1. Thus, in the Lissabon-Urteil the BVerfG developed two bases for own constitutional review: the ultra vires review and the identity review. In the first place, the ultra vires review, whether legal instruments of the European Institutions and Bodies, adhering to the principle of subsidiarity, do not keep within the boundaries of the sovereign powers accorded to them by way of conferred powers. This is a remarkable change from the approach in Solange I judgment, 2 Common Market Law Review (CMLR) 540 (1974) and Solange II judgment, 3 CMLR 225 (1987), when the Court affirmed the well-known formula that the BVerfG would no longer examine the compatibility of European secondary law with German fundamental rights exists on the European level, comparable to the secured ones by the German Basic Law. Instead, in the Lisbon case the Court states that any European legal act can be scrutinized for its conformity with the German Basic Law regarding “obvious” transgressions of the boundaries of competences and identity, id est the so-called “domain réservé”. See Frank Shorkopf, The European Union as an association of sovereign States: Karlsruhe's ruling on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 GLJ 1219, 1232 (2009), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1156, last accessed 22 March 2010. In the second place, the other type of review fixed by the Court is the identity review, whether the inviolable core content of the constitutional identity of the GG pursuant to Article 23.1, sentence 3, GG in conjunction with Article 79.3 GG is not respected.
2. See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 228.
3. James Madison, Federalist Paper no. 62 (“The Senate”), in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist Papers, 375 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 2003). However, according to the editors, it is unsure that the Federalist Paper no. 62 has been written properly by James Madison.
4. Official English translation available at: http://www.bundesregierung.de/static/pdf/GG_engl_Stand_26_07_02.pdf, last accessed 27 March 2010, Articles 38.1 and 23.1.
5. See, supra, note 2, paragraph no. 307.