{"title":"The ESM Pandemic Crisis Support Facility: A Changing Conditionality?","authors":"M. Megliani","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since late 2019, the globe has progressively been affected by a pandemic caused by a new virus named Covid-19. To face the economic and social effects of this crisis, the European Union has predisposed a plan hinged on four pillars. The Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency to provide financial assistance for work and jobs. A fund established by the European Investment Bank in favour of small and medium enterprises. A Recovery Fund to stimulate and support European recovery. A Pandemic Crisis Support facility under which the European Stability Mechanism may provide resources without macroeconomic conditionality in favour of direct and indirect healthcare, cure and prevention related to the Covid-19 crisis. With specific reference to this facility, the absence of macroeconomic conditionality questions its compatibility with the ESM and EU Treaties. This problem could have been cured in the amending process of the ESM Treaty. Unfortunately, it was not so and the solution must be sought elsewhere. This may be done by interpreting the no bail-out rule, holding that the no bail-out rule is suspended or finding that the no bailout rule is satisfied by the national recovery and resilience plans. Alternatively, the facility could have been placed under different umbrellas. However, the exceptional features of the facility are not replicable in the ESM context.\nESM, Conditionality, Pandemic Crisis Support facility, Covid-19 Related Healthcare, Justifications","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Since late 2019, the globe has progressively been affected by a pandemic caused by a new virus named Covid-19. To face the economic and social effects of this crisis, the European Union has predisposed a plan hinged on four pillars. The Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency to provide financial assistance for work and jobs. A fund established by the European Investment Bank in favour of small and medium enterprises. A Recovery Fund to stimulate and support European recovery. A Pandemic Crisis Support facility under which the European Stability Mechanism may provide resources without macroeconomic conditionality in favour of direct and indirect healthcare, cure and prevention related to the Covid-19 crisis. With specific reference to this facility, the absence of macroeconomic conditionality questions its compatibility with the ESM and EU Treaties. This problem could have been cured in the amending process of the ESM Treaty. Unfortunately, it was not so and the solution must be sought elsewhere. This may be done by interpreting the no bail-out rule, holding that the no bail-out rule is suspended or finding that the no bailout rule is satisfied by the national recovery and resilience plans. Alternatively, the facility could have been placed under different umbrellas. However, the exceptional features of the facility are not replicable in the ESM context.
ESM, Conditionality, Pandemic Crisis Support facility, Covid-19 Related Healthcare, Justifications
期刊介绍:
The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.