Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (51) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (51)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (51) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (3)
- Deutsche Bundesbank (2)
- Europäische Union (2)
- Europäische Zentralbank (2)
- Landesbank (2)
- Recht (2)
- Restrukturierung (2)
- Sparkasse (2)
- monetary policy (2)
- Altersversorgung (1)
In its meeting on 6 September 2012, the Governing Council of the ECB took decisions on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets (OMT). This decision was challenged in the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) by a number of constitutional complaints and other petitions. In its seminal judgment of 14 January 2014, the German court expressed serious doubts on the compatibility of the ECB’s decision with the European Union law.
It admitted the complaints and petitions even though actual purchases had not been executed and the control of acts of an organ of the EU in principle is not the task of the GFCC. As justification for this procedure the court resorted to its judicature on a reserved “ultra vires” control and the defense of the “constitutional identiy” of Germany. In the end, however, the court referred the case pursuant to Article 267 TFEU to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for preliminary rulings on several questions of EU law. In substance, the German court assessed OMT as an act of economic policy which is not covered by the competences of the ECB. Furthermore, it judged OMT as a – by EU primary law – prohibited monetary financing of sovereign debt. The defense of the ECB (disruption of monetary policy transmission mechanism) was dismissed without closer scrutiny as being “irrelevant”. Finally the court opened, however, a way for a compromise by an interpretation of OMT in conformity with EU law under preconditions, specified in detail.
Procedure and findings of this judgment were harshly criticized by many economists but also by the majority of legal scholars. This criticism is largely convincing in view of the admissibility of the complaints. Even if the “ultra vires” control is in conformity with prior decisions of court it is in this judgment expanded further without compelling reasons. It is also questionable whether the standing of the complaining parties had to be accepted and whether the referral to the ECJ was indicated. The arguments of the court are, however, conclusive in respect of the transgression of competences by the ECB and – to somewhat lesser extent – in respect of the monetary debt financing. The dismissal of the defense as “irrelevant” is absolutey persuasive.
The Treaty of Maastricht imposed the strict obligation on the European Union (EU) to establish an economic and monetary union, now Article 3(4) TEU. This economic and monetary union is, however, not designed as a separate entity but as an integral part of the EU. The single currency was to become the currency of the EU and to be the legal tender in all Member States unless an exemption was explicitly granted in the primary law of the EU, as in the case of the UK and Denmark. The newly admitted Member States are obliged to introduce the euro as their currency as soon as they fulfil the admission criteria. Technically, this has been achieved by transferring the exclusive competence for the monetary policy of the Member States whose currency is the euro on the EU, Article 3(1)(c) TFEU and by bestowing the euro with the quality of legal tender, the only legal tender in the EU, Article 128(1) sentence 3 TFEU.
The paper traces the developments from the formation of the European Economic and Monetary Union to this date. It discusses the fact that the primary mandate of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) is confined to safeguarding price stability and does not include general economic policy. Finally, the paper contributes to the discussion on whether the primary law of the European Union would support a eurozone exit. The Treaty of Maastricht imposed the strict obligation on the European Union (EU) to establish an economic and monetary union, now Article 3(4) TEU. This economic and monetary union is, however, not designed as a separate entity but as an integral part of the EU. The single currency was to become the currency of the EU and to be the legal tender in all Member States unless an exemption was explicitly granted in the primary law of the EU, as in the case of the UK and Denmark. The newly admitted Member States are obliged to introduce the euro as their currency as soon as they fulfil the admission criteria. Technically, this has been achieved by transferring the exclusive competence for the monetary policy of the Member States whose currency is the euro on the EU, Article 3(1)(c) TFEU and by bestowing the euro with the quality of legal tender, the only legal tender in the EU, Article 128(1) sentence 3 TFEU.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG UND ERGEBNISSE (1) Die Schaffung des Europäischen Ausschusses für Systemrisiken stößt nicht auf durchgreifende rechtliche Bedenken. (2) Es ist nicht sicher, dass die Errichtung der neuen Europäischen Aufsichtbehörden ohne entsprechende Änderung des Primärrechts zulässig ist. (3) Es kommt entscheidend darauf an, welche rechtsverbindlichen Einzelweisungsbefugnisse tatsächlich den Behörden verliehen werden. (4) Die nach dem Kompromiss vom 2. Dezember 2009 noch verbliebenen Einzelweisungsbefugnisse der Behörden gegenüber Privaten und gegenüber nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden sind rechtlich kaum abgesichert. (5) Wenn die hoheitlichen Befugnisse weitgehend oder vollständig beseitigt werden, bestehen Bedenken im Hinblick auf die Geeignetheit und Erforderlichkeit der Einrichtungen. (6) Die weitreichenden Unabhängigkeitsgarantien sind nicht mit den Anforderungen demokratischer Aufsicht und Kontrolle zu vereinbaren. (7) Für die Einräumung von Unabhängigkeit ist nach deutschem Verfassungsrecht eine ausdrückliche Regelung in der Verfassung, wie in Art. 88 Satz 2 GG, erforderlich. (8) Die transnationale Kooperation von Verwaltungsbehörden bedarf zumindest dann einer gesetzlichen Ermächtigung, wenn faktisch verbindliche Entscheidungen getroffen werden.
Inhalt:
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Helmut Siekmann: Stellungnahme für den Haushalts- und Finanzausschuss des Landtags Nordrhein-Westfalen zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Offenlegung der Bezüge von Sparkassenführungskräften im Internet (Drucksache 16/4165) vom 10.02.2014
Gesetzentwurf der Fraktion der Piraten Gesetz zur Offenlegung der Bezüge von Sparkassenführungskräften im Internet vom 08.10.2013