Capping bankers' bonuses: a step too far for the EU?

Steve Peers

Bankers are never going to win a popularity contest. The collapse of international financial markets which started in 2008 and has led to austerity across Europe has been widely blamed on lax regulation of banks and irresponsible behaviour by bankers. It has led to a huge overhaul of EU banking regulation, including the transfer of banking supervision to the European Central Bank, new rules on bank bail-outs, and provision for criminal law sanctions against bankers involved in market abuse (discussed here). EU law has gone further still, and adopted rules which cap the amount of bonuses paid to bankers.

The United Kingdom, home to the biggest financial services industry in the EU, has had reservations about some of these new laws. It has opted out of some of them (the market abuse rules, the banking supervision rules and aspects of the bank bail-out rules), and has challenged others in the CJEU. Earlier this year, its challenge to the ban on ‘short-selling’ failed in the Court (see discussion here), and today’s Advocate-General’s opinion suggests that its challenge to the restrictions on bankers’ bonuses should fail too.

These restrictions are found in the EU’s revised rules on capital requirements and the authorisation to take up banking services, which are set out in a parallel Regulation and Directiveadopted in 2013. In effect, they require that bankers’ bonuses cannot usually be more than the amount of their ordinary annual salary. By way of exception, the bonuses can be double the amount of the banker’s ordinary annual salary, if bank shareholders agree pursuant to a special procedure.

Advocate-General’s Opinion

The UK raised six main complaints against the bonuses rules: lack of competence by the EU to regulate pay; infringement of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; violation of the principle of legal certainty; illegal delegation of power to an EU agency (the European Banking Authority); breach of EU rules on data protection and privacy, due to the potential disclosure of the pay received by bankers; and a breach of the principles of customary international law, due to the extraterritorial effect of the rules. Advocate-General Jaaskinen argues that all five complaints be rejected.

First of all, the Advocate-General argues that Article 53 TFEU (the legal base for this measure) is correct, because that legal base can extend to banking regulation generally, not just the promotion of the freedom of establishment for banks. The pay cap does not constitute a ‘social policy’ measure, since it does not regulate the basic salary paid to bankers, which is the basis for calculating any additional bonus.

Secondly, data protection rules are not violated, because the disclosure of bankers’ pay is only discretionary, not mandatory. In the event that Member States make a request for such disclosure, they would then be bound by EU data protection law.

Thirdly, conferring powers upon the EU agency is not illegal, because the powers do not concern the essential elements of the legislation, and the EU Banking Authority does not adopt the measures itself, but merely recommends their adoption to the Commission.  Fourthly, the principle of legal certainty is not infringed by applying the new rules to pre-existing employment contracts. Fifthly, the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are not violated, because the creation of a uniform system of risk management was better achieved at EU level, rather than national level, and the EU institutions have great discretion to assess how these principles apply. Finally, the UK has not made out its argument that customary international law rules out the extraterritorial application of such limits.

Comments

This case is not about whether limiting bankers’ bonuses is a good idea. Rather it concerns whether it is legal for the EU to limit them. If the EU lacks such power, there would in principle nothing to prevent Member States from limiting bankers’ bonuses individually, if they wished. The argument about whether to do so would then be held at a national level, rather than the EU level.

Some of the UK’s complaints are clearly unconvincing.  As the Advocate-General suggests, the argument about international law is not fully fleshed out or convincing. The legal certainty argument fails to consider that employment law regulation usually impacts upon existing contracts; this is justifiable in light of the public-interest principles underlying the very nature of employment law. Anyway, bonuses are inherently variable. As for the data protection argument, the Opinion largely follows what the CJEU established already in EP v Council (family reunion): if EU law provides for options for Member States, the compatibility of those options with human rights law should be judged when and if Member States exercise those options. In any event, prior case law on data protection and salary disclosure does not set out an absolute ban on release (see Satamedia, for instance).

The UK’s other arguments are rather stronger. While it is true to say that the EU’s banking agency does not actually take the final decision relating to implementation of the bonus cap, it does more than simply provide expert advice on this issue. The Commission must then either act on this advice or do nothing at all: so it does not have full discretion to adopt the delegated acts (see the complex decision-making system set up by the Regulation establishing the Banking Authority). This process is fundamentally questionable because it blurs the accountability for the decision being taken (and moreover, it is too convoluted to be transparent).   

As for proportionality and subsidiarity, certainly the events of the last six years have demonstrably indicated that a more decentralised system of managing banking risks was ineffective. Hopefully the EU-wide measures will be more successful, but in any event the nature of the subject-matter calls for an EU-wide response, in light of the level of integration between European financial markets and the potential cross-border impact of bank failures. But that isn’t the point: the UK is not challenging the entirety of the capital requirements rules, but only some of the handful of provisions which regulate bankers’ bonuses. In fact, it is not challenging those provisions which prevent bankers from receiving bonuses as a consequence of risky behaviour, but only those provisions which regulate bonuses regardless of bankers’ actions. So the opinion should instead have asked whether theseprovisions meet the requirements of the subsidiarity principle. It is hard to see how they do.

This brings us to the biggest problem with the Opinion: the argument that the legal base on freedom of establishment can regulate bankers’ bonuses. The legal base point here can only be understood by viewing the Treaty as a whole. It has separate provisions on social policy, which include a ban on EU regulation of pay (Article 153 TFEU). The general internal market power (Article 114 TFEU) specifically states that it ‘shall not apply to’ measures ‘relating to the rights and interests of employed persons’. The Treaty drafters’ intention was clearly to provide for lex specialis rules relating to regulation of pay.

The ban on EU regulation of pay has been clarified in the case-law of the CJEU. In the Impact judgment, for instance, it ruled that the EU could not regulate the level or components of pay, but it could establish non-discrimination rules relating to pay as regards categories of workers. Similarly, the working time directive provides for holiday pay, but does not regulate the level or components of pay which a worker normally receives (which then constitute the basis on which the holiday pay is calculated).

Following the logic of these precedents, it is true to say that the capital requirements legislation does not set the level of bankers’ pay, on the basis of which the bonuses are capped. But it does regulate the components of pay, by determining how much of the total amount of pay can be variable. The Advocate-General’s reasoning would mean that the EU would be free to regulate at least some aspects of workers’ pay in any area of law subject to special rules in the Treaty, rather than the general internal market legal base. So the EU could regulate aspects of the pay of farmers, fishermen, transport workers and anyone in other service industries.

It could reasonably be argued that aspects of pay in these other fields can exceptionally be regulated by EU law where that is an essential component of the regulatory framework. This could be the case in banking, for instance if the overall amount of pay could damage the existence of the bank or bonuses were linked to risky behaviour. The legislation does have rules on these issues, but the UK has not challenged them. So it follows that the opinion is fundamentally unconvincing on the legal base point.

In light of the financial crisis, there are many good reasons to regulate banks more effectively, and it would not be shocking if Member Stateswanted to react to understandable public anger at the huge cost of bank bail-outs by limiting bankers’ income. But resentment at bankers’ pay, even it is entirely justified, cannot authorise the EU to exercise powers which any reasonable interpretation of the Treaties suggests that it just does not have.


Postscript (November 21st): Like any Advocate-General's opinion, this view is non-binding, although a number of British journalists and politicians forgot this when the opinion was released. In any event, the point is moot since, following publication of the opinion, the UK's Chancellor decided to drop the legal challenge. His official reason was to save taxpayers' money, but this is not convincing since a large majority of the legal fees will surely already have been incurred, and there is still a chance to get them reimbursed if the UK wins the case. A victory for the UK would have not have been improbable, given that the CJEU did not follow this Advocate-General's views in the last major banking law case (concerning the ban on short-selling), and that the analysis of the legal basis point is not very convincing. 

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 14, chapter 19

 

Read More

The reform of Europol: modern EU agency, or intergovernmental dinosaur?

Introduction

The EU’s police cooperation agency, Europol, has played a major role in the development of Justice and Home Affairs cooperation in the EU from an early stage. Europol was originally set up informally, then on the basis of a 1995 Convention, subsequently replaced by a Council Decision in 2009. While its powers have gradually been expanded, so has the controversy about its accountability and the adequacy of its data protection rules. Since it is a creature of the former 'third pillar' (the previous special rules on policing and criminal law) it is something of a 'dinosaur' in institutional terms, being an essentially intergovernmental body.

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament (EP) now has joint powers with the Council as regards the adoption of a Regulation governing Europol, and the Treaty now refers expressly to the importance of ensuring accountability to both national parliaments and the EP. Furthermore, the EU institutions agreed in 2012 a ‘Common Understanding’ on standard rules which would apply to the governance of EU agencies. To expand Europol’s powers further, while addressing the issues of governance, accountability and data protection, the Commission proposed a new Regulation reconstituting Europol in 2013.

