Tuesday, June 16, 2015

FAQ: Can the ECB unlimited buy government bonds? – Tagesschau.de

Date: 06/17/2015 00:07 clock

The ECJ has the ECB’s government bond purchase program “Outright Monetary Transactions” approved. The Federal Constitutional Court had passed such actions to him. explains what it is exactly.

‘{‘ action ‘: {‘ default ‘[' toggleBody ']}} “ What is in the process

It’s about the purchase of government bonds by the European Central Bank (ECB). In July 2012, ECB President Draghi announced that his bank will do everything that is needed to solve the European debt crisis). On September 6, 2012 in Frankfurt, Draghi appeared before the press. He announced a program called “Outright Monetary Transactions” (OMT). The content: The ECB would in an emergency on the so-called “secondary market”, so buying in the financial markets, in unlimited amounts of government bonds crisis states.. For this purpose they will print money in the necessary amount. So will the speculators deprived the soil in the bond markets. As a result of falling interest rates, for which the crisis Equip able to organize fresh money to. In return, the states would have under the bailout ESM go (which is linked to conditions, for example to tackle certain reforms). The purchase can take place in an unlimited amount, as Draghi. To date, the OMT program was not implemented. The fundamental question behind the dispute is: What are the legal limits must respect the independent ECB? And how intense that is controllable by the courts?

The focus was initially in 2012 the establishment of the permanent European rescue fund ESM. Against the German participation in the ESM 2012 actions before the Federal Constitutional Court were filed in June. The nervousness was great. Would fail to Karlsruhe the Euro rescue? On 12 September, the decision was announced in summary proceedings. A few days earlier on September 6, came the press conference Draghi to the controversial government bond program. As soon could give the impression:. No matter what limits the ESM your demands, dear German judge, we in any case will intervene in an unlimited amount in the markets

The Federal Constitutional Court later the German participation in the ESM approved in principle. With one exception: The controversial OMT program could the Federal Constitutional Court’s view, violate the European treaties, because the ECB thus exceeded the tasks assigned to it. This legal issue has Karlsruhe excluded and submitted to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.

Why can individual citizens proceed in court against actions of the ECB

Overall, the action before the Federal Constitutional Court of approximately 37,000 German citizens will support. The ECJ, however, not joins the classic “of appeal” a. So who loses as a citizen before the Federal Constitutional Court, can not simply pull themselves to Luxembourg. For ECJ you come as individual citizens only through the “detour” of the national courts. If rules are relevant from the European law for deciding the national courts must submit to the ECJ the questions. Luxembourg then decides how the EU legislation is to be understood, and are the case back to the national court, which makes the final decision. Other important processes such as the “right to be forgotten” on Google or the data retention are come to Luxembourg.

What are the problems relating to the purchase of government bonds by the ECB

According to the Basic Law (Article 88 paragraph 2) must Germany transferred the responsibilities of the central bank of the European Central Bank, the independent and the primary objective of” price stability is “committed. The ECB is independent, so the governments have no direct influence on their actions. But of course it is linked to the tasks that you assign the European treaties (Article 119 et seq.). Legally it therefore comes to the question of whether the ECB exceeds the competencies, so does something for which it is not responsible to the European treaties. Task of the ECB is the, with the aim of a stable currency to ensure stable prices. Not allowed, however, is: and by the ECB, ie the financing of individual households (over-indebted) countries. Now the question is: In what area of ​​the purchase of government bonds on the secondary market falls? Permitted or prohibited? In addition, the EU Treaty includes a ban on the ECB to finance individual states. By contrast, the ECB had failed, the plaintiffs say.

For the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision of talk February 7, 2014 weighty reasons that the ECB exceeds its mandate of monetary policy to the OMT program. One indication is that the ECB would buy only government bonds of individual Member States. Monetary policy concerns typically but all states equally. They also see the following danger: utilities such as the European rescue fund ESM were an amount limited, also the parliaments have here control functions. With a purchase of government bonds by the ECB, this independent control mechanisms could be circumvented. Second complaint: The OMT program infringes the principle of the EU treaties, that the ECB should not operate government financing. However, Karlsruhe also leaves a “back door” open. The decision of the ECB is perhaps then not objectionable if you would move certain limits. As an example, called the court: the exclusion of a haircut, a purchase of government bonds only in limited amounts, and that there was no intervention in the market price of the government bonds

Why Karlsruhe stayed the proceedings and the European Court of Justice submitted

In principle, the division of tasks applies: Federal Constitutional Court examines German acts against the standard of the Basic Law – European Court of Justice (Luxembourg) reviewed European legislation the standard of European treaties. However, Karlsruhe has always reserved the final check whether the EU institutions considerably exceed their powers in individual cases. In legal jargon that is then, they could act “ultra vires”. To such an examination it is here at the question of whether the ECB has financed against their behalf States or not. If they exceed their mandate evident, that would no longer be covered by the competences which Germany has transmitted to the EU institutions. However, Karlsruhe has always said: we should even come to the conclusion “ultra vires”, one would submit legal questions to the ECJ for consideration, so that the charge of European law court can deal with the issues. This is now – for the first time in the history of the Federal Constitutional Court – happened. On other courts, such as the Federal Court, such templates are for many years a common practice. Similarly to other constitutional courts of EU Member States.

