National Courts and EU Trade Policy Powers: the EU/Canada trade deal and the German Constitutional Court

Douwe Korff, Emeritus Professor of International Law, London Metropolitan University; Associate, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford

One of the big issues on the EU’s agenda at present is whether to sign and provisionally apply the Canada/EU free trade agreement, known as ‘CETA’. The division of power between the EU and its Member States determines whether Member States can veto some or all of this deal, potentially complicating this process – frustrating supporters of the deal, but emboldening its critics.

Moreover, the dispute over CETA has broader implications, most notably for the controversial EU/US trade deal under negotiation (‘TTIP’) and any trade deal between the EU and UK after Brexit. While the EU’s Court of Justice will soon rule on the division of powers between the EU and its Member States as regards the EU/Singapore free trade agreement (for the background to that case, see here; for the CJEU hearing, see here), the immediate question is signing and provisionally applying CETA.

For the moment, the parliament in the Belgian region of Wallonia has held up the EU/Canada deal, but my focus here is the legal angle. While we await the CJEU’s ruling on the similar EU/Singapore deal, national courts have got involved in this issue. Last week, the German Constitutional Court refused to issue an interim order prohibiting the German Government from signing the CETA Agreement (BVerfGE of 13 October 2016; English summary here). The judgment sets a precedent for the legal issues that might arise with TTIP and Brexit, and so is worth further examination.

The decision

The decision was not about the issue of whether CETA (as initialled by Canada and the EU) was compatible with the German Constitution, but about whether the German Constitutional Court (“the Court”) should issue an interim order or injunction (einstweilige Anordnung) prohibiting the German Government (“the Government”) from even signing the Agreement. The Court emphasised that it was the Court’s standing practice to only issue such an injunction in relation to a proposed treaty if it was obvious that the treaty would irreversibly violate the Constitution (or constitutionally-protected rights of individuals) and if it was imperative that this be stopped immediately. On the other hand, possible but as-yet-not-materialised or reversible risks to such rights should be balanced against the importance of the matters to be covered by the treaty; and the Government in principle had a very wide margin of discretion in such matters. (Paras. 34 – 36)

The Court refused to issue the injunction for the following reasons in particular (my selection):

- The signing of CETA by Canada, the EU and the Member States would only result in the provisional application of the Agreement; it would only come into full force upon ratification by the parties – and crucially, the German Government (like any other Member State Government) could, until and unless the Agreement was ratified by all parties, terminate the application of the Agreement at any time, by means of a simple declaration to that effect to the other parties. The signing of CETA by the Government therefore did not irreparably risk any violation of constitutional rights. (Para. 38; cf. the last bullet-point under the last indent, below)

- The Court clearly has serious doubts as to whether the EU has competence in relation to investor protection in various areas, in particular also as concerns workers’ health and safety regulations. (Para. 54 – 57)

- The Court clearly also has serious doubts as to whether the EU can lawfully transfer “sovereign rights [Hoheitsrechte] in relation to judicial and quasi-judicial dispute resolution systems [Gerichts- und … Ausschusssystem]” to other systems (i.e., to the proposed investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) “court” mechanism). (Para. 58) It was “not completely inconceivable” that the proposed (revised) ISDS mechanism could be held to violate the principle of democratic legitimacy (das Demokratieprinzip). (idem; see also para. 65)

- However, according to the Court, the above risks can be prevented in practice by various means (which, the Court implies, the German Government therefore must employ), i.e.:

· According to the Court, some of the risks can be prevented by means of the declarations already issued by the European Council, which (the Court tentatively accepts) ensure that with the signing of the Agreement only parts of that agreement will enter into (even provisional) force. The Court held that in many respects “reservations” (Vorbehalte) are already in place as concerns the application of certain parts of the Agreement. (Para. 69: see there for a list of these areas).

· The Court “assumes” (read: effectively demands) that the German Government will ensure, by these same means, that certain parts of CETA “in particular” “will not be included in the provisional application [of CETA, upon signature by the parties]”. In these not-to-be-applied matters, the Court expressly includes “the rules on investment protection, including the [investment dispute resolution] court system.” (Para. 70)

· The Court suggests that, at least while CETA would be only provisionally in force, Germany can demand that any decisions by the investment dispute resolution “court” will have to have the unanimous agreement of the EU Council – i.e., that Germany is given a right of veto over any such decisions. (Para. 71)

· If those measures were to not suffice, Germany can “as a last resort” use its right to terminate the Agreement (see the first indent, above). However, the Court feels that the interpretation of the Agreement to the effect that a State Party has this right (to terminate it in respect of that state while it is still only provisionally in force) “is not binding”, even though the Government has made a convincing case for it.

