THE EU LAW DUTY OF CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION IN GERMAN, IRISH AND DUTCH COURTS
THE EU LAW DUTY OF CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION IN GERMAN,
IRISH AND DUTCH COURTS
Sim Haket
Cambridge – Antwerp – Chicago
Intersentia Ltd
8 Wellington Mews | Wellington Street Cambridge | CB1 1HW | United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1223 736 170
Email: mail@intersentia.co.uk
www.intersentia.com | www.intersentia.co.uk
Distribution for the UK and Ireland:
NBN International
Airport Business Centre, 10 Thornbury Road Plymouth, PL6 7 PP
United Kingdom
Tel.: +44 1752 202 301 | Fax: +44 1752 202 331 Email: orders@nbninternational.com Distribution for Europe and all other countries:
Intersentia Publishing nv Groenstraat 31 2640 Mortsel Belgium
Tel.: +32 3 680 15 50 | Fax: +32 3 658 71 21 Email: mail@intersentia.be
Distribution for the USA and Canada:
Independent Publishers Group Order Department
814 North Franklin Street Chicago, IL60610
USATel.: +1 800 888 4741 (toll free) | Fax: +1312 337 5985
The EU Law Duty of Consistent Interpretation in German, Irish and Dutch Courts
© 2019 S.W. Haket
The author has asserted the right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be identified as author of this work.
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from Intersentia, or as expressly permitted by law or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction which may not be covered by the above should be addressed to Intersentia at the address above.
Cover artwork: F.J. Ramaker ISBN 978-1-78068-879-4 ISBN 978-1-78068-880-0 (pdf) D/2019/7849/109
NUR 828
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
v
Intersentia
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the first place I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Rob Widdershoven and dr. Hanneke van Eijken. Rob has the unique talent that he can point out the most detailed nuances of a particular legal issue and then seemingly effortlessly switches to telling you what the guiding threads are of the chapter that you just submitted – often leaving you surprised at the coherent structure of your work that you had not yet discovered yourself. His comments contributed significantly to the quality of the legal analyses in this book. Hanneke encouraged me to strengthen the theoretical component of my analysis of the duty of consistent interpretation which inadvertently (or subtly?) led me to theories that also played a key role in her own dissertation. Her enthusiasm and support have meant, and mean, a lot to me. I should also thank dr. Herman van Harten who played a crucial role at the start of the project by suggesting that my ideas on the dual mandate of national courts could be given more focus by concentrating on a particular area of EU law that is situated at the interface between EU and national law: the duty of consistent interpretation. I was given the opportunity to carry out part of my research at Heidelberg University and University College Dublin, for which I wish to thank Professor Müller-Graff and Professor Barrett. And I also briefly visited the European Court of Justice, which was made possible by Professor Sacha Prechal.
All three of them later became members of the reading committee, and were joined by Professor Elaine Mak and Professor Mark Wissink, for which I am very grateful.
Despite my visits abroad, most of the work was of course carried out in Utrecht. I wish to thank all the colleagues for making Achter Sint Pieter and Newtonlaan enjoyable and stimulating places to work. I wish to thank in particular my roommates, and former roommates, Claire, Elif, Lukas, Paulien, Sander and Tim for their kindness, contagious work ethic and hearing me out while I ramble on about my views on the duty of consistent interpretation. I thank Klaartje Hoeberechts for preparing the manuscript and Freddy Ramaker for the beautiful cover design.
Pim, I am thankful for the relationship that we have as father and son; you have always supported me and gave me the freedom to find my own path. I am sure Jetteke is proud of both of us. Céline, I realise that the final stages of writing the dissertation will sometimes have been rough for you as well. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe that you mentioned this even once. Your devotion to us and our family are not taken for granted. Esmée and Sophia, you both came into my life when the dissertation was still a work in progress. It is now finished and I
The EU Law Duty of Consistent Interpretation in German, Irish and Dutch Courts
vi Intersentia
suspect that I have an even more interesting and surprising road ahead of me as you evolve into your ‘final version’.
