The European Citizens’ Initiatory As Well As Eu Competence Over Greek Debt ‘Haircuts’

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

EU competence is a touchy surface area of European Union law. It has driblet dead really complex, together amongst the also intricate case-law on legal bases, which, after several decades of case-law, is non ever tardily to follow. After the entry into strength of the Lisbon Treaty, European Union competence has driblet dead a major domain for European Union constitutional lawyers in addition to it deserves really careful attention. The fact that the Treaties forthwith include a typology of European Union competences in addition to enumerate them is a sign that many futurity battles inwards European Union constabulary volition hold out fought inwards this terrain.

Furthermore, cases similar Pringle, Gauweiler (discussed here) or Vodafone bear witness that issues of competence in addition to legal bases are non the exclusive domain of institutional litigation, but areas that tin hold out brought to the courts past times someone parties too. The Court of Justice has ever been sensitive to these cases in addition to it has dealt amongst them amongst utmost care, by in addition to large inwards Grand Chamber formation.

Last calendar week a rather surprising road for European Union competence litigation came nether the radar. In the representative of Anagnostakis (no English linguistic communication version available, I’m afraid), the General Court ruled on an activity of annulment brought past times a someone political party against the determination of the Commission to reject, on the grounds of lack of competence, a European citizens’ first (ECI). Mr. Anagnostakis, together amongst to a greater extent than than a ane one 1000 thousand supporters, brought a proposal pursuant to Article 11.4 TEU (which provides for the existence of ECIs) in addition to Regulation 211/2011 (which sets out the especial of the ECI process), demanding that the Commission innovate inwards European Union legislation “the regulation of Earth of necessity, according to which, when the fiscal in addition to political subsistence of a State is at stake due to its duty to comply amongst an odious debt, the refusal of payment is necessary in addition to justified”. According to the promoters, the legal base of operations of the first was to hold out institute inwards Articles 119 TFEU in addition to 144 TFEU.

The Commission did non appear really impressed and, pursuant to Articles 4(2)(b) in addition to (3) of Regulation 211/2011, it refused to register the proposal, based on a lack of competence.

Mr. Anagnostakis introduced an activity of annulment earlier the General Court, attacking the Commission’s Decision for breach of Articles 122(1) in addition to (2) TFEU, 136(1) TFEU in addition to rules of international law.

The General Court dismissed the action, but it did non trammel itself to scrutinizing the Commission’s duty to Earth reasons. Instead, the Court went into unopen to especial inwards companionship to ascertain if haircuts inwards regime debt are non alone a competence of the EU, but also inwards conformity amongst European Union Law. In a rather surprising format in addition to procedural context, the General Court dealt quite openly amongst ane of the Union’s hottest potatoes at the time: the unsustainable Greek populace debt.

It is truthful that the judgment is quite laconic inwards its reasoning, but it relies several times on Pringle in addition to Gauweiler when interpreting Articles 122 in addition to 136 TFEU. But no affair how laconic it may be, the judgment makes an assertion that volition likely non driblet dead unnoticed when the Greek populace debt becomes politically toxic again. In paragraph 58 of the judgment, the General Court states that “the adoption of a legislative deed authorizing a Member State to non reimburse its debt, far from beingness a business office of the concept of economical policy guidelines inwards the feel of Article 136.1.(b) TFEU […] it would stimulate got the upshot of substituting the gratis volition of the contracting parties past times a legislative musical instrument allowing for a unilateral abandonment of populace debt, which is clearly non what the provision allows” (free translation).

The assertion powerfulness hold out formally right inwards lite of the express orbit of Article 136(1)(b) TFEU, but the linguistic communication of the judgment is politically explosive. Even inwards legal terms, ane wonders if Pringle was openly precluding any kind of haircut of regime debt by any means. After reading the General Court’s determination inwards Anagnostakis, it seems that haircuts volition hold out mission impossible inwards the future, despite the circumstances, the consensus amidst Member US (the International Monetary Fund has been explicitly positive almost a futurity Greek haircut) and, higher upward all, the damage in addition to orbit of the haircut.

But of course, this judgment could hold out simply a superficial determination task a superficial score of scrutiny due to the peculiar procedural context of the case. It could hold out argued that highly contested issues such equally the EU’s competence inwards the surface area of EMU is something should hold out left to the Court of Justice, but non to the General Court inwards the circumstances of a representative similar Anagnostakis. The General Court powerfulness hold out aware of this in addition to so the brief in addition to straight-forward reasoning of the decision. However, after reading the judgment several times, the to a greater extent than I read it the to a greater extent than explosive it sounds to me.

*Reblogged from the Despite our Differences blog

Barnard & Peers: chapter 5, chapter 19

Photo credit: www.thenation.com

Share this post