At the most recent Justice and Home Affairs Council, ministers agreed the Council’s position on the Commission’s proposal.  Since the European Parliament also recently agreed its own position, this clears the way for negotiations to take place between the two institutions for a final deal, once the EP is fully operational again following the recent elections. This is therefore a good time to examine the progress of discussions on the proposed Regulation so far.

It should be noted that Ireland has opted in to this proposed Regulation, while the UK and Denmark have opted out. The UK’s objections are due to the proposals to place national law enforcement bodies to comply with Europol’s requests to start investigations, and to supply information to Europol without a national security exception. However, as discussed further below, the Council’s and EP’s positions on the proposal address these issues, raising the possibility that the UK will opt in after adoption of the Regulation.

Europol’s powers

First and foremost, the Commission failed in its attempt to merge together Europol with the European Police College. The Commission thought it was a good idea to merge the two, given the overlap of their subject-matter. There has never been a merger of EU agencies before, for essentially political reasons: Member States fight bitter battles to host EU agencies, and so are reluctant to let one go once they have one. However, unusually, in this case the original host of the European Police College, the UK, was rather keen to kick the agency out, as it was planning to sell the space where the College was located and declared itself unable to find a new one.

So there was a golden opportunity to merge these two agencies, but neither the European Parliament nor the Council wanted to take it. In light of the Commission’s inflexible insistence on its proposal, an unprecedented group of 25 Member States tabled an initiative to amend the previous Decision establishing the European Police College, which was subsequently adopted. This new Regulation simply moves the College to Budapest. The Council has requested the Commission to make a separate proposal making further changes to the Police College, but it remains to be seen whether the Commission will do so, or whether it will continue to sulk about the failure of its original suggestion for a merger.

The Commission’s second main objective related to Europol itself. It cannot carry out ‘coercive powers’, according to the Treaties, and all three institutions agree that a clause to this effect should appear in the new Regulation.  So it is destined to remain an agency which gathers and analyses information, and it is only able to do the latter to the extent that it does the former. As dinosaurs go, Europol is clearly a herbivore, not a carnivore.

But the Commission nonetheless hoped to give Europol some sharper teeth. So it proposed two key amendments: a clarification of Member States’ obligation to give information to Europol, and an enlargement of Europol’s access to national databases. In parallel to this, the Commission’s proposal removed the detailed rules on the structure of data processing that existed in the Europol Decision (and before that, in the Europol Convention). In place of these very specific rules on analysis files and the Europol Information System, et al, there would instead be general provisions on data processing, which would be centred upon an obligation to ensure ‘privacy by design’.

The Council weakened the proposed rules which required national authorities in principle to act upon Europol’s request to initiate investigations. However, this issue is mainly symbolic, since there was no absolute obligation to act, under the Commission’s proposals (authorities could ‘decide not to comply’ with a request, on any grounds).

Furthermore, the Council did not accept the Commission’s proposal to allow Europol to contact national authorities directly in all cases, without going through the ‘Europol national units’ (the official points of contact between Europol and national forces). Instead, it simply provided (as at present) for the possibility for Member States to allow this. It also reinserted the current provisions which allow national authorities to refuse requests for information from Europol on grounds of national security, current investigations or intelligence activities.

However, the Council agreed with the proposal to give Europol a list of other new powers, and added new provisions giving Europol the power to assist with Schengen evaluations, as well as the evaluation of candidate Member States. It also specified that Member States have to allow their Financial Intelligence Units (special units dealing with money laundering) to collaborate with Europol. Finally, it wants to extend the fields of crime which Europol deals with to include war crimes and genocide as well as insider trading.

For its part, the EP, like the Council, voted against strengthening the provisions relating to Europol requests to Member States, although it did agree to Europol’s direct contact with national authorities (under certain conditions). It also agreed to retain the provisions allowing authorities to refuse requests from information from Europol.

Furthermore, the EP wants to reinsert the existing conditions relating to Europol’s participation in joint investigation teams, whereas the Commission (and the Council) want to provide only for general rules in this respect.

Data processing and data protection

Europol’s powers are inevitably closely linked with the data processing and data protection rules that apply to its processing of personal data. On this point, the Commission’s main objective with its proposal was to enhance the data protection framework of Europol by ensuring that its data protection supervisor was fully independent and had effective powers.