vii
Intersentia
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements. . . v
List of Abbreviations. . . xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction . . . 1
1. What Is This Book About? . . . 1
1.1. From Hamm to Luxembourg and Back . . . 1
1.2. Research Question . . . 2
1.3. Theories on the Relationship between EU and National Law . . . 4
1.3.1. Supremacy of EU Law . . . 4
1.3.2. National Constitutionalism . . . 7
1.3.3. Constitutional Pluralism . . . 8
1.3.4. A Conflict of Norms as a Prerequisite? . . . 10
1.4. National Interpretative Rules and Methods . . . 10
1.5. The Broader Legal Landscape Within Which the Research Is Situated . . . . 11
1.5.1. Direct Effect and State Liability . . . 11
1.5.2. The Duty of Consistent Interpretation and Other Instruments of EU Law than Directives . . . 12
1.5.3. Administrative Authorities . . . 13
2. Why Is This Book of Added Value? . . . 14
3. What Is the Approach of This Book? . . . 15
3.1. The Scope of the Research: Which Member States, Legal Areas, and Courts? . . . 15
3.2. How Does the Rest of This Book Proceed? . . . 19
Chapter 2 The European Court of Justice’s Composition of a Framework for the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 21
1. Introduction . . . 21
2. The Legal Basis for the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 22
2.1. Articles 288 TFEU and 4(3) TEU . . . 22
2.2. The Full Effectiveness of EU Law . . . 25
2.3. Supremacy of Directives as the Legal Basis under the Hierarchical Model . . . 27
The EU Law Duty of Consistent Interpretation in German, Irish and Dutch Courts
viii Intersentia
2.4. Conclusion: Articles 288 TFEU and 4(3) TEU (with the Inclusion of
the Principle of Effectiveness) . . . 29
3. The Temporal Scope of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 29
4. What Does ‘So Far as Possible’ Require the National Courts to Do? . . . 31
4.1. The Object of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 34
4.2. Methodological Instructions on the Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 36
4.2.1. The Interpretative Selection Rule . . . 36
4.2.2. The Presumption of the Intention to Comply . . . 37
4.2.3. A Reinforced Obligation when Interpreting Implementing Legislation? . . . 41
4.2.4. Option under National Law Becomes an Obligation Qua EU Law . . 42
4.3. Prescribing Specific Outcomes? . . . 43
4.3.1. A Specification of the Required Interpretation and a Prognosis of the Outcome . . . 44
4.3.2. Requiring the Reconsideration of the National Court’s Analysis . . . 47
4.3.3. Verbatim Transposition . . . 48
4.4. The Duty of Consistent Interpretation as a Superior Methodological Standard. . . 50
5. The Limits to the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 51
5.1. Imposing an Obligation on an Individual as a Result of a Consistent Interpretation . . . 54
5.1.1. Determining or Aggravating Criminal Liability . . . 54
5.1.2. Obligations Imposed on Individuals Outside the Area of Criminal Law . . . 58
5.2. No Requirement to Adopt a Contra Legem Interpretation . . . 61
5.2.1. The Origins of the Contra Legem Limitation . . . 61
5.2.2. The Meaning of Contra Legem . . . 63
5.3. Other Limits: the Klohn, Maks Pen and Pupino Judgments . . . 71
5.4. Fundamental Rights as a Separate Limitation? . . . 74
5.5. Discretionary Dispensation Conferred and Controlled by EU Law . . . 78
6. Consistent Interpretation and Adequate Implementation . . . 82
7. Conclusion . . . 84
Chapter 3 The German Superior Courts’ Perspective . . . 91
1. Introduction . . . 91
2. The Legal Basis for the Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 92
2.1. An Incoherent Approach in the Beginning… . . . 93
2.2. …Which Has Been Converging Towards the Position under EU Law . . . . 93
3. The Scope for, and Limits to, a Consistent Interpretation from the Perspective of the German Superior Courts . . . 96
Contents
ix
Intersentia
3.1. The Traditional Approach to Interpretation . . . 98
3.1.1. Conventional Auslegung . . . 99
3.1.2. Conventional Rechtsfortbildung . . . 102
3.1.3. Verfassungskonforme Auslegung and Rechtsfortbildung . . . 104
3.2. The Adoption of a Consistent Interpretation by Means of an Auslegung . . 105
3.2.1. Negative Test Approach . . . 105
