Autonomy in Decline? A Commentary on Rimšēvičs and ECB v Latvia

In the world of European central banking, the corruption case against Ilmars Rimšēvičs, Governor of the Central Bank of Latvia, is a major issue. Ordinary European lawyers like the present author could be excused for having missed the Rimšēvičs case pending before the EU Court of Justice (Cases C-202/18 and C-238/18). In its judgment of 26 February 2019, the Court of Justice for the first time had the opportunity to define the scope of the review conducted in an infringement proceeding pursuant to Article 14.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB (‘the Statute’) and to determine the legal effect of a judgment rendered in this context. The latter gives the case a constitutional significance far beyond the field of central banking.

Continue Reading →

Greece: a constitutionalist’s two (euro)cents.

Greece is obviously at the forefront of many EU scholars’ minds over the past number of weeks. There has been an avalanche of commentary and analysis on the Greek bailout negotiations both from those with intimate knowledge of the situation and familiarity with Greek politics, the EMU and sovereign debt crises as well speculation from the sidelines from those of us more ignorant of these matters. Therefore as someone whose credibility in the debate (such as it is) is limited to the expertise of the constitutional lawyer with a good familiarity of EU law generally, I have limited my two (euro)cents on the topic to a number of (mostly factual) propositions related to the crisis for what they are worth. Most I think are obvious and (hopefully) few are contentious but I think that they are worth (re)stating in the context of the war of words and recrimination from all sides present in the debate in recent days.

Continue Reading →