The Court therefore demands of the Government that it (the Government) “must clarify this interpretation of the Agreement in an international-legally appropriate way” and “inform its Treaty Partners of this [interpretation].” (Para. 73)

Comments

It would seem to me that the signing of CETA subject to the conditions imposed by the German Constitutional Court, would address many of the issues raised by activists:

- The contentious investment dispute resolution “court” would not become operational;

- If it ever were to become operational, Germany (and if other Member States were to adopt the same approach, those other Member States too) would have a veto over any decisions of that (quasi-) “court” that would impinge on rights and interests protected by its (their) constitution(s); and

– If in spite of these safeguards, those constitutionally-protected rights and interests were to still be unduly affected by the dispute resolution system (or any other aspect of the Agreement), Germany (and any such other Member State) could still exit the Agreement (even if that meant it would altogether have to end functioning).

Perhaps current opponents of CETA could live with it operating forever on such a “provisional” and conditional basis?

Barnard & Peers: chapter 24

Photo credit: misttoronto.com

Pulling the rug from under Mario’s feet: the BVerfG and the ECB’s OMT programme

Ioannis Glinavos (@iGlinavos), Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster

A key decision relating to EU economic and monetary union will be delivered by the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, “BVerfG”) next week (Tuesday June 21). That court will be deciding on the case of Gauweiler (C-62/14), where it had asked the European Court of Justice (CJEU) for an opinion (preliminary reference) on the legality of the European Central Bank’s (ECB) Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) programme after 37,000 plaintiffs questioned the legal basis of the ECB’s scheme. It is notable that Jens Weidmann, Bundesbank president, had voted against the OMT programme and Eurozone Quantitative Easing (QE). The Court referred two questions to the CJEU in what it classified as an ultra vires review of acts of the European Union.

In summary, the BVerfG wanted to check whether the ECB had transgressed the limits of its powers derived from the EU Treaties. If the ECB had, this would have consequences for the constitutional identity of Germany. Therefore, the BVerfG asked for clarification on whether the OMT programme was an economic rather than a monetary measure and whether the ECB had as a consequence exceeded its powers by establishing it.  Second, the BVerfG raised the question whether the OMT programme was not violating the prohibition of monetary financing of Member States.

The BVerfG set out the following specific conditions that could render OMT compatible with the German constitution: (1) OMT should not undermine the conditionality of the EFSF and ESM (‘bail-out’) programmes; (2) OMT should only be of a supportive nature to other economic policies; (3) any debt restructuring must be excluded (no pari passu for the ECB) (4) no unlimited purchases of government bonds and (5) avoidance of interference with the price formation on the market where possible.

Indeed, the ECB is not allowed to engage in economic policy, neither is it allowed to finance member states, as articles 120, 123, 127 TFEU (primarily) set out. On the face of it, the concerns of the claimants at the BVerfG seem justified. Let us therefore examine the nature of the complaint in some more detail. The OMT, announced in September 2012, is an initiative aimed to help struggling Eurozone economies by buying short-term government bonds on secondary markets. It is widely perceived as an important tool to calm markets. The way in which OMT offers relief to states experiencing funding difficulties is by opening an avenue to short term affordable liquidity. In a way, it allows funds to reach governments by creating demand for sovereign debts in secondary markets, therefore lowering the costs of borrowing overall. Its critics, however, have argued that OMT exceeds the ECB’s mandate and undermines the rules that keep the Eurozone from becoming a ‘transfer union’ where stronger members are constantly bailing out weaker ones.

These transfers are supposedly prevented by the fact that the OMT operates in conjunction with fiscal discipline measures in the affected countries. The ECB insists that a necessary condition for OMT is strict and effective conditionality attached to an appropriate European Financial Stability Facility/European Stability Mechanism (EFSF/ESM) programme. Such programmes can take the form of a full macroeconomic adjustment programme or a precautionary programme, provided that they include the possibility of EFSF/ESM primary market purchases. The ECB Governing Council considers OMTs to the extent that they are warranted from a monetary policy perspective as long as programme conditionality is fully respected (which is why Greek government bonds are not included in the OMT shopping list), and terminate them once their objectives are achieved or when there is non-compliance with the macroeconomic adjustment or precautionary programme. As to the transactions themselves, they are focused on the shorter part of the yield curve, and in particular on sovereign bonds with a maturity of between one and three years. No ex ante quantitative limits are set on the size of transactions. In purchasing these bonds, which is likely to be a sticking point for the BVerfG, the ECB accepts the same (pari passu) treatment as private or other creditors with respect to bonds issued by euro area countries and purchased by the Eurosystem through OMT, in accordance with the terms of such bonds.