3.2.2. The Intention to Implement the Directive . . . 109
3.2.3. Transgressions of the National Interpretative Rules? . . . 112
3.3. The Analogy with Verfassungskonforme Auslegung . . . 117
3.4. Limits in the Context of Auslegung . . . 122
3.4.1. Limits of the Judicial Function . . . 122
3.4.2. Fundamental Rights . . . 126
3.5. Priority of Consistent Interpretation and Some Exceptions to the Main Rule . . . 133
3.6. The Adoption of a Consistent Interpretation by Means of a Rechtsfortbildung . . . 136
3.6.1. The Basis for Proceeding to Rechtsfortbildung . . . 138
3.6.2. The Establishment of a Regelungslücke . . . 140
3.7. Limits in the Context of Rechtsfortbildung . . . 149
3.8. The Intention to Implement the Directive as the Pivot of Rechtsfortbildung . . . 153
4. An Afterthought: the Role Played by the Preliminary Ruling Procedure . . . 159
5. Conclusion . . . 161
Chapter 4 The Irish Superior Courts’ Perspective . . . 167
1. Introduction . . . 167
2. The Legal Basis for the Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . 171
3. The Scope for, and Limits to, a Consistent Interpretation from the Perspective of the Irish Superior Courts . . . 174
3.1. The Traditional Approach to Interpretation . . . 175
3.1.1. Conventional Approach under the Rules at Common Law . . . 176
3.1.2. The Interpretation Act 2005 . . . 179
3.2. A Shift to a Purposive Approach in Conformity with the Directive . . . 182
3.2.1. A Structural Prioritisation or Prima Facie Supremacy of Consistent Interpretation? . . . 186
3.2.2. Going Beyond the Traditional Limits to Interpretation as a Consequence of the Shift in Approach . . . 188
3.2.3. The Duty of Consistent Interpretation as Sine Qua Non for the Adopted Interpretation? . . . 191
3.3. Limits to the Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . . 196
The EU Law Duty of Consistent Interpretation in German, Irish and Dutch Courts
x Intersentia
3.3.1. Contra Legem as a Prohibition to Do Violence to the National
Provision’s Wording . . . 197
3.3.2. A Broadening of the Contra Legem Limitation? . . . 199
3.3.3. Divergences between the Directive’s Objectives and the Positivised Intention of the Oireachtas . . . 201
3.3.4. Protection of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution . . . 205
3.4. Incidental Interferences with the Traditional Approach and a Trinity of Irish Legal Culture . . . 210
4. An Afterthought: An Explanation for More and Less Favourable Attitudes Towards the Duty of Consistent Interpretation? . . . 212
5. Conclusion . . . 214
Chapter 5 The Dutch Superior Courts’ Perspective . . . 221
1. Introduction . . . 221
2. The Legal Basis for the Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . 224
3. The Scope for, and Limits to, a Consistent Interpretation from the Perspective of the Dutch Superior Courts . . . 227
3.1. The Traditional Approach to Interpretation . . . 228
3.1.1. A Considerable Degree of Interpretative Autonomy . . . 228
3.1.2. Some Specific Remarks Regarding Public Law . . . 233
3.1.3. The Role Played by the Principle of Separation of Powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary . . . 235
3.2. The Reserved Approach À La Pink Floyd . . . 236
3.3. The Role Played by the Presumption to Comply in Relation to Grammatical and Historical Interpretation . . . 237
3.3.1. Applying the Presumption (1): A Structural Prioritisation of the Implementing Objective and Grammatical Interpretation as an Outer Limit . . . 238
3.3.2. Applying the Presumption (2): A Decline of the Significance of Grammatical Interpretation? . . . 242
3.4. Transgressions of National Interpretative Rules? . . . 246
3.4.1. The Intention to Implement the Directive . . . 246
3.4.2. Consistent Interpretation of Non-Implementing Legislation . . . 251
3.5. Limits to the Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . . 254
3.5.1. The Prominence of the Limits of Grammatical Interpretation . . 255
3.5.2. The Principle of Legal Certainty . . . 259
3.6. Generous Interpretative Rules but also New Limits . . . 267
4. An Afterthought: The Importance of Well-Reasoned Judgments . . . 269
5. Conclusion . . . 271
Contents
xi
Intersentia
Chapter 6
Conclusion. . . 277
1. Introduction . . . 277
2. Synthesis of What ‘So Far as Possible’ Requires (and What It Does Not) . . . 278
2.1. The Resolved Issues . . . 279
2.1.1. Legal Basis . . . 279
2.1.2. Temporal Scope . . . 281
2.1.3. Object . . . 281
2.2. Drawing in the Skecthed Lines . . . 282
2.2.1. The Interpretative Selection Rule . . . 282
2.2.2. The Presumption of the Intention to Comply . . . 283
2.2.3. A Reinforced Obligation when Interpreting Implementing Legislation? . . . 287
2.2.4. Option under National Law Becomes an Obligation Qua EU Law . . . 288
2.2.5. Verbatim Transposition . . . 289
2.2.6. Determining or Aggravating Criminal Liability and Legitimate Expectations Outside the Area of Criminal Law . . . . 290
2.2.7. Res Judicata as a Separate Limitation to the Duty of Consistent Interpretation? . . . 292
2.2.8. No Requirement to Adopt a Contra Legem Interpretation . . . 293
2.3. The National Courts’ Own Further Interpretation . . . 295
2.4. Looking Ahead . . . 300
3. The Fit between Consistent Interpretation and Theories on the Relationship between EU and National Law . . . 302
3.1. A Conflict of Interpretative Rules . . . 303
3.2. Supremacy of EU Law . . . 305
3.2.1. Supremacy (1): Interpretation in Conformity with Supreme Directives? . . . 305
3.2.2. Supremacy (2): Articles 288 TFEU and 4(3) TEU as a Supreme Interpretative Rule . . . 306
3.3. National Constitutionalism . . . 310
3.4. Constitutional Pluralism . . . 314
3.5. Balance . . . 316
3.6. Reflections on the Perennial Question of the Relationship between EU and National Law . . . 318
4. Adaptations and the Day-To-Day Application of the Duty of Consistent Interpretation . . . 321
Samenvatting.. . . 325
List of Cases. . . 343
Curriculum Vitae. . . 355
xiii
Intersentia
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Administratiefrechtelijke beslissingen
AC Appeal Cases
ABRvS Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State
AG Advocate General
ArbG Arbeitsgericht BAG Bundesarbeitsgericht
BAGE Entscheidungen des Bundesarbeitsgerichts BFH Bundesfinanzhof
BFHE Entscheidungen des Bundesfinanzhof BGH Bundesgerichtshof
BGHZ Bundesgerichtshof für Zivilsachen BGHSt Bundesgerichtshof für Strafsachen
BJu Boom Juridische uitgevers
BNB Beslissingen in belastingzaken BSG Bundessozialgericht
BVerfG Bundesverfassungsgericht
BVerfGE Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts BVerfGK Kammerentscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts BVerwG Bundesverwaltungsgericht
BVerwGE Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts CBb College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
CJ Chief Justice
CMLR Common Market Law Reports
CMLRev Common Market Law Review
DB Der Betrieb
DÖV Die Öffentliche Verwaltung
DStR Deutsches Steuerrecht
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
ECJ European Court of Justice
EHRC European Human Rights Cases
ELJ European Law Journal
ELR European Law Reports
ELRev European Law Review
EU European Union
EuR Europarecht
EuZW Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht
The EU Law Duty of Consistent Interpretation in German, Irish and Dutch Courts
xiv Intersentia
GPR Zeitschrift für das Privatrecht der Europäischen Union
HR Hoge Raad
ICR Industrial Cases Reports
IEHC High Court of Ireland Decisions IER Intellectuele Eigendom en Reclamerecht IESC Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions
ILRM Irish Law Reports Monthly
IR Irish Reports
IRLR Industrial Relations Law Reports J Justice
JGR Jurisprudentie Geneesmiddelenrecht
JIC Justis Irish Cases
JM Jurisprudentie Milieurecht
JOR Jurisprudentie Onderneming & Recht JZ JuristenZeitung
LG Landgericht M en R Milieu en Recht
MJ Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
MLR Modern Law Review
NJ Nederlandse Jurisprudentie
NJW Neue Juristische Wochenschrift NVwZ Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht NZA Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht OJLS Oxford Journal of Legal Studies OLG Oberlandesgericht
OUP Oxford University Press
RAwb Rechtspraak Algemene wet bestuursrecht RIW Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft
TEU Treaty on European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UK United Kingdom
WLR Weekly Law Reports
YEL Yearbook of European Law
ZIP Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht
