Ce se intampla intre Bruxelles si Germania? | publicatii - Politica La Est
29697552784_7f8bc40f0a_b.jpg

Ce se intampla intre Bruxelles si Germania?

MIHAIL  E.  IONESCU
 
 
            Recent, un fapt fara precedent a intervenit in  evolutia Uniunii Europene. In plina pandemie globala, pe fondul controversei inca nesfarsita privind emiterea unui ‘ coronobond’ pentru refacerea economiilor suferinde ale statelor UE care au inregistrat pierderile economice  cele mai importante- mai ales Italia, Spania si Franta-,  Curtea Constitutionala a Germaniei  a emis o decizie de o semnificatie juridica aparte. Consecintele politice ale acesteia sunt nebanuite, iar unii considera ca pot duce la dezmembrarea Uniunii Europene.
            Iata cum relateaza o analiza Reuter din 10 mai anul current, sub titlul „EU could open legal case against Germany over ECB bond-purchases ruling: Commission”  decizia forului german: “The European Commission could open a legal case against Germany over a ruling by the country’s constitutional court that the European Central Bank had overstepped its mandate with bond purchases, the EU executive arm said on Sunday. The German court in Karlsruhe last Tuesday gave the ECB three months to justify its flagship euro zone stimulus scheme or said the Bundesbank might have to quit it.”
            Ceea ce in traducere simpla inseamna ca, daca partea germana nu este multumita de raspunsul Comisiei, asadar dupa mai multi ani de la comiterea faptelor, Banca  Centrala germana  ar putea sa se retraga din ceea ce s-a numit “QE” ( quantitative easing). Eventual solicitand si inapoierea sumelor utilizate in aceasta operatie  proportional din partea Germaniei.
            Bruxelles-ul nu a intarziat raspunsul sau , asa cum ne incredinteaza aceeasi sursa: “/…/ the European Union’s top court - which had previously gave its green light to the ECB scheme - and the European Commission have said that EU law holds precedence over national regulations. They added that the European Court of Justice’s rulings were binding for courts in the 27 member states of the bloc.On Sunday, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen went a step further, saying the EU executive might end up opening a legal case against Berlin.’The recent ruling of the German Constitutional Court put under the spotlight two issues of the European Union: the euro system and the European legal system,’ she said in a statement.’ We are now analysing the ruling of the German Constitutional Court in detail. And we will look into possible next steps, which may include the option of infringement proceedings,’ she said.”[1]
            In cazul unui ‘infrigement’, statul acuzat de Comisia Europeana ca incalca legile UE este adus in fata Curtii de Justitie UE  de la Luxembourg  , iar statul respectiv poate fi amendat .
            Desigur dupa atatia ani, cand seful de atunci al Bancii Centrale Europene, italianul  Mario Draghi a decis utilizarea fondurilor proprii pentru a cumpara bonduri ale statelor in dificultate si a absorbi criza declansata in 2007-2008 ( sumele se cifreaza la mai mult trilioane de euro ) , decizia Curtii Constitutionale a Germaniei nu poate sa nu ridice semne de intrebare. Multi pun aceasta decizie tarzie pe faptul ca, in contextul pandmiei coronavirusului , s-au intetit  cererile insistente a noua state din UE- in frunte cu Franta, Italia si Spania- pentru a fi creat  instrument ‘coronabond’ ( practice multualizarea datoriilor statelor din zona euro ). In acest fel, considera grupul celor noua state amintite ar putea fi sprijinite efectiv  statele extreme de lovite economic de actuala pandemie. La aceasta presiune a ‘grupului celor noua’s-a  opus  Germania si Olanda.
            Oare este asa ?
 
            Un lung “sir’( thread ) de consemnari pe twitter ale unui expert in domeniu dezvolta intreaga  problema “
 
“R. Daniel Kelemen
@rdanielkelemen
 
18h/ May, 11/
1. A long thread
on what is going on & what is at stake in dispute between @EUCourtPress&
@EU_Commission& German @BVerfG. It is a showdown over question of "Kompetenz Kompetenz", & the survival of EU legal order is at stake. The ECJ is right & BVerfG's position is untenable[2]
Quote Tweet
Eric Mamer
@MamerEric
 · May 10
Statement by President von der Leyen on the ruling of the German Constitutional Court ruling of 4 May. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_846/smo…
 
