Treaty Establishing the ESM, signed on 2 February English (Amended Annexes I and II, effective from 19/02/)* * Following the end of the temporary correction period for Slovenia and the subsequent transfer of the amount corresponding to its additional subscription of paid. bank in disguise called ESM - provided with capital and “firing power“ never heard of these appointed Trustees (here: the Governors and the ESM) should be. Download Citation on ResearchGate | The ESM Treaty and the European Law: A Necessary Coexistence | As a preliminary Request Full-text Paper PDF . Zur Gültigkeit des Euro-Stabilitätsmechanismus (ESM-Vertrag).
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
7. Aug. ESM ermächtigen, einer Annahme einer Vereinbarung über die Finanzhilfefazilität nach. Art. 13 Abs. 3 Satz 3 ESM-Vertrag zuzustimmen. 4 Absatz 1 Nummer 1 und 2 des ESM-Finanzierungsgesetzes, nach § 3 Absatz 1 des der CDU/CSU und FDP Entwurf eines Gesetzes zu dem Vertrag vom 2. f7dbab8/mtn-i.info); ibid., Endg€ultiges Ergebnis. ESM. “European Stability Mechanism.” Accessed March 24, Vertrag von Lissabon. Berlin: aktion europa. docs/pressdata/de/ec/pdf.
Mr Pringle further claimed that Ireland, by ratifying, approving or accepting the ESM Treaty, would undertake obligations which would be in contravention of provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties concerning economic and monetary policy and would directly encroach on the exclusive competence of the Union in relation to monetary policy. He claimed that by establishing the ESM the Member States whose currency is the euro are creating for themselves an autonomous and permanent international institution with the objective of circumventing the prohibitions and restrictions laid down by the provisions of the FEU Treaty in relation to economic and monetary policy.
Lastly, he claimed that the ESM Treaty was incompatible with the general principle of effective judicial protection and with the principle of legal certainty.
In those circumstances the Supreme Court decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:. Is a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro, having regard to. Ireland, the governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria and the Slovak Republic, the European Council and the Commission submit that the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the first question is limited, if not excluded, because the question relates to the validity of primary law.
In that regard, first, it must be borne in mind that the question of validity concerns a decision of the European Council. In the absence of regulation by the Union, time-limits for the introduction of actions before national courts are to be determined by the national rules of procedure and it is exclusively for the courts and tribunals of the Member States to assess whether such time-limits have been respected in the main proceedings.
However, the referring court is unsure whether the revision of the FEU Treaty does not also affect provisions of Part One of that treaty. In that regard, it must first be observed that the FEU Treaty, which contains no definition of monetary policy, refers, in its provisions relating to that policy, to the objectives, rather than to the instruments, of monetary policy.
Even though the stability of the euro area may have repercussions on the stability of the currency used within that area, an economic policy measure cannot be treated as equivalent to a monetary policy measure for the sole reason that it may have indirect effects on the stability of the euro.
The grant of financial assistance to a Member State however clearly does not fall within monetary policy. The fact that the mechanism envisaged is to be permanent and that its objectives are to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole means that such action cannot be taken by the Union on the basis of that provision of the FEU Treaty.
That amendment does not confer any new competence on the Union. The referring court seeks to ascertain whether those articles and principles preclude a Member State whose currency is the euro from concluding and ratifying an agreement such as the ESM Treaty.
In that regard, suffice it to say that the second question, by its very wording, concerns the interpretation of various provisions of European Union law and not the interpretation of provisions of the ESM Treaty.
A number of the governments who submitted observations to the Court, along with the Commission, maintain that the second question is partly inadmissible because the referring court failed to provide any information as to how the interpretation of certain provisions and certain principles referred to in the second question is of any relevance to the outcome of the dispute before it.
As maintained by the German, Spanish and French Governments and the Commission, the same is true of the interpretation of the general principle of legal certainty. Since those articles do not impose on Member States clear and unconditional obligations which may be relied on by individuals before the national courts, they contend that the question is inadmissible in so far as it concerns the interpretation of those articles.
Ireland, which considers that none of the provisions referred to in the question has direct effect, maintains that the question is inadmissible in its entirety. The purpose of requesting criteria for interpretation from the Court is solely to enable the referring court to assess whether the provisions of the ESM Treaty are compatible with European Union law. The referring court further refers to the argument of the applicant in the main proceedings that the grant of financial assistance to Member States whose currency is the euro or the recapitalisation of their financial institutions, and the necessary borrowing for that purpose, on the scale envisaged by the ESM Treaty, would increase the amount of euro currency in circulation.