To this end, the Commission suggested more detailed rules on data processing and more data protection rights for individuals. The rules on external transfers of data outside the EU, which currently allow Europol itself to sign treaties with the Council’s approval, would be replaced by the general external relations rules of EU law (treaty negotiations carried out by the Commission, treaties concluded by the Council after consent by the EP). In general, the rules on transferring data to third States would be modelled on the rules in the EU data protection directive (see the recent post on this blog), allowing for transfers in principle only where a third State’s data protection has been judged ‘adequate’, with limited derogations from this rule. The supervisory powers currently held by a Joint Supervisory Board would be transferred to existing European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), which has data protection supervisory power as regards most EU agencies.   

The Council would amend the proposal to add a general power to process personal data in order to facilitate information exchange between Europol, other EU bodies, third countries, Member States and international organisations. Also, the Council would impose an absolute obligation for Europol to inform Member States about information concerning them. The Council would also allow for broader derogations from the normal rules as regards the transfers of data to third countries, adding grounds relating to legal claims and the combating of criminal offences.

As for data protection rules, the Council would strengthen the proposal by banning the selection of a group persons purely on the basis of a ‘sensitive’ ground, such as racial origin. It would also add a requirement for Europol to notify its data protection officer and the EDPS in the event of a security breach. Europol would also have to inform data subjects of the time period for the processing of their data, and the right to make requests to Europol for erasure, et al of that data.

However, the Council would drop the requirement for Europol to report on its processing of sensitive data every six months to the EDPS. Also, Europol would have to comply with any Member State’s objection to the release of data which it provided to Europol. A data subject’s request for correction et al of personal data would have to be funnelled through a national authority, rather than addressed directly to Europol, and the Council would include very broad grounds for Europol to refuse such requests.

The Council is also keen to amend the institutional ‘architecture’ regarding data protection in the Commission’s proposal. It would cut back a little on the proposed powers of the EDPS, and impose the condition that it considers law enforcement concerns when it communicates with data subjects. National data protection bodies would have the power to comment on the draft annual report of the EDPS before its conclusion. More generally, the EDPS would have further obligations to consult national data protection bodies, and the Council wants to establish a Cooperation Board that would have a large number of advisory powers.

For its part, the EP would subject all access to personal data by Europol to general rules of necessity and proportionality and the adoption of specific rules setting out data protection principles.  The categories of personal data which could be processed would be more tightly restricted, and the EP does not support anything similar to a general power to process personal data to facilitate relations with the Member States, et al. There would be a requirement to carry out an impact assessment before data processing operations.

The EP would ban access to Europol data by OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud body, and also would impose a ban on processing of data obtained by means which breach human rights. Pre-existing treaties with third states relating to the processing of personal data would have to be renegotiated within five years. The EDPS would have to be consulted before treaties with third States are negotiated. 

While the EP broadly agrees with the Council regarding the derogations from the external transfer rules, it wants to require Europol’s Executive Director to consider the record of the third country concerned before authorising the use of these derogations. The EP also agrees with the Council on a clause regarding notification of a data breach to the EDPS, although its version is more detailed, and the EP also wants a clause on notification of such breaches to the data subject. Finally, the EP wants more detail in the annual report by the EDPS, and proposes more cooperation between the EDPS and national authorities, although it does not support the Council’s idea of creating a Board.

Governance

First of all, as regards Europol’s management board, in accordance with the Common Understanding on EU Agencies, the Commission proposed that it have two representatives, alongside one from each Member State. However, both the EP and Council want to cut this back to one representative (as at present). Moreover, the EP (based on the Common Understanding, which refers to full EP members on agencies’ management boards) proposes to let an observer from its Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group (see below) attend meetings of the Management Board. Both the EP and the Council want to drop the proposed clause (based on the Common Understanding) which would require Member States to limit turnover in the Board. 

The EP supports the Commission’s proposal to ‘aim to achieve a balanced representation between men and women’ on the board, but the Council does not. 

Next, the Council and Commission agree that (in accordance with the Common Understanding) members of the Management Board should have standard terms of four years. However, the EP wants their term of office to be set by each Member State.

Furthermore, the Council wants the chair of the Management Board to come (as at present) from one of the three Member States which is jointly holding the Council Presidency, whereas the Commission and the EP reject this. Finally, the EP wants all members of the Management Board to sign a declaration of interests, for such declarations to be published, and for the Commission to have the power to object to draft Management Board decisions on fundamental legal or policy grounds. These proposals are based on the Common Understanding.