@rdanielkelemen
 
2. First a quick reminder of most recent developments...a few days ago Germany's constitutional court @BVerfG issued a ruling concerning German participation in
@ecb QE programs, in which it blatantly rejected an ECJ ruling. Here was my take w/ Fabbrini
Quote Tweet
R. Daniel Kelemen
@rdanielkelemen
 · May 8
My take on the @BVerfG's dangerous ruling, in @washingtonpost together with Federico Fabbrini: ‘the German court’s decision didn’t just open Pandora’s box, it ripped the lid off and smashed it to bits.’ https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/07/germany-may-be-plunging-europe-into-constitutional-crisis/…

@rdanielkelemen
 
3. The @EUCourtPress reacted with a highly unusual press release, not commenting on the case explicitly, but reminding everyone that its rulings are binding on national courts & that the ECJ alone has authority to rule on whether EU institutions' actions violate EU law 

@rdanielkelemen
 
4. Today  

@vonderleyen issued a statement on the case backing up the ECJ, saying, "The final word on EU law is always spoken in Luxembourg. Nowhere else." & suggesting @EU_Commission might bring an infringement action against Germany

Press corner
Highlights, press releases and speeches
ec.europa.eu
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
5. To understand what is at stake, we need to back up and consider 1) a long-running dispute between the ECJ & the German court, 2) a related academic debate about 'constitutional pluralism', & 3) how autocrats will make use of the German court's ruling

@rdanielkelemen
 
6. Core issue in dispute concerns which court- @EUCourtPress or a nat'l constitutional court (ie @BVerfG) - has authority to rule on boundaries of the EU's competences (so-called Kompetenz-Kompetenz). I wrote about it here & will share some quotes:


On the Unsustainability of Constitutional Pluralism: European Supremacy and the Survival of the...
For years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) and national constitutional courts – particularly the German Federal Constitutional Cou...
journals.sagepub.com
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
7. The German (and all national constitutional courts) accept that ECJ has primacy in ruling on matters of EU law, but the dispute is about what happens if the national court believes the EU has exceeded its competences & trod on to areas reserved to the member states.
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
8. ECJ & German FCC have long been at loggerheads on this issue. Each claims Kompetenz-Kompetenz, & in essence they have been talking past each other (engaging in "parallel play" as I refer to it in this paper) for decades. They had managed to avoid direct conflict, until now
 
 
5:16 AM · May 11, 2020·Twitter Web App
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
Replying to
@rdanielkelemen
9. Many scholars have addressed this unsettled state of affairs by arguing either that a) since question of ultimate supremacy is insoluble, both sides should accommodate this "constitutional pluralism", or b) in fact "pluralism" is normatively preferable to a hierarchical model

Image
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
10. In essence they argue that neither legal order (EU or national) should assert superiority over the other, and that disputes over the boundaries of EU & national law should be resolved through dialogue, tolerance and mutual accommodation.
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
11. Sounds great right? Dialogue & accommodation are noble ideas. Problem is 1) it is an unsustainable fudge & a direct conflict was inevitable, & 2)it is prone to abuse by autocrats looking for excuse to ignore EU law. I wrote about latter 1st here: https://e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/research-handbook-on-legal-pluralism-and-eu-law-9781786433084.html…
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
12. I have great respect for the scholars in this tradition. Nevertheless, I think their vision for EU legal order is unsustainable & (see below) that their ideas are prone to abuse by autocrats & therefore dangerous. If EU legal order is to survive, ECJ's approach must prevail@rdanielkelemen
seen many defenses of constitutional pluralism from very smart scholars, but so far I have found all of them utterly unconvincing. Their defenses are nuanced and complicated, but the reason they are unconvincing is simple...

@rdanielkelemen
 
13. I've seen many defenses of constitutional pluralism from very smart scholars, but so far I have found all of them utterly unconvincing. Their defenses are nuanced and complicated, but the reason they are unconvincing is simple...

@rdanielkelemen
 
14. The problem has to do with the German Court's claim that it can rule any EU act (including an ECJ decision) that it deems to be outside the EU's competence (ultra vires) to be inapplicable in Germany. If national constitutional courts could do this, it would destroy the EU.
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
15. If 27 national constitutional courts could judge the scope of EU's competences in their countries, then EU law would mean different things in different countries - & so would mean nothing. States could pick & choose which EU laws to apply by amending constitutions 

@rdanielkelemen
 
16. The @BVerfG's claim that it can declare EU acts it deems ultra vires to be inapplicable in Germany is nothing less than a ‘nullification doctrine’ of the sort we've seen in the US from pre-Civil war days (Calhoun) to quite recently (Roy Moore)

 

@rdanielkelemen
 
17. Some might protest saying, ‘But the EU isn't a federal state, so ECJ shouldn't have final say’. But again, if national courts can nullify EU acts & ECJ decisions, then the EU legal order - the only thing that holds the EU together - will collapse.
@rdanielkelemen
 
18. Note: this doesn't mean states lose sovereignty or that nat'l courts can't protect their constitutions. The issue is the remedy they apply: if they they think the ECJ has overstepped its bounds, they can't simply invalidate its rulings, but they can do other things....

