Description

In several EU Member States, constitutional courts have reviewed European law on its compatibility with national constitutional law. These judgments deal with issues of major importance such as EU democratic legitimacy, the protection of fundamental rights, and the status of national sovereignty within the EU. Yet should national courts decide such issues of key constitutional significance for the EU? Or is it more democratic to leave these matters to political institutions that represent Europe's citizens and are politically accountable to them?

National courts' review of EU law

In Judging European Democracy, Nik de Boer offers a systematic examination of the democratic legitimacy of the national constitutional courts' review of EU law using political and constitutional theory. He argues that the national courts' review of European law can constrain democratic debate over the EU's constitutional underpinnings. Rather than opening up a space for discourse or addressing democratic problems with the EU's decision-making process, national courts risk taking sides in good faith political disagreements among elected legislators about constitutional questions relating to the EU, thus distorting, rather than protecting, the democratic decision-making process. 

German Constitutional Court study

Judging European Democracy uniquely combines constitutional and political theory with an in-depth case study of the German Constitutional Court, the EU's most authoritative constitutional court. Based on an extensive analysis of parliamentary debates, EU policy documents, and interviews with politicians, policymakers, and constitutional court judges, the case study shows how the German Constitutional Court has distorted political debate and democracy in the EU.