Secondly, the Council wants to retain its current powers to appoint Europol’s Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Directors, instead of shifting this power to the Management Board as the Commission proposes, in accordance with the Common Understanding on agencies (the EP agrees with the Commission). But the Council does not want to share this power with the EP.

Thirdly, the Commission proposed the creation of a new Executive Board as part of the management structure. The EP rejects this idea completely, whereas the Council can accept it on condition that the Management Board agrees unanimously to create it, leaving it to the Board (rather than the Regulation) to set out the details.

Finally, the Council wants to curtail the scope of the future reviews of the Regulation, while the EP wants to enhance them to include the provisions on parliamentary accountability. The Commission and EP support the possibility of a future amendment or repeal of the Regulation, while the Council wants to drop this possibility. It should be noted that the Common Understanding refers to the possibility of disbanding an agency.

Parliamentary accountability

Currently, the EP can receive reports on Europol, plays a role as regards the budget, is consulted upon implementing measures and can hold hearings with the Director. Due to concerns about ensuring more effective parliamentary accountability for Europol’s actions, the Commission proposed a number of reforms, in particular sending the EP and national parliaments more reports, and involving the EP more in the process of choosing the (Executive) Director.

In response, the Council insists upon separate references to the EP and national parliaments. It would also delete many of the proposed powers for the EP, in particular dropping the proposed obligation for the Executive Director to report to the EP and the obligation for the candidate to be Executive Director to make a statement before the EP.

Conversely, the EP would enhance the parliamentary role in the Regulation, in particular by creating a Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group, which would comprise members of both the EP and national parliaments. In its view, references to the EP in the proposal should be replaced by references to this group. There would also be greater powers for the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group as regards the process of appointing the Executive Director. 

Comments

The EP and the Council agree broadly on the modest extension of Europol powers, including in particular the removal of provisions relating to the European Police College and retaining the current limits on Europol’s powers as regards national authorities, so these will likely be the least controversial issues to negotiate. It is striking that these institutions did not take the opportunity either to reduce the agencies’ costs by means of a merger, or at least to increase their efficiency by means of co-location.

As regards data protection, there are significant differences between the EP and the Council as regards: the broadening or tightening of the grounds for data processing; the details as regards notification of security breaches; the rights of data subjects; the architecture of data protection authorities; and the grounds to refuse a data subject’s requests. Both support some further powers for national authorities.

Two specific points should be highlighted here. First of all, the Council’s suggestion of a general power for Europol to process personal data in order to facilitate information exchange has to be rejected on legal grounds, since this is far too broad and imprecise a legal basis on which to justify the exchange of personal data. The EP has the better approach: if (as all the institutions agree) EU legislation should no longer regulate the details of Europol’s databases and analysis files, there need to be strong and specific data protection principles in the Regulation instead.

Secondly, while both the EP and the Council agree on a general derogation from the external transfer rules for the combating of criminal offences, this exception is likely to become the rule, since combating criminal offences is Europol’s whole raison d’etre.

As for governance and accountability, the main issues are the extent of parliamentary powers, and also the nature of those powers (ie, whether there should be separate or joint roles for the EP and national parliaments). It is striking that the Council is keen to have a joint data protection supervisory body, but not a joint parliamentary body, whereas the EP’s preferences are the other way around.  Remarkably, the Council’s removal of the (Executive) Director’s obligation to report to the EP would actually mean lessparliamentary accountability on this point than under the current Decision.

Also, the EP and the Council differ as regards: whether there should be an executive board; the role of Council as compared to the Management Board in appointing the executive director; retaining a special status for the Council Presidency chairing the Management Board; rules on conflict of interest; other aspects of the composition and functioning of the Management Board (term, turnover, gender equality, Commission control, conflict of interests); and the review and possible disbanding of Europol.

On these issues, the Council’s suggestion to go backwards, by eliminating any role for the EP questioning the Executive Director, is simply antedivulian. It flies in the face of the specific reference to parliamentary accountability in the Treaties, given the obvious importance that parliamentary questioning of an agency director can play in ensuring that body’s accountability.

The Council’s attempts to defend the status quo can also be seen in its approach to the appointment of the (Executive) Director and the composition and chairing of the Management Board. The more modern approach of the EP as regards gender equality, declarations of interests, scrutiny by the Commission, and review or disbanding of Europol, should be preferred. Furthermore, accountability surely demands a single parliamentary observer on the Management Board, given that 28 Member States will each have a voting member to advocate their interests.

It is striking that two years after agreeing standard rules on EU agencies, in a bid to forestall future conflicts and difficult negotiations, all three agencies have taken a ‘pick and mix’ approach to the Common Understanding, each selecting certain points that they like from these common principles and rejecting those which they dislike.

Overall, it is clear that the Council’s preference is for Europol to remain an essentially intergovernmental body, with merely another incremental increase in its powers, a modest enhancement of the data protection rules, and no significant change in either its governance or parliamentary accountability. The EP agrees that the increase in its powers should be limited, but is pushing instead for a modernisation of the agency in light of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Common Understanding, as regards stricter data protection rules, reforming its governance, and greater accountability. Time will tell whether the Council will succeed in preserving this intergovernmental dinosaur. 

Read More

The EU’s Financial Supervisory Authorities: Mind the Accountability Gap

Dr Marios Costa, Lecturer in Law, City Law School

In 2010 we witnessed the establishment of three European Supervisory Authorities: the European Banking Authority; the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority; and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). They were set up by the Union as a response to the current, unprecedented financial crisis. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave on 22 January 2014 a significant judgment in relation to more recent legislation empowering ESMA to adopt legally binding measures upon financial institutions of the Member States in the event of a threat to the proper functioning of the financial market or to the stability of the financial system of the EU (Case C-270/12, United Kingdom v Council & Parliament). The legal action concerned the annulment of Article 28 of Regulation 236/2012 in relation to ESMA’s power to ban ‘short selling’, a practice which permits the sale of shares not owned by the vendor at the time of sale with the view of benefiting from a fall in the share price.

There are broader constitutional implications which this judgment highlights. The judgment, which does not come as a surprise, clarifies issues in relation to the powers that can be lawfully exercised by EU independent financial regulatory agencies. This commentary examines, with all due respect, whether the recent ruling will remedy the lack of accountability of EU agencies.

ESMA can draft highly detailed technical and implementing standards which are later on adopted by the Commission under Article 290 and 291 TFEU (which concern, respectively, the adoption of delegated and implementing acts). In relation to Article 290 TFEU, the Commission sets out the conditions and specifies the criteria under which the agency can adopt further regulatory measures of a technical nature, but the drafting of the technical measure always comes from the agency. A very important issue here is whether the Commission has the sources, technical knowledge and scientific expertise required to control the appropriateness of the measures drafted by the agency. If the Commission decides not to adopt the measures drafted by ESMA then it is required to send it back to the Agency and explain why it has decided to not to endorse it (see Article 10 and 15 of Regulation 1095/2010). Interestingly enough, there are extreme limitations imposed upon the Commission. According to the preamble of Regulation 1095/2010, the Commission can only depart form the draft measures prepared by the agency only if they are incompatible with EU law, violate the principle of proportionality or contradict the EU’s financial services legislation.

Facts of the case

The UK government challenged the legality of article 28 of Regulation 236/2012 on the power of the ESMA to ban short selling practices. The Regulation was adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU which allows for the enactment of harmonisation measures necessary for the establishment and the functioning of the internal market. The rationale for the adoption of the Regulation and in particular Article 28 is for the ESMA to interfere and issue legally binding measures against the financial institutions of the Member States to prohibit short selling in the event of a threat to the proper functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the EU’s financial system. The ESMA has wide discretionary power to issue such bans, and it is the only adjudicator of whether such a threat exists.

The UK raised four arguments. First of all, it argued that ESMA is given political powers which entail policy choices to adopt legally binding measures vis-a-vis the financial institutions of the Member States. These powers do not fit well with the old Meroni line of case law, which states that delegation to autonomous bodies is considered to be acceptable as long as Commission retains control powers to monitor how the agency is carrying out its tasks. According to the Meroni line of reasoning, the conferment of broad discretionary power, reconciling competing public interests, to an EU agency cannot be justified on the basis of scientific expertise. In any case, the CJEU has several times emphasised that ‘[s]cientific legitimacy is not a sufficient basis for the exercise of public authority’ (Pfizer). However, in this judgment the Court of Justice ruled that the parent EU legislation, and the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to that legislation by the Commission, sufficiently circumscribed ESMA’s powers.

Secondly, the UK argued that the power for ESMA to ban short-selling breached the principle in Romano that the EU legislature could not delegate the power to adopt ‘quasi-legislative measures of general application’. However, the Court ruled that Romano did not add anything to Meroni, noting in particular that the Treaty provides for agencies to adopt measures of general application.

Thirdly, the UK argued that Articles 290 and 291 TFEU (the provisions on the adoption of delegated and implementing acts) were in effect exclusive, ruling out a contrario the delegation of powers like the short-selling ban to EU agencies. In the Court’s view, the Treaty (in particular, the rules on judicial review) presupposed that agencies could adopt binding acts, and the provision allowing ESMA to ban short selling had to be seen in its overall legal context.

Finally, the UK argued that Article 114 TFEU cannot constitute a correct legal basis for the adoption of the rules laid down in Article 28 of the Regulation. Earlier in 2013 the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen concluded in favour of the annulment due to concerns in relation to the appropriateness of the legal basis of Article 114 TFEU. According to his view, the adoption of legally binding measures by the ESMA addressed to the financial institutions of the Member States cannot be considered as EU harmonising measures or uniform practices which could be justified under Article 114 TFEU. The Court, however, decided not to follow the non-binding view of the Advocate General and ruled that Article 114 TFEU constitutes an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Article 28 of the Regulation since it aims (a) to approximate national law and (b) to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market in the financial field. On the first point, the Court brought together its prior case law which had specified that Article 114 could be a legal base for the creation of EU agencies (Case C-217/04 UK v Council and EP), and for the conferral of power upon the EU institutions to adopt legally binding acts (Case C-359/92 Germany v Council).

Comments

The Court’s judgment has significantly clarified the law relating to the conferral of powers to EU agencies. First of all, the Meroni doctrine, while still in force, does not prevent the conferral of such power when the relevant legislative framework is sufficiently detailed. Secondly, the Romano ruling adds nothing to Meroni. Thirdly, Articles 290 and 291 TFEU do not prevent the conferral of powers upon agencies, at least where such conferral of power takes place in the context of an overall legislative framework. Finally, at least the internal market powers of the EU (and arguably, by analogy, other legal bases) do not prevent the delegation of powers to agencies to adopt legally binding measures.

The Court’s ruling gives significant emphasis to the fact that the measures adopted by the EU financial agencies are subject to judicial review under Article 263 (4) TFEU. However, regulatory and implementing technical standards drafted by the EU financial agencies are subject to the Commission’s endorsement and although they constitute the basis for the adoption of the final act by the Commission they are technically and legally preparatory documents and as such they are excluded, in principle, from judicial scrutiny. Additionally, non-privileged applicants, such as financial institutions negatively affected by any ban adopted by ESMA, might not be in a position to satisfy the EU’s locus standi requirements. They may be excluded from direct actions under Article 263 (4) TFEU on the basis that the ban adopted still entails separate implementing measures within the meaning of the Telefonica judgment.

With great respect to the ESMA judgment, the fact that the founding Regulation of the ESMA [Regulation 1095/2010, Article 10(1) and 15 (1)] limits the power of the Commission to proceed with the drafting of technical standards or to unilaterally amend them empowers EU financial agencies with wide political decisions which entail policy choices. The wider implications of the judgment and also of the current framework establishing the agencies seem to suggest what has already pointed out in the literature that ‘in any event, it is clear that EU independent agencies are independent in the sense of being relatively free of control by any other organs of the [Union]’ (Shapiro, 1997). Another point is whether the Commission or the agency will be held responsible in cases where adverse consequences occur if the assessment by the agency proves to be wrong and has further financial repercussions? Moreover, according to the ESMA judgment additional powers could be conferred on agencies to adopt acts of general application outside the scope of articles 290 and 291 TFEU. The delegated and implementing acts of the Commission which detailed ESMA’s powers to adopt the short-selling bans were themselves drafted by…ESMA. This raises important questions in relation to the accountability of ESMA which the Court seemed, with all due respect, to ignore.

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling is important given that it is the first case which deals with the powers of the newly created financial supervisory authorities. It empowers, however, the financial authorities with further powers in order to be able to foresee and secure financial stability in the European Union. Therefore, there are certain constitutional questions that need to be answered: who are these highly independent autonomous bodies answerable to? Scientific legitimacy and complex decision-making in the area of EU’s financial regulation cannot be a legitimate justification for increasing the powers of the EU’s financial agencies, something which can only be accepted if there are control powers vested in the main EU institutions for securing the accountability of these EU agencies.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 8

Read More