But how can the above transactions avoid violating the monetary financing prohibition? Benoît Cœuré (of the ECB) offers the following explanation for the actions of the ECB. He argues that the economic rationale of the monetary financing prohibition is clear, as central banks cannot ensure price stability if they have to permanently make up for weak performance in other policy domains. This is why Article 123 TFEU is central to the architecture of EMU. In the view of the ECB, the aim and design of OMTs fully respect this economic requirement, via the link to conditionality. As presented above, the link to policy conditionality of an EFSF/ESM programme ensures that central bank intervention via OMTs does not replace reform efforts in other policy domains. Rather, OMTs can only be complementary to national reform efforts. This is designed to prevent a scenario of harmful central bank support, or fiscal dominance over the central bank. 

Cœuré continues by arguing that OMTs would never be used to indiscriminately push down government bond spreads. By contrast, spreads should continue to reflect the underlying country-specific economic fundamentals, fiscal positions and market risk perceptions that incentivise governments to engage in sustainable fiscal spending and competitiveness-enhancing structural reforms. The aim of OMT is therefore not to reduce yields below the fundamentally justified level so as to preserve debt sustainability despite weak policy performance, but to aim at that portion of the bond yield spreads that is not fundamentally justified and based on undue risks of a euro area break-up. In other words OMT deals with market anxiety over Eurozone wide systemic risks not linked to the underlying fundamentals of Member State economies (at least as those are understood by the ECB). This is perhaps because central bank independence and a clear focus on price stability are deemed necessary but not sufficient to ensure monetary dominance. The ECB maintains the position that by creating the right environment and providing appropriate incentives for governments to take action to ensure fiscal solvency, OMTs create the conditions to affirm the monetary dominance regime, which is at the heart of the Treaty.

The European Court of Justice seems to be largely in agreement with the above. In its 2015 judgment in Gauweiler, it ruled that a plan by monetary policy makers to buy government bonds, even in potentially unlimited quantities, was legal. The court found that Mario Draghi’s pledge in the summer of 2012 to do “whatever it takes” to save the region from economic ruin through OMT, complied with EU law. “The programme for the purchase of bonds on secondary markets does not exceed the powers of the ECB in relation to monetary policy and does not contravene the prohibition of monetary financing in member states,” the ECJ declared, offering an important win to Draghi against German opposition to ECB attempts to stave off a Eurozone financial crisis. This decision is also perceived as shielding monetary policy makers from legal attacks on their landmark €1.1tn QE package, unleashed in 2015.

Alicia Hinarejos writes that the CJEU has recognized the broad discretion of the ECB to make complex economic assessments and technical choices, while at the same time striving to discharge a meaningful and necessary role. The Court clearly does not want to be seen to be second-guessing the other institution’s policy choices, so it focuses on procedural requirements and applies a light-touch review when it comes to assessing the proportionality of the scheme. This is most evident in the final part of the judgment, where the court assesses the compatibility of the OMT programme with the ban on monetary financing. Here the Court seeks to apply (and be seen to be applying) a coherent, rigorous-enough-yet-within-judicial-boundaries compatibility test. 

The CJEU found (para 103-5) that the ESCB is entitled to purchase government bonds — not directly, from public authorities or bodies of the Member States — but only indirectly, on secondary markets. Intervention by the ESCB of the kind provided for by a programme such as OMT thus cannot be treated as equivalent to a measure granting financial assistance to a Member State. The Court recognised however that the ESCB’s intervention could, in practice, have an effect equivalent to that of a direct purchase of government bonds from public authorities and bodies of the Member States. This could happen if the potential purchasers of government bonds on the primary market knew for certain that the ESCB was going to purchase those bonds within a certain period and under conditions allowing those market operators to act, de facto, as intermediaries for the ESCB for the direct purchase of those bonds from the public authorities and bodies of the Member State concerned. However, the ECB convinced the Court that the implementation of a programme such as that announced in September 2012 must be subject to conditions intended to ensure that the ESCB’s intervention on secondary markets does not have an effect equivalent to that of a direct purchase of government bonds on the primary market.

