3 ms·

It’s a grey area. EU laws are senior to local laws (though in theory EU countries are supposed to translate those laws to local laws). But I do not believe EU l

by cm2187 4y ago

It’s a grey area. EU laws are senior to local laws (though in theory EU countries are supposed to translate those laws to local laws). But I do not believe EU laws are senior to local constitutions. Though people argued they were when a polish court stated that they are not. Not convinced this is really settled.

soco 4y ago
I don't know the Polish constitution but Romania when joining wrote in its own constitution that EU laws are senior, so that is that. Also in general, international accords and treaties are always senior - so one should pay attention when signing them, not years later.
- cm2187 4y ago
  I don't think it is the case. The french constitution explicitely refers to the lisbon treatee, so it may be that european treaties are senior to the french constitution. But in general I don't think that international treaties are senior to a constitution. Not the least because treaties are typically ratified by the parliament, and the constitution is there to limit the authority of what the parliament or executive can decide to do. So a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify a treaty that goes against the constitution of the country without the constitution being changed. The notion of "international law" itself is also a bit murky. It implies that there is some sort of authority above countries to enforce this law, but there isn't. Countries are sovereign. If the legitimate authority of a country decides to walk away from a treaty, nothing prevents that. It is international law in the sense that it applies to the citizen of the country, as long as the country has the will to adhere to the treaty. History is full of broken treaties (in fact most of them end up that way sooner or later), including very recent examples (territorial integrity of Ukraine).
  - soco 4y ago
    Of course treaties get broken all the time, but the point is you cannot break them and (claim to) uphold them at the same time. You also say, a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify, but what if they did? The commission didn't check thoroughfully and issued a recommmendation, the party discipline voted for it and lo, you have a treaty contradicting the constitution - as somebody is bound to discover later. Now what? Real life is complicated... As for the authority to enforce it, again EU has it - the ECJ, and quite active at that. So coming back to earth, if the ECJ says the decision is binding, it's not their problem if it contradicts the constitution of Poland - that's Poland's problem and they will have to live with whatever consequences of not applying the decision. And they can always quit the EU and its treaties if they don't like the package, no biggie.
    - cm2187 4y ago
      I don’t think it would work any other way than any other law. If a fragment of a law is deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court/council, it is automatically void. I don’t think it matters that it is part of an international treaty, the parliament didn’t have the authority to vote that law in the first place. And again, things might be different in the case of the Lisbon treaty, as the treaty was adopted by means of changing the constitution, at least in France.
      - soco 4y ago
        Exactly, it gets automatically void, not "sorry we won't respect that part". Thus the ECJ is in its very right to call that country in breakage of the treaty and apply whatever sanctions finds adequate, and that country has no stand to say "yes but". Because one cannot have their cake and eat it.
        cm2187 4y ago
        Except that the ECJ is not a constitutional court/council (at least not for national constitutions)

by cm2187 4y ago

soco 4y ago

I don't know the Polish constitution but Romania when joining wrote in its own constitution that EU laws are senior, so that is that. Also in general, international accords and treaties are always senior - so one should pay attention when signing them, not years later.

cm2187 4y ago
I don't think it is the case. The french constitution explicitely refers to the lisbon treatee, so it may be that european treaties are senior to the french constitution. But in general I don't think that international treaties are senior to a constitution. Not the least because treaties are typically ratified by the parliament, and the constitution is there to limit the authority of what the parliament or executive can decide to do. So a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify a treaty that goes against the constitution of the country without the constitution being changed. The notion of "international law" itself is also a bit murky. It implies that there is some sort of authority above countries to enforce this law, but there isn't. Countries are sovereign. If the legitimate authority of a country decides to walk away from a treaty, nothing prevents that. It is international law in the sense that it applies to the citizen of the country, as long as the country has the will to adhere to the treaty. History is full of broken treaties (in fact most of them end up that way sooner or later), including very recent examples (territorial integrity of Ukraine).
- soco 4y ago
  Of course treaties get broken all the time, but the point is you cannot break them and (claim to) uphold them at the same time. You also say, a parliament wouldn't have the authority to ratify, but what if they did? The commission didn't check thoroughfully and issued a recommmendation, the party discipline voted for it and lo, you have a treaty contradicting the constitution - as somebody is bound to discover later. Now what? Real life is complicated... As for the authority to enforce it, again EU has it - the ECJ, and quite active at that. So coming back to earth, if the ECJ says the decision is binding, it's not their problem if it contradicts the constitution of Poland - that's Poland's problem and they will have to live with whatever consequences of not applying the decision. And they can always quit the EU and its treaties if they don't like the package, no biggie.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    I don’t think it would work any other way than any other law. If a fragment of a law is deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court/council, it is automatically void. I don’t think it matters that it is part of an international treaty, the parliament didn’t have the authority to vote that law in the first place. And again, things might be different in the case of the Lisbon treaty, as the treaty was adopted by means of changing the constitution, at least in France.
    - soco 4y ago
      Exactly, it gets automatically void, not "sorry we won't respect that part". Thus the ECJ is in its very right to call that country in breakage of the treaty and apply whatever sanctions finds adequate, and that country has no stand to say "yes but". Because one cannot have their cake and eat it.
      - cm2187 4y ago
        Except that the ECJ is not a constitutional court/council (at least not for national constitutions)