[ad_1]
After a question asked by the German Greens MEP Sven Giegold, the President of the European Commission admitted, for the first time, the possibility of an infringement procedure against Germany, due to the judgment of the Karlshure judges which goes against the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and questions the policy and independence of the European Central Bank.
Giegold has no doubt that an infringement process is necessary to avoid “legal confusion” and overcome “the immense pressure” that the German constitutional system has exerted on the euro system. It is not yet certain that Ursula von der Leyen will follow that path, but the MEP already considers it “a good sign” that he has “quickly pointed out” the possibility of a procedure. First of all, avoid special treatment for the largest country in the European Union.
“Now that the European Commission is headed by a German, it is even more important that the Commission give no doubt that it is next to the Court of Justice of the European Union“he says to Expresso and SIC. And the European Parliament and the different governments should clarify the same thing.
“When we now see that the Polish government uses this judgment in favor of its own agenda, we see how political it is,” he continues.
The Green MEP considers that the decision of the German judges “it’s very dangerous”. Not only because it calls into question the green light that the CJEU had already given to the public debt purchase program launched by the ECB in 2015, but also raises the possibility that the German central bank will abandon this instrument, the so-called Mario Draghi Bazooka, if the European Central Bank does not justify, within three months, the need and proportionality of a measure that has been identified as essential to maintain stability in the euro area. And this is in the midst of a crisis caused by the Covid pandemic19.
“If this conflict escalates, the euro is in danger”Giegold says. “If the Bundesbank withdraws from buying debt securities, financial markets will see it as if the largest Member State no longer clearly supports the euro. “.
A sign that would certainly please the “opponents of the euro” within Germany, who at every step of the Monetary Union have brought progress to court. “The complainants, says the MEP, do not like the euro and” I do not like Germany participating in the euro. Now, for the first time, the court has taken a big step toward these people. “
Solution to maintain legal peace.
Avoiding this escalation should be the goal. But because “a fundamental question of European law” is at stake, the German economist says it must be resolved “by the courts, by the member states and by the European Commission.” Together they must find “a pragmatic solution”, in the proper form of the European compromise, which allows everyone to “keep face”.
“What is needed now is a European solution to maintain legal peace in Europe”, shoot, recognizing that it will not be easy. He does not believe that the constitutional “gives up” and admits that the German government cannot force Karlsruhe to change his mind. “We would not like to live in a state where a government can compel a constitutional court to do what we want it to do.” But a dialogue between all parties may be necessary.
Bloomberg said on Monday that the German chancellor had proposed that the ECB offer an explanation of the asset purchase program through the Bundesbank, which would act as an intermediary for the German parliament. The news agency quotes sources, noting Angela Merkel’s intention to avoid escalating the conflict.
A legal puzzle that revives an old arm between the CJEU and the highest national legal bodies. The European court has already gone as far as to say that it is “unique” “with jurisdiction to decide whether an act of an EU institution is contrary to European law.” The European Commission never tires of repeating the same thing and Von der Leyen argues that the last word is in Luxembourg and “nowhere else”. But the European Commission legal service is still looking for material to justify the opening of a procedure.
In or out of the office?
What the German judges question is complex. They raise the possibility that the European Central Bank has gone beyond its mandate (ultra vires), when it advanced with the massive asset purchase program in the secondary market. And it is in this sense that you can argue that you also have something to say.
“Every state that has given certain powers to a supranational entity can challenge whether that entity has exceeded its powers,” says Giegold, recalling that the American civil war began with a case of “ultra vires” between courts (of different instances), in that moment, disagree because of the end of slavery.
“This ended in war, but it is because there was no pragmatic solution,” says the German. Now he believes it will be different.