Kapituliert” Karlsruhe so before the ECJ

The template is only once a sign of openness. For years they had only talked about the “cooperative relationship”, the courts only, now you’ve done for the first time seriously. About European law decided by the Court, so that is legally provided. It was rather unusual that Karlsruhe has taken so long, other constitutional courts of EU countries were there faster. The order for reference with his questions but you can certainly be understood as a challenge to their colleagues in Luxembourg, as the opinion that the ECB exceeds the competencies is formulated quite clearly. At the same time the judges show but also correction options on, along the lines of: “This is our interpretation of the law, we see ways you can fix this, you go on or does not it?” You can almost get the impression that Karlsruhe wants to Luxembourg “yes, but” challenge to a decision. Yes, the purchase of government bonds is possible, but the following limits are mandatory. Such “yes, but” decisions Karlsruhe has spoken even in European issues many times.

What the ECJ has decided in principle

The ECJ replied to the questions in Karlsruhe that the announced OMT program is not contrary to European law. He sorted the program in the drawer “monetary policy”, for which the ECB is responsible for the contracts. The prohibition of state financing is a key principle which should also be in no way circumvented the ECJ. The guarantees in the “small print” of the OMT program would but make sure it does not come to a breach of the prohibition in the particular case.

Why the Court assigns the OMT program as a monetary policy

The court of first ECB acknowledges a wide discretion a. An important criterion for the European Court of Justice is the goal of their program specified by the ECB. And that is: price stability guarantee, in this case in the interest of government bonds. The court seems thereby more weight be given to the self-defined objectives of the ECB as to the possible effects. That the program is also capable of stabilizing the euro zone, is harmless in this case. Such “indirect effects” were not enough to make a monetary policy a measure of economic policy.

Does the ECJ the ECB no limits?

But>

Fordert the ECJ capped the volume of buying

No. He refers to the presentation of the ECB in the court proceedings that it purely factual comes to a limited volume due to some peculiarities of aufzukaufenden government bonds.

‘{‘ action ‘: {‘ default ‘[' toggleBody ']}} “ Does Karlsruhe” lost “so that all along the line
“40″

That would be a little too easy. What seems certain is that Karlsruhe and Luxembourg have different views on key issues. With the line of the Advocate General who had called for in his opinion even more conditions than the ECJ, would be in Karlsruhe can certainly live better than with the judgment. The Advocate General had as yet put forward a demand that the ECB with other utilities no longer allowed to participate directly, if the OMT program will once implemented. One or the other point of the judgment is the judges quite ready abdominal pain. On the other hand, the process results in total certainly to a greater awareness of the legal issues surrounding the ECB programs. Even that can be a certain value in itself.

In principle, the ECJ decides binding of how European law is interpreted, ie whether the ECB violates European law or not. However, the Federal Constitutional Court has announced in recent decisions repeatedly, also content a “final word” reserve, if the Court would exceed its jurisdiction with from Karlsruher view its expertise once clear. Certain intersections between the decisions are all the differences certainly exist. That could provide room for compromise. In a public appearance constitutional judge Peter Huber has indicated that they would accept any “reasonable decision”. This implies rather not suggest trying to enforce their own legal opinion at any point at any price. Just know it will be so but only after the final decision of Karlsruhe, which is expected to give it the soonest beginning of 2016..

‘{‘ action ‘: [' toggleBody ']}: {‘ default ‘} “ Does Karlsruhe the legal means, the ECB directly prohibit something

?

No. For the Court would have jurisdiction. Karlsruhe had the opportunity to establish an infringement and to oblige the German players (Bundestag, Federal Government, Federal Bank), to work towards a stop of such programs at European level as intensively as possible, or not participate in the programs. One could make the German state authorities as a kind of middle ground also runs on the points in which match both dishes.

The ECB has nevertheless announced in January 2015 to buy government bonds on a large scale. What are the differences between this and the OMT program

The ECB program “Quantitive Easing ‘from January 22, 2015 has the aim to purchase 2016 government bonds of all euro-zone countries worth up to one trillion by the end of September. It is important to separate this program from OMT decision at issue in the current legal proceedings. One major difference is in a different target that defines the ECB. In “Quantitive Easing” it should be to avoid a “deflation” According to the ECB. Therefore it falls at least easier to qualify the program as allowed monetary policy. Other terms of accusations and criticism abound anyway. Even lawsuits have already been announced. Completely independently both blocks are also not. For there is much to suggest that the ECB has already taken into account some of the criticisms made of the long legal battle around “OMT” in “Quantitive Easing” to play it safe. And the fundamental issues on the scope of judicial review have been raised in all constellations.

LikeTweet

No comments:

Post a Comment