Enlarge image
Aroused the displeasure of the EU Commission: Judges at the Federal Constitutional Court
Photo: Uli Deck / dpa
The question was obvious, the answer not very convincing.
"What can the federal government do to meet its conditions?" Asked a journalist on Wednesday a spokesman for the EU Commission.
He replied, visibly unsettled: "This is how it works: We send a letter to the German government and it is then up to the member states to find a solution."
But this time it will not be so easy to find a solution, the Commission knows that too.
The authority formally initiated proceedings against Berlin on Wednesday because the federal government is said to have violated European law.
First of all, that's not unusual.
Such proceedings have also occurred frequently against Germany in the past.
But the current case is different.
Formally, the Federal Government is the addressee of the complaint.
In truth, however, it is the Federal Constitutional Court that, in the opinion of the Commission, acted unlawfully.
Why is?
In May of last year, the court complained that neither the Bundestag nor the federal government had adequately checked the European Central Bank's bond purchase program for its proportionality.
Worse still: the Karlsruhe judges accused their colleagues at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of failing to adequately control the ECB.
The ECJ, on the other hand, found the loan program to be legal.
National law over European law?
The verdict caused a stir.
The impression arose that the Federal Constitutional Court was shaking the principle that European law takes precedence over national law.
Even the legal unity of the EU appeared to be at risk.
Even then, the head of the commission, Ursula von der Leyen, held out the prospect of proceedings against Germany.
The federal government now has a few months to respond to the allegations from Brussels.
After that, the matter could end up before the ECJ.
The concerns in Brussels are understandable.
But it is unclear what the proceedings against Germany will bring.
Does the Commission expect Berlin to ask the Federal Constitutional Court for clarification?
Nobody believes that, even in Brussels.
"Of course we respect the independence of the courts, that is clear," said the commission spokesman.
The Federal Government therefore has no immediate opportunity to dispel the allegations from Brussels.
I mean Poland and Hungary
The fact that the Commission is taking a hard line on this issue has less to do with concerns about the German judiciary's loyalty to Europe.
Indeed, during the proceedings, Brussels has its sights set on countries like Poland and Hungary, which have been criticized for years for violating the rule of law.
Poland and Hungary had welcomed the Karlsruhe ruling because they themselves ignored decisions of the ECJ.
For example, Poland is promoting the mining of lignite in the border area with the Czech Republic, even though the ECJ had ordered an immediate stop.
Von der Leyen does not want to expose herself to the accusation that she measures with double standards.
Judgments of the ECJ, so the message, should be binding in all member states.
The Deputy Chairwoman of the EU Parliament, Katarina Barley, therefore sees the infringement proceedings as an »important, overdue signal from the EU«.
But what signal will that be in the end?
If Germany cannot find a way to comply with the requirements from Brussels, that could even encourage other countries.
Then the Commission would have made it even easier for the governments in Poland or Hungary to push ahead with the dismantling of the rule of law.
