Acquitted on the Benefit of Doubt … but not Proven Innocent! The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Next Generation EU Program

G. Anagnostaras
{"title":"Acquitted on the Benefit of Doubt … but not Proven Innocent! The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Next Generation EU Program","authors":"G. Anagnostaras","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Until recently, the recognition to the European Union of the capacity to borrow from capital markets for spending purposes was considered almost inconceivable without a treaty amendment. When borrowing for spending was authorized under the Next Generation EU program to support the recovery of member states from the unprecedented consequences of the coronavirus, it was immediately faced with the suspicion that the pandemic was being used as a pretext to promote the creation of a fiscal and transfer union by the back door in violation of the principle of conferral. In its NGEU judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the authorization to borrow under the program could not be considered ultra vires. However, the ambiguous and controversial reasoning of the Constitutional Court gives rise to uncertainty as to whether the funding and financing model introduced by the recovery program could be used again in the future, beyond the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. At the same time, it appears that, in this case, the Constitutional Court applied a considerably more restrained version of its ultra vires review compared to its recent case law on the asset purchase programs of the European Central Bank.","PeriodicalId":503760,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":"13 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Until recently, the recognition to the European Union of the capacity to borrow from capital markets for spending purposes was considered almost inconceivable without a treaty amendment. When borrowing for spending was authorized under the Next Generation EU program to support the recovery of member states from the unprecedented consequences of the coronavirus, it was immediately faced with the suspicion that the pandemic was being used as a pretext to promote the creation of a fiscal and transfer union by the back door in violation of the principle of conferral. In its NGEU judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the authorization to borrow under the program could not be considered ultra vires. However, the ambiguous and controversial reasoning of the Constitutional Court gives rise to uncertainty as to whether the funding and financing model introduced by the recovery program could be used again in the future, beyond the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. At the same time, it appears that, in this case, the Constitutional Court applied a considerably more restrained version of its ultra vires review compared to its recent case law on the asset purchase programs of the European Central Bank.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疑罪从无......但不能证明无罪!德国联邦宪法法院对下一代欧盟计划的判决
直到最近,如果不修改条约,承认欧盟有能力从资本市场借款用于支出几乎是不可想象的。当欧盟下一代计划授权借款用于支出,以支持成员国从冠状病毒的空前后果中恢复时,立即面临着这样的怀疑,即这一流行病被用作借口,违反授权原则,通过后门推动建立财政和转移支付联盟。在 NGEU 案的判决中,德国联邦宪法法院得出结论,根据该计划授权借款不能被视为越权。然而,宪法法院的推理模棱两可,颇具争议,这使人们对恢复计划引入的筹资和融资模式今后能否在大流行病的特殊情况之外再次使用产生了不确定性。同时,在本案中,宪法法院对越权审查的适用似乎比其最近关于欧洲中央银行资产购买计划的判例法要克制得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Odious Debt Doctrine: The Equitable Rule Crime and Sanctions: Beyond Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool – ERRATUM Trust and the Procedural Requirements of Article 7(2) TEU: When More than One Bad Apple Spoils the Barrel Trust and the Exchange of EU Classified Information: The Example of Absolute Originator Control Impeding Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny at Europol Balancing Interests: Criminal Proceedings & Private Life Interference Under Martial Law in Ukraine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1