The Treaties on which the Union is founded confer on the ECB the exclusive power to regulate money supply in the euro area. The applicant argues that those Treaties do not allow a second entity to carry out such tasks and to act in parallel with the ECB, outside the framework of the European Union legal order.
Further, an increase in money supply has a direct influence on inflation. Even if the activities of the ESM might influence the rate of inflation, such an influence would constitute only the indirect consequence of the economic policy measures adopted.
The referring court asks whether the ESM Treaty is an international agreement the operation of which may affect the common rules on economic and monetary policy. It follows also from that provision that Member States are prohibited from concluding an agreement between themselves which might affect common rules or alter their scope.
However, the arguments put forward in this context have not demonstrated that an agreement such as the ESM Treaty would have such effects. The national court refers to the argument of the applicant in the main proceedings that the ESM Treaty constitutes an amendment which fundamentally subverts the legal order governing economic and monetary union and which is incompatible with European Union law. Next, the ESM is not concerned with the coordination of the economic policies of the Member States, but rather constitutes a financing mechanism.
First, the ESM is not called upon to issue such recommendations. The exercise by the Union of the competence conferred on it by that provision of the FEU Treaty is not affected by the establishment of a stability mechanism such as the ESM. The grant of financial assistance by one Member State or by a group of Member States to another Member State is therefore not covered by that prohibition.
The difference in the wording used in the latter article supports the view that the prohibition stated there is not intended to prohibit any financial assistance whatever to a Member State.
Compliance with such discipline contributes at Union level to the attainment of a higher objective, namely maintaining the financial stability of the monetary union. The latter will remain responsible to its creditors for its financial commitments. On the contrary, such assistance amounts to the creation of a new debt, owed to the ESM by that recipient Member State, which remains responsible for its commitments to its creditors in respect of its existing debts.
For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph, the ESM does not by downloading such bonds assume the debts of the recipient Member State. Next, as regards the download on the secondary market of bonds issued by an ESM Member, it is clear that, in such a situation, the issuing Member State remains solely answerable to repay the debts in question.
That price may be significantly different from the value of the claims contained in those bonds, since the price depends on the rules of supply and demand on the secondary market of bonds issued by the ESM Member concerned. Secondly, the ESM Treaty does not provide that stability support will be granted as soon as a Member State whose currency is the euro is experiencing difficulties in obtaining financing on the market.
However, under that same provision, the defaulting ESM Member State remains bound to pay its part of the capital. It is appropriate to examine separately the role which the Commission and the ECB, on the one hand, and the Court, on the other, will be called upon to play under the ESM Treaty.
First, the activities of the ESM fall under economic policy.
The Union does not have exclusive competence in that area. Secondly, the duties conferred on the Commission and ECB within the ESM Treaty, important as they are, do not entail any power to make decisions of their own. It must be recalled that the objective of the ESM Treaty is to ensure the financial stability of the euro area as a whole. Under that article, the Court has jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject-matter of the Treaties, if that dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement.
In that regard, it must be observed that a dispute linked to the interpretation or application of the ESM Treaty is likely also to concern the interpretation or application of provisions of European Union law.
Accordingly, the conditions to be attached to the grant of such support to a Member State are, at least in part, determined by European Union law. The national court observes, referring to an argument put forward by the applicant in the main proceedings, that the establishment of the ESM outside the European Union legal order may have the consequence that the ESM is removed from the scope of the Charter.
It follows from the foregoing that the general principle of effective judicial protection does not preclude either the conclusion by the Member States whose currency is the euro of an agreement such as the ESM Treaty or their ratification of it. Accordingly, that decision does not confer any new power on the Member States. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
EU case law Case law Digital reports Directory of case law. Quick search. Need more search options? Use the Advanced search. Help Print this page.
Expand all Collapse all. Title and reference. Languages and formats available.
Language of the case Language. Document published in the digital reports. Multilingual display. Authentic language. Authentic language: Date of document: Subject matter: Financial provisions Fundamental rights Closer cooperation Economic and monetary policy Charter of Fundamental Rights Case law directory code: Miscellaneous information.
Court of Justice Country or organisation from which the decision originates: Ireland Form: Type of procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling Observations: Lenaerts Advocate General: Kokott National court: Notes relating to the decision: Craig, Paul: Starski, Paulina: Klement, Jan Henrik: Mok, M.