The decision can be said to continue in the Pringle vein of ratifying a move away from a rules-based EMU to a policy-based one in the wake of the crisis, with the CJEU limiting its role of review to a strictly formalist position. This can be seen in the fact that the discussion (like the AG’s Opinion before it) does turn on the specific features of the OMT programme rather than on more abstract questions such as the nature of EMU, its evolution, and the role of solidarity within its constitutional framework. 

Will the BVerfG decide along the same lines? Analysts at Société Générale model three possible outcomes. In the best case scenario, the BVerfG will simply find the OMT in line with the German Constitution based on the ECJ preliminary ruling. At the opposite end of possibility, the BVerfG could find the participation of the Bundesbank in OMT incompatible with German constitutional law or even declare German participation in ESM programmes that are supported by OMT incompatible. Such a ruling would then require German primary law to be changed to allow the Bundesbank to participate in an eventual OMT programme. A middle position is in effect more likely, with the BVerfG tinkering with some aspects of the programme (such as pari-passu for instance) and linking the operation of the OMT with ECB’s QE by highlighting the issue limits of QE as an important feature to respect under OMT. Such a move would address the concerns of Germany at being pushed under OMT to take on uncapped risks towards other euro area sovereigns, and assuage the fears of other EU members as to violations of Article 123 TFEU. At the same time, the BVerfG seems keen to avoid becoming an instrument of politics and is unlikely to allow itself to be used as a tool for the transmission of political concerns over ECB decision-making onto the constitutional law domain.

Will Mario find himself on the floor on June 21st? This is unlikely to happen, but considering the British are holding the Brexit referendum on the 23rd of the month, anything other than total support from the BVerfG to the architecture of Eurozone rescues is likely to cause a noticeable wobble.

Art credit: David Simonds

Barnard & Peers: chapter 19 

The German Constitutional Court and the European Arrest Warrant: The latest twist in the judicial dialogue

Daniel Sarmiento, Professor of EU Law at the University Complutense of Madrid*

The German Constitutional Court (GCC) has fired again, and now in the always sensitive area of fundamental rights. In an Order published yesterday, the GCC has undertaken an “identity control” over the implementation of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Italian authorities and intended to be executed in Germany. The person concerned, a US national convicted in Italy in absentia, claimed that his conviction had been ruled without any guarantees, and now, under Italian law, nothing can stop the enforcement of his conviction. Italian procedural law does not provide a remedy at this point.

The GCC has applied, for the first time, its “identity control” to a case fully covered by EU Law. Therefore, the review by the GCC of the challenged judgment, which implemented the Framework Decision and the German implementing act, entailed an indirect review of the Framework Decision itself. The GCC reminds the reader of its traditional case-law on “identity control” and comes to the conclusion that in this particular case it is perfectly possible to do it. In the end, it quashes the decision of the instance court but it states that the Framework Decision and the German implementing act are perfectly in line with the solution it comes to.

I completely agree.

The trial in absentia that took place in Italy was clearly in breach of Convention (ECHR) rights, because the accused had not been informed of the date of the hearing, he was not represented by a lawyer, etc… In other words, the trial was a mess. This contrasts with the facts in the case of Melloni, in which the CJEU ruled that the Spanish Constitutional Court could not apply the higher standards of its national constitutional law in order to block the execution of an EAW issued by Italy. On that case, Mr. Melloni had been sentenced in absentia but scrupulously following the minimal conditions required by the Convention. The case before the GCC is a good example of how not to handle a trial in absentia. Therefore the Framework Decision entitles Member States to refuse the enforcement of decisions enacted under such terms.

Therefore, what is the fuss? Why has the GCC made an “identity control” when the Framework Decision solves the case anyway in the same terms?

It seems as if the GCC is sending a message to Luxembourg: it is not willing to buy the Melloni case-law. Therefore, the Court of Justice’s approach in that case to Article 53 of the Charter, which imposes Charter levels of protection in cases totally determined by EU Law (i.e., with no discretion for Member States), is not going to be an easy ride. The GCC is clearly stating that it will undergo “identity control” in any case covered by EU Law, including in areas totally determined by European rules that lower the levels of protection enshrined under national law.

Therefore, it is a harmless judgment on the facts, but a very important one on the symbolic side. In fact, the decision is perfectly in line with the decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court in Melloni, in which the Spanish court decided to lower the domestic level of protection of the right to a fair trial, but not on the grounds of EU Law. The Spanish court highlighted that the judgment of the Court of Justice in Melloni was “a very useful reference”, but not a binding decision. In the end, the Spanish court followed the Luxembourg criteria, but on the sole grounds of the Spanish Constitution. Now the GCC is saying pretty much the same thing, but through the sophisticated means of “identity control”.

