60
Ingolf Pernice
Deuxième séance de travail — Les retombées
The autonomy of the EU legal order, thus, became an issue of practical
relevance. What is its future? My proposal is not to accept the concept of ‘com-
peting autonomies’. Both legal orders are not independent from each other.
Autonomy in the composed legal system (
12
) should be understood as ‘embed-
ded autonomy’. It is based upon the co-responsibility of European and na-
tional courts for what constitutes ‘the law’ in each particular case.
The following five theses supplemented by some further considerations
may explain what this means:
a. Autonomy and constitutional pluralism
Autonomy of the EU legal order does not imply hierarchy but rather a plu-
ralist concept of legal orders applicable to the same people.
First of all, the pluralist approach (
13
) is a matter of realism: From the per-
spective of each legal order the claim of autonomy seems to be perfectly le-
gitimate for the courts established by them respectively. Consequently, the
EU legal order can neither be conceived as being derived from 28 different
national legal orders, nor do national constitutions allow to be subject to a
supremacy of Union law in a hierarchical sense without any reservation (
14
).
As both legal orders supplement each other, are legitimised by and applica-
ble to the same people, acknowledgement of some sort of legal pluralism is
necessary (
15
).
(
12
) For the theoretical background see Ingolf Pernice, Multilevel
Constitutionalism in the
European Union
, European Law Review 27 (2002), S. 511-529, WHI-Paper 5/2002; id.,
Theorie und Praxis des Europäischen Verfassungsverbundes
, in: Christian Calliess (Hrsg.),
Verfassungswandel im europäischen Staaten- und Verfassungsverbund. Göttinger Gespräche
zum deutschen und europäischen Verfassungsrecht
, 2007, S. 61-92, WHI-Paper 8/2008.
(
13
) For the concept of constitutional pluralism see first: Neil MacCormick,
Beyond the
Sovereign State
, 56 Modern Law Review (1993), p. 1 et seq.; id.,
Questioning Sovereignty:
Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth
, 1999. An insight into the many faces
of constitutional pluralism can be found at Matej Avbelj and Jan Komárek, Introduction, in:
id. (eds.),
Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond
, 2012, p. 1, 4-7. See
also Neil Walker, The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism, Modern Law Review 65 (2002) No 3,
p. 317, 336 et seq. with further reference to other works on legal pluralism.
(
14
) McCormick,
Questioning Sovereignty
(note 13), p. 104.
(
15
) Ibid., p. 105. For the reconciliation of constitutionalism and constitutional pluralism see
Franz Mayer/Mattias Wendel,
Multilevel-Constitutionalism and Constitutional Pluralism.
Querelle Allemande ou Querelle d’Allemand
? in: Avbelj/ Komárek (note 13) pp. 105.
