Jonas Tafel: Extensives Entscheiden, Gebunden

Klappentext

Constitutional courts repeatedly face the accusation that, through certain decisions, they exceed their competences and encroach upon the sphere of politics. Under the notion of "competence critique," Jonas Tafel captures this accusation as a specifically legal form of criticism which, however, does not allow for constructive treatment within the law. He therefore develops a model of extensive adjudication as a proposal for a constructive reception of decisions that are alleged to overstep judicial competences.

Competence critique implies that adjudication and legislation can be distinguished in theory and that, in individual cases, a transgression of the boundary can be identified in practice. Yet the principle of separation of powers does not provide a sufficiently clear legal standard for this purpose and would ultimately lead to a state of legal inarticulacy in the face of such critique. Nevertheless, the intuitive distinction between adjudication and legislation forms the starting point for lively debates in legal scholarship concerning the political intentions of constitutional court decisions. In these debates, the constitutional court's self-image as an apolitical actor encounters competing external perceptions and thus appears as an expression of the struggle for the authenticity of constitutional adjudication. Against this background, competence critique can be taken up in legal terms from the perspective of the constitutional court's striving for acceptance.

The model of extensive adjudication captures, in four dimensions, how constitutional court decisions enter into structural competition with the legislature's claim to shape the law. Drawing on selected decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the author demonstrates how the binary formulation of competence critique can be addressed by contextualizing its subject matter. The standard of extensiveness allows for a constructive critique of shifts in the distribution of lawmaking power between adjudication and legislation and leads to a rational reception of constitutional case law-one that highlights its potential for acceptance while respecting the fragile authority of constitutional courts.