This is an unsurprising turn of events. Constitutional Courts have been protagonists of the fundamental rights narrative for more than half a century in Europe. In the case of Germany, Spain, Portugal or Italy, Constitutional Courts have been the guardians of human rights in States with a dubious past track-record in this matter. These are therefore powerful and relevant courts with an important tradition, and they are not willing to step back. European integration is side-lining them, but the events taking place in Europe (and everywhere in the world) are so serious that Constitutional courts feel a duty to keep acting as guardians. This attitude might be interpreted as a sign of nationalism, but it can also be the confirmation of the importance of the issues being now handled by the EU: data protection, the fight against terrorism, immigration, the euro and financial assistance of Member States, etc… Why would these courts decide to become irrelevant now, at a time in which the challenges ahead are as relevant or even more important than those they have faced in the past?

In my opinion, this should not be a cause of concern, but only as long as the Court of Justice handles the situation with care and intelligence. It did a good job in the OMT case (discussed here), but it is obvious that the area of fundamental rights is a thorny one that poses many challenges. Akerberg Fransson and Melloni were a brave but risky start, shortly followed by some cautious decisions. However, Opinion 2/13 and the inability of the Court of Justice to adjust to a future ECHR accession of the EU, including Strasbourg external control, is a damaging and clumsy move that has only made Constitutional courts frown. If they are subject to Strasbourg control, why can’t the Court of Justice accept it too? Many Constitutional Courts are perfectly entitled to think “what are they scared of in Luxembourg?”.

It will not be easy for the Court of Justice to come out of the situation created by Opinion 2/13. However, the Charter is still a very valuable instrument, a source of endless inspiration that could help the Court seduce national Constitutional Courts in the years to come. Also, the current events taking place in Poland are another good opportunity for the Court of Justice to prove how far it is willing to go in assisting national Constitutional courts that come under attack. The current situation is a difficult one, but the Court of Justice has the authority, prestige and background needed to face the challenge.

The GCC has fired once again, but it would be a very reductionist reaction to simply say that it is a mindless and nationalistic claim from Karlsruhe. On the contrary, this is yet another reminder for the Court of Justice of the importance of fundamental rights, and of the importance of its role as interpreter of the Charter. In other words, this is another opportunity for the Court of Justice to forget that phrase so frequently used by its judges in public lectures, according to which “we are not a fundamental rights court”. Whether they like it or not, they have become one. The longer they stubbornly resist this reality, the more painful the awakening will be.

*Reblogged from the ‘Despite our Differences’ blog

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 25

Photo credit: www.dw.com

Cameron's Chatham House speech: Full speed ahead for the renegotiation of the UK’s EU membership?

Steve Peers

Today’s Chatham House speech by David Cameron set out more detail of the UK’s demands for renegotiation of its EU membership. It was accompanied by a letter from Cameron to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, which set out a summary of his requests.

The speech also set out two changes to UK law which the government plans to make, as regards the EU Charter of Rights and (possibly) the role of UK courts reviewing the EU courts. Since these are changes to domestic law, they do not have to be negotiated with other Member States, unless there is a legal argument that they would breach EU law.

This is the latest elaboration of Cameron’s requests; I have commented earlier on his specific suggestions regarding free movement of EU citizens, and regarding other issues. I will refer back to what I’ve said already in those posts where relevant.

Changes to UK law

On the first change to UK law, Cameron referred to the government’s plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’, which (as he acknowledged) are separate from EU law as such. But he then went on to state:

“And as we reform the relationship between our courts and Strasbourg, it is right that we also consider the role of the European Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So - as was agreed at the time of the Lisbon Treaty – we will enshrine in our domestic law that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not create any new rights. We will make it explicit to our courts that they cannot use the EU Charter as the basis for any new legal challenge citing spurious new human rights grounds.”

This is a new point not raised before the Chatham House speech. What should we make of it?

At first sight, it is not really any different from Article 1(1) of the special Protocol on the role of the Charter in the UK and Poland, which provides:

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

A clause in the preamble to this Protocol provides:

WHEREAS the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles;

So the Prime Minister’s commitment to change UK law could be met simply by making express reference to these provisions of the Protocol – or by incorporating their wording – in an Act of Parliament. This would simply reiterate the application of these rules to the UK, given that the Protocol already applies in UK law by virtue of the European Communities Act.

Any more far-reaching approach (such as that advocated by a House of Commons committee last year, as discussed here) would run the risk of complicated breaches of EU law. It’s impossible to say now whether that would happen or not, in the absence of  any proposed legislation on this point.

