Economic Constitutionalism in the EU and Germany – The German Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank between Law and Politics
{"title":"Economic Constitutionalism in the EU and Germany – The German Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank between Law and Politics","authors":"Jürgen Bröhmer","doi":"10.1515/ldr-2019-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The relationship between the European Union (EU) and its member states has recently been the subject of several legal proceedings in the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) and the European Court of Justice. The backdrop to the underlying controversies were policies instituted by the European Central Bank (ECB) dealing with the economic and monetary situation in various member states in the context of the sovereign debt crises to influence interest rates, combat deflationary tendencies and keep inflation under but close to the ECB’s 2% inflation target. Especially so-called outright monetary transactions (OMTs) and the corresponding OMT-program and a particular high volume public sector asset purchasing program (PSPP) announced by the ECB have been controversially discussed. Legally, the controversies are about the prohibition for the ECB to finance debt held by the EU or member states (Article 123 TFEU) and about the delineation of economic policy (Article 119 et seq. TFEU), which lies in the hands of the members states, and monetary policy (Article 127 et seq. TFEU), which is exclusively in the hands of the ECB. The GFCC in its decisions propagated a restrictive approach emphasizing the role of the member states and pointing to the doctrines developed by it around ultra vires acts and so-called identity review. This paper attempts to shed some light on this controversy and argues that beyond the legal controversy lies a deeper problem of the relationship between judicial and political decision-making that the GFCC should exercise restraint in exercising its functions and remember its own doctrine of “open constitutional norms” developed in a different context but applicable here as well.","PeriodicalId":43146,"journal":{"name":"Law and Development Review","volume":"75 1","pages":"761 - 795"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2019-0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract The relationship between the European Union (EU) and its member states has recently been the subject of several legal proceedings in the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) and the European Court of Justice. The backdrop to the underlying controversies were policies instituted by the European Central Bank (ECB) dealing with the economic and monetary situation in various member states in the context of the sovereign debt crises to influence interest rates, combat deflationary tendencies and keep inflation under but close to the ECB’s 2% inflation target. Especially so-called outright monetary transactions (OMTs) and the corresponding OMT-program and a particular high volume public sector asset purchasing program (PSPP) announced by the ECB have been controversially discussed. Legally, the controversies are about the prohibition for the ECB to finance debt held by the EU or member states (Article 123 TFEU) and about the delineation of economic policy (Article 119 et seq. TFEU), which lies in the hands of the members states, and monetary policy (Article 127 et seq. TFEU), which is exclusively in the hands of the ECB. The GFCC in its decisions propagated a restrictive approach emphasizing the role of the member states and pointing to the doctrines developed by it around ultra vires acts and so-called identity review. This paper attempts to shed some light on this controversy and argues that beyond the legal controversy lies a deeper problem of the relationship between judicial and political decision-making that the GFCC should exercise restraint in exercising its functions and remember its own doctrine of “open constitutional norms” developed in a different context but applicable here as well.
欧盟与其成员国之间的关系最近成为德国联邦宪法法院(GFCC)和欧洲法院(European Court of Justice)几个法律诉讼的主题。潜在争议的背景是欧洲中央银行(ECB)在主权债务危机的背景下制定的政策,以应对各成员国的经济和货币形势,以影响利率,对抗通货紧缩趋势,并使通货膨胀率低于但接近欧洲央行2%的通货膨胀目标。特别是所谓的直接货币交易(omt)和相应的omt计划,以及欧洲央行宣布的一项特别的大规模公共部门资产购买计划(PSPP),一直备受争议。在法律上,争议在于禁止欧洲央行为欧盟或成员国持有的债务提供融资(第123条TFEU),以及对经济政策的界定(第119条及以下各条)。TFEU),由成员国掌握,以及货币政策(第127条及其后各条)。TFEU),它完全掌握在欧洲央行手中。GFCC在其决定中宣传了一种限制性方法,强调成员国的作用,并指出它围绕越权行为和所谓的身份审查制定的理论。本文试图揭示这一争议,并认为在法律争议之外存在着司法决策与政治决策之间关系的更深层次问题,即GFCC在行使其职能时应保持克制,并牢记其在不同背景下发展但也适用于这里的“开放宪法规范”原则。
期刊介绍:
Law and Development Review (LDR) is a top peer-reviewed journal in the field of law and development which explores the impact of law, legal frameworks, and institutions (LFIs) on development. LDR is distinguished from other law and economics journals in that its primary focus is the development aspects of international and domestic legal orders. The journal promotes global exchanges of views on law and development issues. LDR facilitates future global negotiations concerning the economic development of developing countries and sets out future directions for law and development studies. Many of the top scholars and practitioners in the field, including Professors David Trubek, Bhupinder Chimni, Michael Trebilcock, and Mitsuo Matsushita, have edited LDR issues and published articles in LDR. The journal seeks top-quality articles on law and development issues broadly, from the developing world as well as from the developed world. The changing economic conditions in recent decades render the law and development approach applicable to economic issues in developed countries as well as developing ones, and LDR accepts manuscripts on law and economic development issues concerning both categories of countries. LDR’s editorial board includes top scholars and professionals with diverse regional and academic backgrounds.