, diritto comunitario e Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE. Teoria del diritto e dello Stato, 91–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Salvatore, E. (2006). Il principio di libertà nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 89–109). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Salvatore, E. (2008). L’identità costituzionale tra Unione europea e Stati membri. Il problema of decentramento politico-istituzionale nel processo di integrazione europea. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey, A.V. (1885/1982). An introduction to the study if the law of the constitution. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (reprint of the 8th ed., published in 1915).

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchesne, S. (2004). A propos des identifications nationale et européenne: retour sur le caractère politique de leur antagonisme. In O. Beaud, A. Lechevalier, I. Pernice, & S. Strudel (Eds.), L’Europe en voie de Constitution. Pour un bilan critique des travaux de la Convention (pp. 682–698). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürig, G. (1956). Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde. Archiv für Öffentliches Recht, 81, 117–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürig, G. (1958). ART 1 GG. In T. Maunz & G. Dürig (Eds.), Kommentar zum Grundgesetz. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutheil de la Rochere, J. (2009). The Protectione of fundamental Rights in the EU: Community of Values with Opt-out? In I. Pernice & E. Tanchev (Eds.), Ceci n’est pas une Constitution – Constitutionalisation without a Constitution (pp. 119–129). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling, U. (1992). Die Stellung des Bürgers in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Zentrum für Rechts- und Verwaltungswissenschaften, 241–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasano, A., & Mancarelli, P. (2001). Parità e pari opportunità uomo-donna. Profili di diritto comunitario e nazionale. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foellesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 533–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsthoff, E. (1964). Rechtsstaat im Wandel. Verfassungsrechtliche Abhandlungen 1950–1964. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fossum, J. E., & Menéndez, A. J. (2012). Democracy and constitution making in the European Union. In E. O. Eriksen & J. E. Fossum (Eds.), Rethinking democracy and the European Union (pp. 57–73). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja, G. (1988). Aspetti problematici della tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell’ordinamento comunitario. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 574–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghera, F. (2003). Il principio di eguaglianza nella Costituzione italiana e nell’ordinamento comunitario. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giafrancesco, E. (2006). Il principio dello stato di diritto e l’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 235–298). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E. (1970). Europa¨isches Bürgerrecht zwischen Marktbürgerschaft und Staatsbürgerschaft. Cologne: Europa Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, E. (1992). Subsidiarität im Gemeinschaftsrecht. In B. Vogel & H. Öttinger (Eds.), Föderalismus in der Bewährung (pp. 149–186). Cologne: Deutscher Gemeindeverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabitz, H., Hilf, M., &, M. Nettesheim (Eds.), (2011). Das Recht der Europa¨ischen Union. Loose leaf. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grawert, R. (1984). Staatsangehörigkeit und Staatsbürgerschaft. Der Staat, 179–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grawert, R. (2012). Homogenität, Identität Souveränität. Positionen jurisdiktioneller Begriffsdogmatik. Der Staat, 51(2), 189–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grementieri, V. (1979). Il ruolo della Court of Justice della Comunità europea per la protezione dei diritti fondamentali in Europa. Dir. Com. Sc. Int., 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, D. (1996). Una Costituzione per l’Europa? In G. Zagrebelsky, P. P. Portinaro, & J. Luther (Eds.), Il futuro della Costituzione (pp. 361–371). Turin: Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, D. (2009). Das Grundgesetz als Riegel vor einer Verstaatlichung der Europäischen Union. Zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Der Staat, 48(4), 475–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, P. F. (2003). Dignità umana e libertà nella Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea. In M. Siclari (Ed.), Contributi allo studio della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea (pp. 41–58). Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, P. F. (2004). A proposito del preambolo nella Costituzione dell’Unione europea. Arch. Giur., 435–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häberle, P. (1989). Grundrechtsgeltung und Grundrechtsinterpretation im Verfassungsstaat – zugleich zur Rechtsvergleichung als fünfter Auslegungsmethode. Juristen Zeitung, 913–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häberle, P. (2004). Europa¨ische Verfassungslehre (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Una Costituzione per l’Europa? Osservazioni su Dieter Grimm. In G. Zagrebelsky, P. P. Portinaro, & J. Luther (Eds.), Il futuro della Costituzione (pp. 369–375). Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2003). Perché l’Europa ha bisogno di una Costituzione? In G. Zagrebslsky (Ed.), Diritti e Costituzione nell’Unione Europea (pp. 94–117). Rome: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanschmann, F. (2008). Der Begriff der Homogenität in der Verfassungslehre und der Europarechtswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen, M. (2003). Art. 1 GG. In T. Maunz & G. Dürig (Eds.), Kommentar zum Grundgesetz. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen, M. (2001). Die Menschenwürde im Fluβ des bioethischen Diskurses. Juristen Zeitung, 773–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, K. (1962). Der unitarische Bundesstaat. Karlsruhe: Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, K. (1999). Grundzüge des Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (20th ed.). Heidelberg: Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilf, M., & Schorkopf, F. (2011). Art 2. In H. Grabitz, M. Hilf, & M. Nettesheim (Eds.), Das Recht der Europoischen Union. Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. M. (1999). Die politische Parteien als Partizipationsinstrument auf Unionsebene. Europarecht, 579–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, H. P. (1972). Europa¨isches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, H. P. (1990). Über Verfassungs–Homogenität in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. In G. Bürif & H. Murer (Eds.) Das akzeptierte Grundgesetz, FS für Günter Dürig (pp. 159–184). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, H. P. (1994). Zehn Glossen zum Maastricht-Urteil. Europarecht, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, H. P., & Nicolaysen, G. (1964). Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 339–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izzi, D. (1998). La Court of Justice e le azioni positive: da Kalanke a Marschall. Lav diritto, 675–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué, J. P. (2004). Les principes constitutionnels fondamentaux dans le projet de traité établissant la constitution européenne. In L. S. Rossi (Ed.), Vers une nouvelle architecture européenne (pp. 53–78). Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jestaedt, M. (2009). Warum in die Ferne schweifen, wenn der Maßstab liegt so nah? Verfassungs-handwerkliche Anfragen an das Lissabon-Urteil des BVerfG. Der Staat, 48(4), 497–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jouanjan, O. (2001). Figures de l’état de droit: Rechtsstaat dans l’histoire intellectuelle et constitutionnelle de l’Allemagne. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, M. (1997). Europa¨ische integration und Demokratieprinzip. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khushal Murkens, J. E. (2009). Identity trumps integration. The Lisbon Treaty in the German Federal Constitutional Court. Der Staat, 48(4), 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, B. (2008). Die kooperative Sicherung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit der Europäischen Union durch die mitgliedstaatlichen Gerichte und die Gemeinschaftsgerichte. Europarecht (Suppl 3), 109–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunig, P. (1986). Das Rechtsstaatsprinzip. U¨berlegungen zu seiner Bedeutung für das Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landfried, C. (2002). Vers un Etat constitutionnel européen. In R. Dehousse (Ed.), Une constitution pour l’Europe? (pp. 79–107). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepsius, M. R. (2006). The ability of the European Constitution to forge a European identity. In H.-J. Blanke & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), Governing Europe under a Constitution (pp. 23–34). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lequiller, M. P. (1993). Rapport d’information, sur la Convention sur l’avenir de l’Europe. In Assemblée Nationale, Douzième Législature, 1er juillet 2003, No. 994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lhotta, R., Ketelhut, J., & Schöne, H. (Eds.). (2012). Das Lissabon-Urteil: Staat, Demokratie und europa¨ische Integration im “verfassten politischen Primärraum”. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippolis, V. (1994). La cittadinanza europea. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippolis, V. (2002). I partiti politici europei. Rassegna parlamentare, 941–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, G. (1968). Persona umana (libertà della). In Nss. Dig. It., Torino 1968, XII, pp. 1082–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, C. (2006). Il principio di prossimità nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 377–433). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorello, L. (1998). La tutela del legittimo affidamento tra diritto interno e diritto comunitario. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. (1999). Questioning sovereignty, law, state and Nation in the European Commonwealth. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N., & Weinberger, O. (1986). An institutional theory of law new approaches to legal positivism. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magagni, M. (1979). L’evoluzione della tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella giurisprudenza e nella prassi della Comunità europee. Riv. Trim. Dir. Proc. Civ., 880–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magiera, S. (1987). Die Europäische Gemeinschaft auf dem Wege zu einem Europa der Bürger. Die O¨ffentliche Verwaltung, 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnani, C. (2006). Il principio dell’identità nazionale nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 481–506). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnon, X. (2010). Le juge constitutionnel national, dernier obstacle au processus d’intégration européenne?: Interrogation autour d’une lecture de l’arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande du 30 juin 2009 sur “le traité de Lisbonne”. RFDC, 417–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magrassi, M. (2002). Il principio comunitario di rule of law e l’evoluzione dei rimedi giurisdizionali: il contesto della Carta. In R. Toniatti (Ed.), Diritto, diritti, giurisdizione. La Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea (p. 31). Padova: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (2006). The common sense of European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 607–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (1998). La forma di governo parlamentare. L’evoluzione nelle esperienze di Regno Unito, Germania ed Italia. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2008a). L’esperienza costituzionale europea. Rome: Aracne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2008b). Il ruolo del Parlamento europeo e il principio della democrazia rappresentativa. Teoria del diritto e dello Stato, 491–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2009). Autodeterminazione: diritto di spessore costituzionale?. Teoria del diritto e dello Stato, 258–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2010a). L’identità dell’Europa: laicità e libertà religiosa. In A. C. Amato Mangiameli & M. R. De Simone (Eds.), Diritto e religione tra passato e futuro (pp. 327–348). Rome: Aracne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2010a). Unchangeable core elements of national constitutions and the process of European integration. For a criticism to the theory of the “controlimiti” (counter-limits/Schranken-Schranken). Teoria del diritto e dello Stato, 68–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangiameli, S. (2012). The institutional design of the European Union after Lisbon. In J. Herm & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The EU after Lisbon (pp. 93–128). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margiotta Broglio, F. (2006). Il fenomeno religioso nella Costituzione europea. Radici cristiane e relazione tra Chiese e Unione. In G. Morbidelli & F. Donati (Eds.), Una Costituzione per l’Unione europea (pp. 225–239). Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, O. (1895/1961). Deutsche Verwaltungsrecht. Munich/Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, R. (2009). Religion as a basis of law in the public order of the European Union. Columbia Journal of European Law, 16(1), 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengozzi, P. (1996). La rule of law e il diritto comunitario di formazione giurisprudenziale. Il Dir. Unione europea, 511–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. (Ed.). (2003). Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europa¨ischen Union. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michetti, M. (2006). La tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 147–194). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkeli, H. (1998/2002). Europa. Storia di un’idea e di un’identità (Italian translation). Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (2002). In defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 603–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, P. (1998). La parità tra uomo e donna nel Trattato di Amsterdam. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 571–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscarini, A. (1999). Sussidiarietà e libertà economiche. In F. Modugno (Ed.), Trasformazioni della funzione legislativa (Vol. I, pp. 245–321). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscarini, A. (2003). Competenza e sussidiarietà nel sistema delle fonti. Contributo allo studio dei criterio ordinatori del sistema delle fonti. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscarini, A. (2006). Il principio di sussidiarietà. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. II: L’esercizio delle competenze (pp. 153–223). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff, P.-C. (2010). Das Lissabon-Urteil: Implikationen für die Europapolitik. APuZ, 18, 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimbene, B. (1994). Brevi rilievi in tema di diritti fondamentali, cittadinanza e sussidiarietà nel Trattato sull’Unione europea. Dir. com. sc. internaz., 233–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negri, S. (1997). La tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell’ordinamento comunitario alla luce del Trattato di Amsterdam. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 733–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaysen, G. (2002). Europarecht I, Die Europa¨ische Integrazionsverfassung (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novi, C. (2004). La parità di trattamento tra uomo e donna in materia di occupazione e condizioni di lavoro nel diritto comunitario: il felice connubio tra codificazione e innovazione. Dir. pubbl. comp. eur., 1239–1267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter, S. (2003). Föderalismus. In A. von Bogdandy (Ed.), Europa¨isches Verfassungsrecht (pp. 59–119). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivetti, M. (2001). Art. 1. Dignità umana. In R. Bifulco, M. Cartabia, & A. Celotto (Eds.), L’Europa dei diritti (pp. 38–45). Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivi, B., & Santaniello, R. (2005). Storia dell’integrazione europea. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlandi, M. A. (2002). Stato di diritto e tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell’evoluzione “costituzionale” francese e dell'Unione europea. In M. Scudiero (Ed.), Il diritto costituzionale comune europeo. Principi e diritti fondamentali (Vol. I, pp. 1043–1068). Naples: Jovene.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsello, G. P. (1993). Il principio di sussidiarietà nella prospettiva dell’attuazione del Trattato sull’Unione europea. Rome: Istituto italiano di studi legislativi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, E. (1996). I diritti fondamentali nella Comunità europea dopo Maastricht. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 163–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice, I. (2001). Europäisches und nationales Verfassungsrecht. Vero¨ffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, 60, 148–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice, I. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon and fundamental rights. In S. Griller & J. Ziller (Eds.), The Lisbon Treaty, EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? (pp. 235–256). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli, C. (2004). Il preambolo, i valori, gli obiettivi. In F. Bassanini & G. Tiberi (Eds.), Una Costituzione per l’Europa (pp. 33–41). Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris, J.-C. (2010). The Lisbon treaty. A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pojares Maduro, M., & Grasso, G. (2009). Quale Europa dopo la sentenza della Corte costituzionale tedesca sul Trattato di Lisbona? Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 503–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Politi, F. (2006). Il rispetto della dignità umana nell’ordinamento europeo. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), L’ordinamento europeo, Vol. I: I principi dell’Unione (pp. 43–88). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuβ, U. (1995). Die Verfassung als Wertordnung. In A. Klein (Ed.), Grundwerte in der Demokratie (pp. 44–68). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randelzhofer, A. (1995). Marktbürgerschaft – Union – Unionsbürgerschaft – Staatsbürgerschaft. In A. Randelzhofer, E. Grabitz, R. Scholz, & D. G. Wilke (Eds.), Gedächtnisschrift fur Eberhard Grabitz (pp. 581–594). Munich: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1977). The rule of law and its virtue. The Law Quarterly Review, 93, 197–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensmann, T. (2005). Grundwerte im Prozeß der europäischen Konstitutionalisierung. Anmerkungen zur Europäischen Union als Wertegemeinschaft aus juristischer Perspektive. In G. Blumenwitz, G. H. Gornig, & D. Murswiek (Eds.), Die Europa¨ische Union als Wertegemeinschaft (pp. 49–71). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reposo, A. (2002). Sul presente assetto istituzionale dell’Unione europea. Quaderni costituzionali, 479–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T. (2010). Neue Werteordnung für die Gesetzesauslegung durch den Lissabon-Vertrag. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1110–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. (2007). L’identità dell’Europa. Bologna: Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, L. S. (2012). Does the Lisbon treaty provide a clearer separation of competences between EU and Member States? In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU law after Lisbon (pp. 85–106). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottola, A. (1978). Il problema della tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell’ambito dell’ordinamento comunitario. Riv. dir. eu., 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffert, M. (2009). An den Grenzen des Integrationsverfassungsrechts: Das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Vertrag von Lissabon. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1197–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri, A. (2001). La Corte di Giustizia ed il sindacato su norme costituzionali “irragionevoli” per incompatibilità col diritto comunitario. Dir. pubbl. comp. eur., 772–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salazar, C. (2000). La “ragionevole irragionevolezza” da ossimoro a endiadi? Un’importante precisazione della Court of Justice sulle azioni positive in favore delle donne. Dir. pubbl. comp. eur., 975–982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Un ordine costituzionale bipolare. Europa/Europe, Vol. n.