For the sake of context, it should be noted that the CJEU has ruled in the NS case that the Charter did not add any rights to the ‘general principles of EU law’, which were the basis for protection of human rights in the EU legal system prior to the Treaty of Lisbon. And in Fransson, the Court ruled that the scope of the Charter (ie when it applied to Member States’ action) was the scope of the general principles. True, the Charter can be used to set aside Acts of Parliament, even by the lower UK courts, as in recent cases involving embassy staff and Google. But that’s true of EU law generally, including the previous general principles, as we saw in judgments like Kucukdeveci.

The Prime Minister’s second pledge was to consider whether to introduce a national check on EU measures like that asserted by the German Federal Constitutional Court, concerning the loss of ‘essential constitutional freedoms’ and the review of acts by the EU institutions to check if they remain within the scope of the EU’s powers.

Such a measure would breach EU law in principle, since the CJEU has long ruled that it is the sole judge of whether an EU law is invalid. But Cameron is correct to point out that other national constitutional courts have done the same thing. A full-bodied constitutional conflict has been avoided in practice because those other courts have been reluctant to use those powers, and because the CJEU has maintained a dialogue with them (which does not extend to agreeing with them all the time: see discussion of the recent case law on the ECB’s OMT scheme).

It should be noted that the ‘essential constitutional freedoms’ which Cameron refers to are fundamental rights as protected by the German Basic Law (the de facto German constitution). It remains to be seen whether the ‘British Bill of Rights’ which Cameron plans will protect human rights so strongly in the UK that there is any real prospect of the EU taking those rights away. If not, Cameron’s proposal looks like the constitutional equivalent of shaving all his hair off, while simultaneously insisting on the fundamental importance of his comb.

Changes to EU law

Cameron’s speech essentially rehashed the key features of his prior demands for changes to free movement law, as discussed in the prior blog post. It should be noted that it is clear from more recent CJEU rulings (the Alimanovic ruling, discussed here) that Universal Credit can be legally denied to first-time EU job-seekers (one of the points in his list), because it doesn't qualify as a benefit concerning access to the labour market. That ruling might also make it easier to amend EU legislation to deny benefits to EU citizens who become unemployed within their first four years of entry in the UK. But it still seems unlikely that in-work benefits could easily be restricted, without a Treaty amendment.

On other issues, Cameron’s suggestion to bring together all commitments relating to competitiveness into a single text are rather unclear. It is striking that he has not demanded the repeal or amendment of specific EU legislation. (It’s a Euromyth – or perhaps we should call it a Cameronmyth – that he has ever made such specific demands. At least, they don’t appear in his keynote speeches on EU renegotiation; see the previous 'Bloomberg speech', for instance).

Next, on the issue of ‘sovereignty’, Cameron wants: (a) a ‘clear, legally binding and irreversible agreement to end Britain’s obligation to work towards an ever closer union’; (b) ‘a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments can come together and reject European laws which are not in their national interest’; (c) ‘clear proposals to achieve’ subsidiarity; and (d) ‘confirmation that the EU institutions will fully respect the purpose behind’ the UK’s opt-out from JHA matters. He also states that ‘national security’ is a sole competence of Member States.

The national security and JHA points are new as compared to previous demands. It isn’t clear what Cameron is seeking as regards national security; the Treaties already state in Article 4(2) TEU that ‘national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State’. As for the JHA points, the UK has lost a few cases on social security rules for third countries bound to the EU by an association agreement (see here, on one such case); it has also quibbled about whether the opt-out applies to parts of treaties with third States (on this point, see discussion here of a relevant CJEU judgment). Since the ‘legal bases’ which divide the JHA competences from other Treaty rules are set out in the Treaties, it is not clear what could be done here. Indeed it’s not clear exactly what Cameron is asking for.

It’s equally unclear what he is asking for as regards subsidiarity. There is a Protocol on subsidiarity but it would need to be amended by the full Treaty amendment process. Equally the slightly more specific demands regarding national parliaments would also entail, in principle, an amendment to the Protocols on subsidiarity and national parliaments.

However, it would be possible – without a Treaty amendment – to give some stronger legal effect to the principle of subsidiarity, and to strengthen the role of national parliaments, by amending the rules on Council voting, as suggested in detail in my previous blog post. This would entail a requirement to delay a vote in Council on grounds of subsidiarity and national parliament objections. This could be coupled with a legal commitment by Member States, in the form of a legally binding Decision of Member States’ Head of State and Government, not to press ahead with a vote in Council if there were no agreement on the proposal after the period of discussion. As explained there, the Council voting rules and Member States’ Decisions can only be amended by unanimity, so there would be legal security for the UK.