@rdanielkelemen
 
19. Instead, they can a)tell their gov it must work through EU political process to change the offending law, b) amend their constitution, or c) tell gov it must leave EU if things don't change. If you think leaving is impossible, ask the UK. (It is a stupid idea, but possible) 

@rdanielkelemen
 
20. Finally, we must consider the current context & how the EU's pet autocrats in Hungary & Poland will make use of the @BVerfG ruling. I wrote about this most recently with @ProfPech:

 
The Uses and Abuses of Constitutional Pluralism: Undermining the Rule of Law in the Name of...
The Uses and Abuses of Constitutional Pluralism: Undermining the Rule of Law in the Name of Constitutional Identity in Hungary and Poland - Volume 21 - R Daniel KELEMEN, Laurent PECH
cambridge.org
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
21. The title of the working paper version of that article w/ @reconnectEU
captures the problem best   ‘Why autocrats love constitutional identity andconstitutional pluralism: Lessons from Hungary and Poland’  https://reconnect-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/RECONNECT-WorkingPaper2-Kelemen-Pech-LP-KO.pdf…

@rdanielkelemen
 
22. In short, the autocracies of HU & PL & their captured courts are seizing on ideas promoted by the @BVerfG& pluralists to justify their defiance of EU law & the ECJ.

Image
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
23. Of course, defenders of the German BVerfG & of constitutional pluralism are horrified to see how their ideas abused by regimes intent on destroying rule of law, but they tend to say that the fact an idea can be abused doesn't discredit the idea.

@rdanielkelemen
 
24. To me that's a bit like a "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. True to point, but obscures fact that the product (here an idea) is inherently dangerous & prone to abuse.
@ProfPech & I warned captured courts in HU & PL would abuse these ideas, & now they are doing so
 

@rdanielkelemen
 
25. Predictably, the illegally appointed judges on Poland's captured 'Constitutional Tribunal' have rushed to invoke the @BVerfG's ruling to claim they can overrule any ECJ rulings concerning the Polish government's assault on judicial independence
Quote Tweet
@ProfPech
 · May 10
“National constitutional courts are the courts which have the final word" said J. Przylebska the usurper pretending to be president of an illegally composed body pretending to be Poland's "constitutional tribunal" while busy violating Poland's Constitution for PiS #ruleoflaw https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/1259473179384451075…

@rdanielkelemen
 
26. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: if the esteemed judges of the
@BVerfG can override the ECJ, then so will captured courts in autocratic states like HU & PL. And that, as my friend @Erik_Jones_SAIS often says, "is what European disintegration looks like"
@rdanielkelemen
 
27. To read more, I particularly recommend recent analyses of the German Court's ruling by scholars like @DanielSarmiento @prof_mayer @KatharinaPistor & @Erik_Jones_SAIS. Many good media takes too, ie https://ft.com/content/79484c01-b66b-4f81-bdc6-fd4def940821… &
Quote Tweet
Valerie Hopkins
@VALERIEin140
 · May 10
Eastern European states sense opportunity in German court ruling — with ⁦@Sam1Fleming and ⁦@JamesShotter⁩ for @FT https://ft.com/content/45ae02ab-56d0-486e-bea5-53ba667198dc?shareType=nongift…

@rdanielkelemen
 
28. To some, this may seem to some like an obscure legal battle, but particularly given the rise of autocratic member govs, it is really an existential battle for the EU. The EU is a union built on law. If its legal order fragments like this, it is in grave danger.”[3] END
 
            Este oare recenta decizie a Curtii Constitutionale germane  un avertisment  al Berlinului  transmis celor care in UE incearca sa impuna ‘coronabond’-ul- asadar  un fel de ‘va rog reintrati in randuri’- sau Germania este chiar serioasa din aceasta perspectiva si ia in considerare parasirea UE si monedei euro  ?
            Oricum , ceea ce se intampla acum este poate  ceea ce cred unii:  ca aceasta chestiune , acum foarte vizibila , a existat si pana acum, dar  a fost lasata intentionat intr-o zona ‘gri’ . Motivul:  pentru ca intreaga legislatie a statelor componente ale UE sa nu fie dependenta de Comisia Europeana de la Bruxelles.
 
            Viitorul apropiat ne va arata cum stam cu Uniunea Europeana.
 
 
 
12 mai 2020





 

Comentarii

Nu exista niciun comentariu

Postarea comentariilor dupa trei luni a fost dezactivata.