12 January 2026
Religiously Sensitive Union Law in Fundamental-Rights Pluralism
“Doomsday” did not occur. The ghastly fascination with this legal conflict, shared by some observers in the media and in legal scholarship, has not been given new fuel. With its long-awaited order in the Egenberger case, the German Federal Constitutional Court has delivered a prudent and balanced decision. It has neither musealized ecclesiastical labour law and abandoned its established case law, nor initiated a trial of strength with the Court of Justice of the European Union by denying the primacy of Union law. Continue reading >>
0 
02 January 2026
When National Courts Say No
On 16 December 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in Gondert v. Germany. At the centre of the dispute lies the duty to give reasons. In the triangular relationship between EU law, the ECHR, and national legal orders, the duty to state reasons plays a catalytic role: without adequate reasons, the much-cited “dialogue between courts” cannot operate as genuine dialogue. Gondert improves matters to some extent, but it cannot by itself remedy the deeper structural weaknesses that shape how that dialogue functions. Continue reading >>
0
22 December 2025
Egenberger
The Egenberger decision is not only about church labour law, but touches on fundamental issues of national and European constitutional law. By integrating the requirements of EU law while maintaining domestic specificities, the decision provides a valuable example of how to manage different layers of fundamental rights. Nevertheless, the Egenberger decision carries an element of surprise. The FCC performed a Solange test, elaborating on the question of whether the relevant European standard falls short of the minimum standard required under German law and therefore justifies an exception to the primacy of EU law. Continue reading >>
0
09 December 2022
An early Christmas Gift from Karlsruhe?
The 6 December Karlsruhe ruling on the constitutional complaints against the ‘Act Ratifying the EU Own Resources Decision’ will be received by many as a Saint Nicholas present. This time, the Federal Constitutional Court avoided the head-on collision with the EU it caused with its PSPP judgment two and a half years ago. Instead, it opted for a seemingly constructive assessment of the EU’s pandemic recovery instrument. In particular, it found that the ORD did not manifestly exceed the competences conferred on the EU – i.e., it was not ultra vires – and did not affect the constitutional identity of the Basic Law. While the ruling is not as constraining as some might have feared, it does not give card blanche for a more permanent EU fiscal capacity. Continue reading >>
0