This leaves us with the demand regarding ‘ever closer union’. Only a full Treaty amendment could abolish the rule or exempt the UK from it as such, since it appears not only in the preamble to the TEU but (as many seem to forget) in the main text – Article 1 TEU. However, it could be arguable that a legally binding Decision of Member States’ Head of State and Government can clarify that this does not mean (for instance) that the UK is bound to sign up to Schengen or the single currency, or must give up its JHA opt-outs or join an EU army (and so on). Such legally binding Decisions are only valid under EU law if they do not contradict the Treaties; but there would be no such conflict if the Decision simply confirmed existing legal rules.  

The final batch of proposals (although they came first in the speech) concern the relationship between the UK (and other non-eurozone States) and the Eurozone. They comprise: (a) ‘recognition that the EU is a Union with more than one currency’; (b) ‘no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country’; (c) ‘integrity of the single market must be protected’; (d) any Eurozone developments ‘must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory’’; (e) ‘taxpayers in non-euro countries should never bear the cost for operations to support the Euro as a currency’; (f) financial stability and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England; and (g) any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and decided by all Member States.

These concerns could be addressed, as discussed in the prior blog post, by a mixture of reforms to the Council voting rules and a Decision of Heads of State and Government. So, for instance, there could be a delay in discussion of proposals at the behest of non-Eurozone Member States set out in the Council voting rules, with a separate legal commitment in the Decision not to forward with the proposals if the dispute cannot be settled. Only a full Treaty amendment could remove the reference to the euro as a single currency, but the Decision could refer to the existence of the euro opt-out Protocols for the UK and Denmark, plus the continued existence of other national currencies before other countries join the euro when they are eligible. The integrity of the single market and non-discrimination on grounds of currency are implicitly already in the Treaty, so could be reiterated by a Member States’ Decision; and that Decision could also set out commitments regarding voting on bail-out proposals and competence for financial regulation. A change to the Council rules of procedure and Eurogroup practice could ensure full participation of all Member States in discussions that affect the whole EU.

Photo credit: www.eurogamer.net

Barnard and Peers: chapter 2, chapter 9

Clash of the Judicial Titans: Will the Euro survive?

Steve Peers

The German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has finally sent a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Moreover, it has chosen a crucially important issue to ask questions about. This issue is the validity of the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) policy of the European Central Bank (ECB) – the very policy which is credited with keeping the EU’s single currency alive, perhaps single-handedly. If either of these courts rules that this policy is invalid, the very existence of the EU’s single currency could be called into question.

In a nutshell, the OMT constitutes a promise made by the ECB, back in the summer of 2012, that it would if necessary purchase the government bonds of troubled eurozone Member States on the secondary market (ie, from banks and other financial institutions which own those bonds). The purpose of the policy was to shore up confidence as regards the specific economies in question, and therefore in the single currency in general. In return, among other things, the countries concerned would have to sign up to austerity programmes. While the OMT has never actually been triggered, the mere possibility of its use appears to have calmed financial markets’ doubts about the survival of the single currency (and about the continued use of the euro by all the EU Member States which currently use it) considerably. The BVerfG’s decision to send any question to the CJEU is itself historic. It comes soon after the first references to the Court of Justice from the Spanish Constitutional Court (Melloni) and the French Constitutional Court (Case C-168/13 F, which concerned Jeremy Forrest, the British schoolteacher who ran off with one of his pupils). So all the big beasts among Europe’s constitutional courts have now engaged with the CJEU.

 However, it is clear that the BVerfG at least still does not really regard the CJEU as the king of the jungle. It asserts its intention to find that the OMT programme breaches the German constitution, depending on what the CJEU has to say. On the other hand, the CJEU has always asserted that it is the sole judge of whether an EU act is valid (going back to the judgment in Foto-Frost). Can the single currency survive this conflict between constitutional principles?

The legal issues 

The BVerfG (along with many others, particularly in Germany) doubts that the OMT programme is legal, because it constitutes economic policy (rather than monetary policy) and because it amounts to the ECB buying up eurozone governments’ debt, which is not permitted under the Treaties which the EU is founded up.

Let’s have a closer look at these arguments. First of all, is the OMT programme an economic policy? While the EU has established an economic and monetary union (EMU) among eurozone Member States, and economic and monetary policies are obviously closely related, there is nonetheless a sharp legal difference between the two policies as a matter of EU law. Monetary policy is an exclusive competence of the EU, as far as the eurozone Member States are concerned. Within the EU, the ECB is in charge of that policy.