Vogel, Max: Mostacci, Edmondo: Dal dialogo al decalogo: Aguilar Calahorro, Augusto: Palmstorfer, Rainer: Rigaux, Anne: Sester, Peter: Simon, Denys: Beck, Gunnar: Wienbracke, Mike: Chiti, Edoardo: Admissibility 82 A number of the governments who submitted observations to the Court, along with the Commission, maintain that the second question is partly inadmissible because the referring court failed to provide any information as to how the interpretation of certain provisions and certain principles referred to in the second question is of any relevance to the outcome of the dispute before it.
EUR-Lex — CJ — EN — EUR-Lex The stability mechanism will provide the necessary tool for dealing with such cases of risk to the financial stability of the euro area vertrab a whole as have been experienced inand hence help preserve the economic and sterreidh stability of the Union itself. Secondly, the ESM Treaty does not provide that stability support will be granted as soon as a Member State whose currency is the euro is experiencing difficulties in obtaining financing on the market.
The referring court asks whether the ESM Treaty is an international agreement the operation of which may affect the common rules on economic and monetary policy. Wherever appropriate and possible, such an assessment is expected to be conducted together with the [International Monetary Fund IMF ]; c to assess the actual or potential financing needs of the ESM Member concerned.
In those circumstances the Supreme Court decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:. It follows from the foregoing that the first em is admissible. N 2 eam 29 46 52 61 73 EP3: A number of the governments who submitted observations to the Court, along with the Commission, maintain that the second question is partly inadmissible because the referring court failed to provide any information as to how the interpretation of certain provisions and certain principles referred to in the second question is of any relevance to the outcome of the dispute before it.
Dal dialogo al decalogo: Use the Advanced search. Further, an increase in money supply has a direct influence on inflation. First, signing up to a precautionary facility is seen as sending a negative signal that a country believes it may become a victim of crisis.
Second, while the idea is that a subscribing country is prequalified for emergency lending, access may be limited or additional conditionality may apply. This may induce policymakers to remain unconstrained by ex-ante conditionality, and negotiate conditionality only once in need of emergency lending Enderlein and Haas, On one hand, member states should not rely on the credit line for normal funding needs or draw on it too frequently. This would transform the ESM from a crisis lender to a common financing instrument, which is not the idea of the proposal.
Hence, strong institutional safeguards are needed to ensure the credit line is only drawn on under exceptional and unintended circumstances.
On the other hand, member states should not apply for the credit line only once they are at the verge of a crisis, as this would signal vulnerability and stigmatise the instrument. Instead of signalling a vulnerability, signing up for a credit line should be perceived as a stamp of approval for strong policies.
As part of this, the analysis provided by the ESM in monitoring ex-ante conditionality adds to transparency and bolsters confidence of markets. The choice of criteria should be limited to those relevant for preventing economic crises, limiting their scope, and ensuring debt sustainability.
Overloading the criteria with too many issues should be avoided, much like conditionality for crisis programmes Tumpel-Gugerell, ; Wyplosz, While there must remain scope to adjust the set of policy conditions, the credit line must remain credible in the sense that both member states and financial markets can trust the backstop. Finding the right balance is an important detail that needs to be worked out.
The facility does not replace other ESM facilities, in particular macroeconomic adjustment programmes to overcome deeper-rooted problems.
If the credit line is drawn down and market access remains lost, the member state can still choose a macroeconomic adjustment programme. However, not all member states would draw at the same time, and not all countries would qualify for the credit line.
The Bagehot principle postulates that crisis lending is temporary and should take place at high lending rates to reduce reliance on crisis lending. Over the course of the euro-area crisis, the Bagehot approach for macroeconomic adjustment programmes was replaced by one in which solvency support through lower lending rates and management of debt-related cash flows dominated Wyplosz, In the short run, the solvency implications for member states would be manageable.
There is no doubt that the loan would need to be repaid in full, as the facility is not a transfer mechanism.
Precautionary credit lines are usually granted for a limited time, such as one year, and can sometimes be renewed. As opposed to the current ESM precautionary instruments, a facility as described here should be repeatedly renewable. A requirement to reapply for the facility annually rather than an automatic extension could reduce political pressure to soften ex-ante conditionality and overcome the challenge of withdrawing access to the credit line during difficult times.
A facility subject to ex-ante conditionality suits the current framework of common policies well, and could strengthen incentives to comply with good policies.