案例C-270/12(英国诉议会和理事会)-欧盟金融监管当局权力的压力测试宪法弹性-对总检察长意见的批判性评估

H. Marjosola
{"title":"案例C-270/12(英国诉议会和理事会)-欧盟金融监管当局权力的压力测试宪法弹性-对总检察长意见的批判性评估","authors":"H. Marjosola","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2379348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper takes a critical look at the conclusions and reasoning of the Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-270/12 UK v Council and Parliament that, at the time of writing this paper, is pending before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In his Opinion delivered on 12 September 2013, Advocate General Jaaskinen found, in agreement with the UK, that the Article 114 TFEU was not an appropriate legal basis for the powers granted to the European Securities Markets Authority under Article 28 of the Regulation 236/2012 on Short Selling and certain aspects of Credit Default Swaps. This paper has three aims: first, to underline the “systemic” importance of the case for the nascent system of EU financial supervision; second, to point out certain neglected dimensions in the Opinion, especially the insufficient attention paid to ex ante (political and procedural) safeguards and the problematic relationship between financial stability and financial integration; and third, to emphasise the need of the Court to find a second-best solution in order to ring-fence the damage that could be caused to the supervisory system in the event the Court were to agree with the Advocate General’s findings.","PeriodicalId":375754,"journal":{"name":"Public International Law eJournal","volume":"234 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case C-270/12 (UK v Parliament and Council) – Stress Testing Constitutional Resilience of the Powers of EU Financial Supervisory Authorities – A Critical Assessment of the Advocate General's Opinion\",\"authors\":\"H. Marjosola\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2379348\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper takes a critical look at the conclusions and reasoning of the Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-270/12 UK v Council and Parliament that, at the time of writing this paper, is pending before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In his Opinion delivered on 12 September 2013, Advocate General Jaaskinen found, in agreement with the UK, that the Article 114 TFEU was not an appropriate legal basis for the powers granted to the European Securities Markets Authority under Article 28 of the Regulation 236/2012 on Short Selling and certain aspects of Credit Default Swaps. This paper has three aims: first, to underline the “systemic” importance of the case for the nascent system of EU financial supervision; second, to point out certain neglected dimensions in the Opinion, especially the insufficient attention paid to ex ante (political and procedural) safeguards and the problematic relationship between financial stability and financial integration; and third, to emphasise the need of the Court to find a second-best solution in order to ring-fence the damage that could be caused to the supervisory system in the event the Court were to agree with the Advocate General’s findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":375754,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public International Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"234 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public International Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2379348\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public International Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2379348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文对C-270/12英国诉理事会和议会案中总检察长的意见的结论和推理进行了批判性的审视,在撰写本文时,该案正在欧盟法院大分庭审理。在2013年9月12日发表的意见中,总检察长Jaaskinen与英国达成一致,认为第114条TFEU不是根据第236/2012号关于卖空和信用违约掉期某些方面的法规第28条授予欧洲证券市场管理局的权力的适当法律依据。本文有三个目的:第一,强调本案对欧盟金融监管新体系的“系统性”重要性;第二,指出《意见》中某些被忽视的方面,特别是对事前(政治和程序)保障措施和金融稳定与金融一体化之间有问题的关系重视不够;第三,强调法院需要找到次佳的解决办法,以便避免在法院同意总检察长的调查结果时可能对监督制度造成的损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Case C-270/12 (UK v Parliament and Council) – Stress Testing Constitutional Resilience of the Powers of EU Financial Supervisory Authorities – A Critical Assessment of the Advocate General's Opinion
This paper takes a critical look at the conclusions and reasoning of the Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-270/12 UK v Council and Parliament that, at the time of writing this paper, is pending before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In his Opinion delivered on 12 September 2013, Advocate General Jaaskinen found, in agreement with the UK, that the Article 114 TFEU was not an appropriate legal basis for the powers granted to the European Securities Markets Authority under Article 28 of the Regulation 236/2012 on Short Selling and certain aspects of Credit Default Swaps. This paper has three aims: first, to underline the “systemic” importance of the case for the nascent system of EU financial supervision; second, to point out certain neglected dimensions in the Opinion, especially the insufficient attention paid to ex ante (political and procedural) safeguards and the problematic relationship between financial stability and financial integration; and third, to emphasise the need of the Court to find a second-best solution in order to ring-fence the damage that could be caused to the supervisory system in the event the Court were to agree with the Advocate General’s findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Dual‐Nature Thesis: Which Dualism? Legality and the Legal Relation Soldiers as Public Officials: A Moral Justification for Combatant Immunity A Pragmatic Reconstruction of Law's Claim to Authority Ownership, Use, and Exclusivity: The Kantian Approach
×
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