On the other hand, economic policy is primarily a matter for Member States; the Union (primarily the Council) only coordinates such policies.While this division may not make much economic sense, any significant shift of powers over economic policy to the EU would have been impossible to agree politically, and have raised great(er) doubts about the EU’s legitimacy.

In its Pringle judgment of 2012, the CJEU ruled that the treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which establishes a system for eurozone Member States to lend financial support to each other, was an act of economic policy, not monetary policy. But the CJEU did not define what ‘monetary policy’ consisted of.

The BVerfG doubts that the OMT programme is valid because it constitutes an independent economic policy of the ECB. But as the BVerfG itself notes, the Treaties provide (in Art. 127(1) TFEU) that the European System of Central Banks (which the ECB forms a key part of) ‘shall support the general economic policies in the Union with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union’ set out in Art. 3 TEU. Arguably the OMT programme is exactly that: support for the economic policies of Member States (including the ESM) as regards the EU’s objective of establishing and maintaining a single currency. As long as the economic conditionality linked to the OMT programme is no different from, or at least consistent with, the economic conditionality linked to the ESM and the EU rules on economic governance (ie, control of excessive deficits), then the OMT programme cannot be said to constitute a separate economic policy of the ECB.

Secondly, does the OMT programme circumvent the ban on buying government debt? Article 123 TFEU specifies that the ECB and national central banks cannot ‘purchase directly’ the ‘debt instruments’ of eurozone Member States’ governments. Obviously, the word ‘directly’ is significant; if the authors of the Treaties had wanted to ban the ECB from ever owning a government bond issued by a eurozone Member State, they would have left that word out. So it can hardly be doubted that the ECB can purchase such bonds from financial institutions, at least on a modest and non-systematic basis. 

But the BVerfG is concerned about the underlying purpose of the ban on direct purchases of government bonds: to prevent governments from being ‘propped up’ by the central bank. If all government bonds issued by Eurozone Member States were systematically snapped up by the ECB from the financial institutions which had initially bought them, the ECB would arguably be circumventing the ban on direct purchases.

The best approach to this objection is to interpret the ECB’s powers in light of its obligation to contribute to achieving the EU’s objectives, in particular the development of the single currency. In the ordinary course of events, purchasing significant numbers of eurozone government bonds directly on the secondary market might not have a strong link to the existence of the single currency. But in the current circumstances, it does. So this justifies a flexible approach to the limits which might otherwise apply to the ECB’s actions – provided that such purchases are on secondary markets, and are necessary to ensure the single currency’s survival.

The judicial politics 

The BVerfG states clearly what it expects the CJEU to do: to interpret the OMT programme in accordance with its specified constraints, otherwise it will rule that the programme is in breach of the German constitution. But the BVerfG has warned the CJEU before, and then not gone through with its threats. It has come to resemble an angry parent issuing increasingly dire threats to a naughty child – and then not following through on them. The naughty child soon realises that the threats won’t be carried out, and adapts her (mis)behaviour accordingly. 

And there is another factor at play here. When the BVerfG was asked if Germany could ratify (for instance) the Lisbon Treaty, there was a clear route to ensure that its judgment was carried out. Very simply, it could have ordered the German government not to ratify that Treaty. Similarly, in cases concerning the EU’s banana market legislation, or the interpretation of EU age discrimination rules, it could have ordered the German administration and courts not to apply the rules concerned. But it is less clear exactly what it can do to stop the actions of the ECB, which presumably would not consider itself bound by a BVerfG decision. The BVerfG refers to requiring the German government to act (unless there is a retroactive amendment of the German constitution), but exactly how that will stop the application of the OMT programme is unclear. So our naughty child in Luxembourg – and her naughty brother in Frankfurt – must know that their ostensibly strict parent probably can’t carry out this particular threat.

In that case, how will they behave? It might be expected that many of the concerns raised by the BVerfG can be addressed, but not all. In particular, it is hard to see how the OMT programme could achieve its objectives if the ECB does not have the power to buy significant number of government bonds on secondary markets. Possibly the CJEU will allow such purchases to continue, subject to certain conditions – which the BVerfG may decide are strict enough to meet its concerns. Judging from the overall tone of the latter court’s ruling, it is looking to find a way to uphold the validity of the OMT programme despite its fundamental objections.

[Update: the CJEU gave its ruling in this case in June 2016. See the analysis of the judgment here.]

Barnard & Peers: chapter 19