The proposed document would see a role for the European Court of Justice in judging whether national governments have transposed a new “balanced budget” obligation and, if this is breached, an automatic “correction mechanism” into national law. The new treaty states:
NOTING that compliance with the obligation to transpose the "Balanced Budget Rule" into national legal systems at constitutional or equivalent level should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 273 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.The question is whether this is allowed under EU law, can the ECJ be used for this? (NB, the draft foresees no role for the ECJ in enforcing any sanctions but simply judging whether the new rules have been adequately transposed into national law.)
Article 273 of the EU Treaties, cited by the new treaty, states that:
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties.So this EU Treaty article clearly provides the new group with a hook on which to try and hang the new arrangement and get the ECJ involved. Article 273 would allow the ECJ to be used to judge a dispute (in this case whether the “balanced budget” rule has been adequately transposed), as long as the subject of the dispute is “related” to the EU Treaties. The question is whether this 0.5% rule can reasonably be seen as “related” to the Treaties. This is where the legal grey area begins and where it seems that the justification for ECJ involvement is iffy to say the least.
The existing EU Treaties contain obligations for governments to remain within a 3% deficit limit and a 60% debt to GDP limit. But there is no mention of the new 0.5% “structural deficit” limit proposed by the new treaty.
The 0.5% limit is a new obligation. It is therefore a legal stretch to say that this falls under the category of things to which the EU Treaty “relates”. Using the ECJ to judge whether this new obligation has been transposed properly is therefore also a huge legal stretch and one that the UK would be well advised to investigate and possibly challenge. If Cameron does wave the proposal through it will certainly raise political questions about what his veto actually achieved.
It would certainly be amusing to watch eurozone state A taking eurozone state B to the ECJ on the charge that its "Balanced Budget Rule" law was inadequate, which despite misleading media glosses is in fact the only question which the ECJ would be allowed to settle.
ReplyDeleteEspecially in the very unlikely event that B was Germany, and having been successfully sued by a newly reformed and therefore zealous Greece it was forced to change not only its "Balanced Budget Rule" law but also large parts of its national constitution to accommodate the necessary changes to the law.
Of course that's not at all what Merkel is expecting would happen; she's expecting that it would be the other way round, with Germany dictating to other countries and forcing them to change their constitutions.
The intent is to place sufficient pressure on participating states. It is a weapon which is never likely to be used. Merkel would, however, have found it handy when dealing with Berlusconi.
ReplyDeleteI'm nor sure that sending nations into possibly years of legal wrangling regarding how well they have policed their own laws makes sense on any level, whether it is Greece suing Germany, or Germany suing Greece.
ReplyDeleteAnd how does it make sense to fine a country for spending too mucj money? Doesn't that simply force them to spend even more money?
And couldn't the fine be considered a cause of budget-busting itself, thus making it illegal for the nation to pay it?
Seems like this whole FU plan is about giving Germany to control the EU and allowing the EU to raise funds through the back door, while, as is usual, breaking its own rules and laws.
I compare the "International Agreement on a Reinforced Economic Union to the failed "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" to the new 'Treaty of Lisbon', stating more or less the same thing but mixed up so that not all can understand. Where as such an important "treaty" should be clear and factual so that all can understand.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the last amendment to Article 136,"EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro, I'm with it thus far!
Anonymous 1 thinks it is not likely to be used! Don't hold your breath!.