Mit dem Volksbegehren Artenvielfalt wurden Änderungen im Bayerischen Naturschutzgesetz für besseren Arten- und Biotopschutz angestoßen. Auf Basis einer Literaturstudie betrachten wir, welches Potenzial diese Änderungen auch für Ökosystemdienstleistungen in der Agrarlandschaft haben können.The Bavarian referendum Biodiversity and Natural Beauty (Volksbegehren Artenvielfalt) has led to significant changes in Bavarian environmental legislation. This article investigates and assesses the potential impact of the referendum on ecosystem services (ES) based on existing literature. For this purpose, we selected all the legislative changes that are assumed to directly impact ES in agricultural landscapes. Little research exists on many of the specific relationships for the legislative changes discussed, particularly concerning cultural ES. Nonetheless, for the majority of the legislative changes, the reviewed studies suggest a positive impact on ES. Although we did not find any neutral or negative effects on ES, they are possible in individual cases based on local site conditions and the specific design of the measures. Habitat function and genetic resource maintenance are likely to benefit the most from the legislative changes. Yet, many other ES may be positively influenced, especially in combination with funding law measures and the planned positions for wildlife habitat and biodiversity advisors. The actual effects in Bavarian landscapes should be scientifically investigated.

No abstract

So far, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, henceforth:BVerfG) has only made a single preliminary reference to the (now) Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), despite frequent rulings on matters connected with European Union (EU) Law. Its apparent reluctance seemed odd considering the atmosphere of dialogue and cooperation which prevails between the non-constitutional courts and the EU courts. This situation might, however, have changed with the preliminary reference from January 2014, proving predictions on the perceived “most powerful constitutional court” and its relationship to the EU partly wrong. The legal effects of its preliminary reference on the interpretation of Articles 119, 123, 127 ff. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the validity of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) by the European Central Bank (ECB) under EU Law are as yet unclear; although the Opinion of the Advocate General Cruz Villalón was delivered in the beginning of 2015, which did not confirm the doubts expressed by theBVerfGabout the conformity of the OMT programme with EU law. Nonetheless, the interpretative scheme and the normative questions as to the reluctance of theBVerfGremain the same after this single referral and offer explanations as to why theBVerfGhad for nearly sixty years not referred a question to the former European Court of Justice (ECJ).

No abstract

No abstract