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiek, D. (1998). More positive action in Community Law. Industrial Law Journal, 27(2), 155–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, T. (2000). Bestand und allgemeine Lehren der bürgerschützenden allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätze des Gemeinschaftsrecht. Europa¨ische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 17–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aβman, E. (1995). Der Rechtsstaat. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Vol. I: Grundlagen pp. 987–1043); Vol. II: Verfassungsstaat (pp. 541–61). Heidelberg: Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aβman, E. (2004). Der Rechtsstaat. In J. Isensee & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts (Verfassungsstaat, Vol. II, pp. 541–561). Heidelberg: Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2008). Verfassungslehre (1928) (English translation). London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt Sydow, H. (2001). Liberté, democratie, droits fondamentaux et Etat de droit: analyse de l’article 7 du traité EU. Revue de droit de l’Union européenne, 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberger, C. (2009). Die Europäische Union zwischen “Demokratiedefizit” und Bundesstaatsverbot. Anmerkungen zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Der Staat, 48(4), 535–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorkopf, F. (2000). Homogenität in der Europa¨ischen Union – Ausgestaltung und Gewährleistung durch Art. 6 Abs. 1 und Art. 7 EUV. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, R. (2012). European constitutional law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2000). EU-Kommentar (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (2004). I principi dello Stato di diritto per l’azione amministrativa nella “vecchia” e nella “nuova” Unione europea. Riv. Ital. Dir. Pubbl. Comunitario, 1279–1307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (Ed.). (2012). EU-Kommentar (3rd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoditti, E. (2001). La Costituzione senza popolo. Unione europea e nazioni. Bari: Dedalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scudiero, L. (1997). Comunità europea e diritti fondamentali: un rapporto ancora da definire? Riv. dir. eu., 263–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobota, K. (1997). Das Prinzip Rechtsstaat. Verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechtliche Aspekte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorrentino, F. (1999). L’influenza del diritto comunitario sulla Costituzione italiana. In A. Pole (Ed.) Studi in onore di Leopoldo Elia (Vol. II, p. 1635). Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorrentino, F. (2001). L’eguaglianza nella giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale e della Corte di giustizia delle Comunità Europee. Politica del diritto, 179–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaemann, R. (2001). Europa – Wertegemeinschaft oder Rechtsordnung. Transit, 172–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, B. (2003). Die Europäische Union als Wertegemeinschaft. Die O¨ffentliche Verwaltung, 981–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewing, C. (1992). Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip als Kompetenzverteiligungsregel im europäischen Recht. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1518–1532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R. (1989). Bundesverfassungsgerichtlicher Grundrechtschutz und Europa¨isches Gemeinschaftsrecht: Bestand. Frankfurt: Tendenzen und Entwicklungen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz, R. (Ed.). (2012). EUV/AEUV. Munich: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strozzi, G. (1994). Il principio di sussidiarietà nel futuro dell’integrazione europea: un’incognita e molte aspettative. Jus, 359–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf, C. (2000). Art 6. In J. Schwarze (Ed.), EU-Kommentar (2nd ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatham, A. F. (2012). ‘Don’t Mention Divorce at the Wedding Darling!’: EU Accession and Withdrawal after Lisbon. In A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout, & S. Ripley (Eds.), EU law after Lisbon (pp. 128–154). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang, J. (1992). The sphere in which member states are obliged to comply with the general principles of law and community fundamental rights principles. Legal Issues of European Integration, 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro, G. (1992). I diritti fondamentali nella giurisprudenza della Court of Justice. Riv. internaz. Dir. dell’uomo, 426–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro, G. (1999). Eguaglianza e legalità nel diritto comunitario. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tettinger, P. J., & Stern, K. (Eds.). (2006). Europa¨ische Grundrechte-Charta. Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2009a). Europäische Integration im Schatten souveräner Staatlichkeit. Anmerkungen zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Der Staat, 48(4), 559–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thym, D. (2009b). In the name of sovereign statehood: A critical introduction to the Lisbon judgment of the German Constitutional Court. Common Market Law Review, 46, 1795–1810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tizzano, A. (Ed.). (2004). Trattati dell’Unione europea e della Comunità europea. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toggenburg, G. N. (2003). Cultural diversity at the background of the European debate on values. In F. Palermo & G. N. Toggenburg (Eds.), European constitutional values and cultural diversity (pp. 9–23). Bolzano: EURAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. (1999). Staatsbürgerschaft – Unionsbürgerschaft – Weltbürgerschaft. In J. Drexl, K. F. Kreuzer, D. H. Scheuing, & U. Sieber (Eds.), Europäische Demokratie (pp. 73–98). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toniatti, R. (2002). Il principio di rule of law e la formazione giurisprudenziale del diritto costituzionale dell’Unione europea. In S. Gambino (Ed.), Costituzione italiana e diritto comunitario. Principi e tradizioni costituzionali comuni. La formazione giurisprudenziale del diritto costituzionale europeo (pp. 503–533). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toriello, F. (2000). I principi generali del diritto comunitario. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosato, G. (1984). La tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella giurisprudenza della Corte delle Comunità europee. In Studi in onore di Giuseppe Sperduti (pp. 715–734). Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triepel, H. (1917). Die Reichsaufsicht. Untersuchungen zum Staatsrecht des Deutschen. Berlin: Reiches.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ooyen, R. C. (2011). Die Staatstheorie des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und Europa. Von Solange über Maastricht zu Lissabon. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanoni, L. P. (2004). Fra Stato e Unione europea: il principio di sussidiarietà sotto esame della Corte costituzionale e della Court of Justice. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 1457–1500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villani, U. (2004). I diritti fondametali tra Carta di Nizza, Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e progetto di Costituzione europea. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 73–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villani, U. (2011). Istituzioni di Diritto dell’Unione europea (2nd ed.). Bari: Cacucci.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. (2010). Die Achtung der nationalen Identität unter dem reformierten Unionsvertrag. Zur unionsrechtlichen Rolle nationalen Verfassungsrechts und zur Überwindung des absoluten Vorrangs. Zeitschrift für ausländisches o¨ffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 701–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, R. (2009). Die Schwebelage im Verhältnis von Europäischer Union und Mitgliedstaaten. Zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Der Staat, 48(4), 475–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkenhorst, H. (1999). Europa¨ischer Integrationsprozeß und europäische Identität. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, W. (1996). The modern West-European State and the European Union: democratic erosion or a new kind of polity? In S. Andersen & K. A. Eliassen (Eds.), The European Union: how democratic is it? (pp. 57–70). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederin, E. (2010). Deutschland über alles: das Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. O¨sterreichische Juristen-Zeitung, 398–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkelmann, I. (Ed.). (1994). Das Maastricht-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 12. Oktober 1993. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum, R. (2010). Kulturelle Rechte und Minderheitenschutz. In D. Merten, & H. -J. Papier (Eds.), Handbuch der Grundrechte Vol. VI/1: Europa¨ische Grundrechte I (§ 143). Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Würmeling, J. (2003). Entwurf des Europa¨ischen Verfassungsvertrages – Erster Bericht zu den Ergebnissen des EU–Verfassungskonvents. Brussels/Bayreuth, 13 June 2003, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, J. (2009). Solange III, ovvero la Europarechtsfreundlichkeit del Bundesverfassungsgericht. A proposito della sentenza della Corte Costituzionale Federale Tedesca sulla ratifica del trattato di Lisbona. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 973–988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council Institute for Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Government, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Authors
  1. Hermann-Josef Blanke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelio Mangiameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. National Research Council - Institute fo Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, Rome, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (2013). Article 2 [The Homogeneity Clause]. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation