21 September 2016

ESM and Protection of Fundamental Rights: Towards the End of Impunity?

Yesterday, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued two important rulings in the cases C-8/15 to C-10/15 (hereafter Ledra Advertising et al. v European Commission and European Central Bank) and C-105/15 to C-109/15 (hereafter Mallis et al. v European Commission and European Central Bank). They should be of interest to anyone concerned with the preservation of fundamental rights under the new governance framework of the Economic and Monetary Union. These two decisions significantly contribute to lifting the ambiguity around the legal status of the anti-crisis instruments that framework now explicitly provides for – the well-known ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ (MoU) and the corresponding Economic Adjustment Programs (see Regulation n° 472/2013) –, and their relationship with fundamental rights instruments, most notably the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). As it contributes to clarifying and strengthening the legal duties of European institutions when they take part to the provision of financial assistance to a member of the Eurozone in need under the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) framework, the move the Court made yesterday should be warmly welcomed, a fortiori because it starkly contrasts with the cautious and timid approach it had so far favoured on these issues (this approach had been deplored in a previous post).

The plaintiffs in these cases are Cypriot nationals that, in the framework of the banking crisis their country went through in 2012-2013, and pursuant to the MoU Cyprus subsequently concluded with the ESM in March 2013, suffered significant financial losses (between 480.000 EUR and 1.600.000 EUR) following the closure of Cyprus Popular Bank and the recapitalization of the Bank of Cyprus. With these proceedings, triggered in May 2013, the plaintiffs sought the annulment of two instruments they deemed illegal : the MoU and a Eurogroup statement concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus. The plaintiffs also requested financial compensation under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU (non-contractual liability of the Union) from the institutions to which the adoption of these decisions could in their view be imputed. The General Court dismissed the complaints as inadmissible. On the one hand, it considered that the targeted instruments were not among those it was entitled to annul under Article 263 TFEU, the MoU being an international agreement concluded between the ESM and Cyprus outside the scope of EU law, and the Eurogroup statement lacking any kind of binding force. On the other hand, the institutional actors brought before the Court, namely the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB), could reasonably not be considered as the authors of the instruments at stake, despite their strong involvement in the functioning of both the ESM and the Eurogroup.

Appealed before the Court of Justice, these orders were in the first place broadly confirmed by AG’s Wahl and Wathelet : the plaintiffs had indeed failed to target the relevant institutional actors and the correct legal acts. In a very constructive way, AG Wathelet moreover suggested an alternative avenue for successful judicial review of the MoU conditionalities imposed by the ESM on States under financial assistance : since the adoption of Regulation n° 472/2013, MoU’s and their conditionalities have to be translated into an Economic Adjustment Plan, formally adopted as a Council Implementing Decision (in the case of Cyprus, see Decision n° 2013/463), an EU legal act directly challengeable before the Court (§§92-99).

In Mallis et al. v European Commission and European Central Bank, the Court broadly confirmed the orders of the General Court: a statement of the Eurogroup, which remains until now a forum for discussion between ministers of the Member States whose currency is the Euro, cannot be regarded as a measure intended to produce legal effects with respect to third parties, and can therefore not be annulled under Article 263 TFEU (§§ 45-52).

The decision in Ledra Advertising et al. v European Commission and European Central Bank is much more groundbreaking, and deserves longer comments. The Court first confirmed its holding in Pringle (§ 161): the Commission and the ECB may well play a siginificant role within the ESM framework (especially with regard to the negotiation and conclusion of the MoU’s), this does not alter the fact that they keep on lacking any power to make decisions of their own. As a consequence, ESM acts such as the MoU’s cannot be imputed to those institutions, and fall outside EU law. Conditionalities enshrined in a MoU concluded between the ESM and a State party therefore still evade direct annulment by the Court. However, contrary to what the General Court held in its ruling, and in contrast to what AG Wahl suggested in its opinion, such finding does not prevent unlawful conduct to be committed by the Commission or by the ECB when acting under the ESM framework, and to be subsequently found and compensated by the Court under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU. Relying on its holding in Pringle (§§ 162-163) and drawing from Article 13(3) of the ESM Treaty and Article 17(1) TEU (according to which the Commission promotes the general interest of the Union and oversees the application of Union law), the Court ruled that the Commission does not have a mere best-efforts obligation (as AG Wahl suggested, §70) when it comes to the compliance of a MoU with EU law (and more specifically, with the Charter), but a true performance obligation in that regard. The Commission, when negotiating and concluding an MoU on behalf of the ESM, should live up to its role of Guardian of the Treaties, and « refrain from signing a memorandum […] whose consistency with EU law [and with the Charter] it doubts » (§ 59). Setting aside the orders of the General Court, the Grand Chamber went on to investigate whether the ESM-Cyprus MoU negotiated and concluded by the Commission, violated the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter by imposing substantial losses on uninsured depositors. After a (too ?) short analysis, it ultimately found it did not. In its view, the restrictions to the right of property under scrutiny met an objective of general interest, the stability of the banking system of the Euro area (and the prevention of dangerous spill-overs across the Zone), and did not constitute disproportionate and intolerable interferences impairing the very substance of the right to property. Having found no unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission, the Court logically dismissed the action for compensation.

Regardless of whether we agree that the loss of 37,5% of one’s uninsured deposits constitutes an acceptable and proportionate restriction to the right to property (personally I do not, but this is a discussion I am not willing to enter here), it remains that the Court’s decision should be welcomed by anyone concerned with the preservation of fundamental rights in the framework of the new governance of the Eurozone. As Glinavos has shown in his earlier post, this ruling «breaks down the barrier between European institutions and international-treaty based structures that have sprang up to deal with the needs of Euro-area crisis response». The decision moreover sends a strong signal to EU institutions: whether they act in the framework of EU law or at its margins, under the screen of international agreements, the Commission and the ECB should duly take fundamental rights into account, and be ready to be held liable if they fail to do so. When acting as agents of the ESM, the Commission and the ECB no longer operate in legal limbo, under the radar of the Court. Judicial scrutiny can now be triggered. And that is in itself very good news.

SUGGESTED CITATION  Dermine, Paul: ESM and Protection of Fundamental Rights: Towards the End of Impunity?, VerfBlog, 2016/9/21, https://verfassungsblog.de/esm-and-protection-of-fundamental-rights-towards-the-end-of-impunity/, DOI: 10.17176/20160922-100443.


  1. Aston R. Fr 23 Sep 2016 at 11:07 - Reply

    Aaahh, a 37,5% asset loss is nowadays to be considered acceptable in the EU with regards to the right of property?

    What comes next?

    Is a 37,5% death penalty on the agenda for this year?

    Glad I made by cross for the Brexit and against those fraudsters! 🙂

  2. Jessica Lourdes Pearson Fr 23 Sep 2016 at 12:52 - Reply

    Dear Aston, you are certainly able and willing to tell me what happens to your uninsured assets if your bank goes bankrupt?! Could the result possibly be a 100% asset loss? And if that is the case, why should a (only) partial bailout be considered fraud – and not unjustified enrichment? Are you of the opinion that the right to property gives you a claim to be bailed out by 100% by the European taxpayers? Then indeed I am also glad you made your cross for the Brexit.

  3. Aston R. Fr 23 Sep 2016 at 13:53 - Reply

    > Are you of the opinion that the right to property gives you a claim to be bailed out by 100% by the European taxpayers?

    Most obviously the ECB made that claim a reality for all of the most corrupt bankers in southern Europe.

    Do you see the fraud now? It’s gigantic! It’s trillions of euros.

    If no, you may want to open your certainly most beautiful eyes, Jessie. 🙂

  4. Jessica Lourdes Pearson Fr 23 Sep 2016 at 15:20 - Reply

    Oh thank you, Assie, my darling. Nevertheless, your comments appear quite contradictory to my beautiful eyes: First you complain about a 37,5% asset loss. And then you deplore a pretended complete bail-out. So what exactly is the alleged gigantic fraud?

    By the way: Who are the corrupt bankers in southern Europe that were bailed out? Bank employees? I always thought (with my beautiful eyes closed, I admit) that banks have shareholders and depositors some of which might even be situated in the UK.

  5. Aston R. Sa 24 Sep 2016 at 08:42 - Reply

    Jessie, I love that – but here is the little hint: Don’t try to think with your beautiful eyes. Supposedly, you have organs that can do the job better. 🙂

    If you do so, you may sense the difference between an asset loss triggered by your government and a private sector bankrupt.

    Asking for the corrupt bankers I refer you to my beloved Rodrigo Rato, former head of the IMF. He ruined Bankia while he and 30 other honorable Managers made heavy use of their Visa „Black Card“ for their gigolo life styles. If you want more I will most happily give to you a whole bunch of more names.

    Goldman Barroso, the former President of the EU commission would be the next one …

    So live long and happy in your EU failed state.

  6. Aston R. Mi 28 Sep 2016 at 09:08 - Reply

    Jessie, probably I anoyed you with not filling the female quota?

    Here is one for you: I have here the next EU commission fraudster for you. And guess what:

    It’s a girl!

    “It is true that Mrs Kroes made this pledge at the beginning of her first term with the European commission. Having fulfilled this term, Mrs Kroes fulfilled this pledge and did not enter into business activity. Instead, she was honoured with a second term in a completely different field. Having now finished her second term, she no longer feels bound by the commitment made prior to taking her first post.”

    Just to wrap up the consitutional aspects of here Panama Holding role:

    “Commissioners may not engage in any other professional activity, whether gainful or not.”

    Can we continue to be friends now, Jessie?

  7. Jessica Lourdes Pearson Mi 28 Sep 2016 at 12:55 - Reply

    Assie, from your first comment on, you seemed more preoccupied with me supposedly being a woman than with engaging seriously into a discussion – which is quite funny because (a) this fits nicely into a pattern I discovered with respect to EU-critical commentators here (do you guys in fact dislike the EU because „Europa“ was a woman?), and (b) the only thing that is female about me is my nickname.

    For that reason, I kind of lost interest in continuing here, for which I sincerely apologize. So live long and happy in your echo chamber.

  8. Aston R. Do 29 Sep 2016 at 12:03 - Reply

    After all the mistery of your sharp thinking is solved! Thanks Jessie.

    But why are you still unhappy?
    I delivered the fraudsters you were looking for. Accidentally, they are the crooks that rule you.

    But hey, they invented the „rule of law“ probably to avoid calling it the „rule of fraud“?

    Go get a life with you new gender!

  9. Frank M. Do 29 Sep 2016 at 23:20 - Reply

    And I always thought trolls would live in Scandinavia and not on the British Isles…

    If you are so happy with your self-chosen Brexit, stay on your island of bliss and bother us no more.

Leave A Comment


1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

Explore posts related to this:
ESM, Ledra Advertising, conditionality, euro crisis

Other posts about this region: