The legal challenge to ECB restrictions on Greek bank accounts – and how you can help

Steve Peers

Many EU citizens have watched with sympathy and concern as Greek citizens have been limited to withdrawing €60 a day in the last two weeks. This restriction results from a restriction imposed by the European Central Bank (ECB) on the emergency liquidity assistance which it provides to Greek banks.  

Apart from the human impact, there are grave legal, political and economic doubts about the ECB’s action. One of the central purposes of a central bank is to function as a lender of last resort to banks – and the ECB is signally failing to do that here. Also, the ECB’s actions give the impression that it is trying to influence the Greek political debate on austerity and membership of the Eurozone – a role which is well outside the Bank’s remit. The banking restrictions obviously damage the Greek economy, and so limit its ability to pay back its creditors in future.  They have nothing to do with the Bank’s task of fighting inflation, and they undermine its broader role in supporting the EU’s economic growth. (For a fuller critique, see here (paywalled); on the legal background, see here). Arguably these restrictions – or further restrictions which the ECB might impose – could lead toward a de facto ‘Grexit’ from monetary union, which is ruled out by EU law (see my discussion here).

It’s possible to challenge the ECB’s actions via the national courts, which can refer the issue to the CJEU, such as in the recent Gauweiler case (discussed here). They can also be challenged in the EU courts, such as in the UK’s recent successful challenge (discussed here). The case law takes a broad view of what ECB acts can be challenged, except where it acts as part of the ‘Troika’ which negotiates bailout conditions, when neither the Bank nor the Commission can be challenged in the EU courts. But the ECB’s restriction of assistance to Greek banks did not fall within the scope of its role in the Troika.

National governments such as Greece can go directly to the EU courts to challenge ECB actions. Other challengers besides the EU institutions would have satisfy standing rules: ‘direct and individual concern’, or (if they are challenging a non-legislative act which does not entail implementing measures) ‘direct concern’. Arguably it would be easy for a Greek bank to satisfy those rules.

In the absence of a legal challenge from a Greek bank or the Greek government, an individual depositor has brought a legal challenge to the ECB’s recent actions before the EU General Court. You can find the full text of the claim here. The ECB might restore assistance if there is a deal in the near future, but it is still worth challenging its actions, so it cannot do this (or threaten to do it) in future.

Obviously there is a possible problem with standing, although a parallel challenge could be brought in the Greek courts. The plaintiff welcomes any advice or support – contact info@alcimos.com. Or you can leave comments on this blog post.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 19

Photo credit: www.2oceansvibe.com

Read More

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 UK’s Failed Challenge to the Financial Transaction Tax: Keep Calm and Wait

By Steve Peers

‘In capitalist countries, the bank robs YOU’. Rightly or wrongly, this phrase sums up the reaction of many EU citizens (as well as many of those outside the EU) to the bank bailouts and austerity of the last few years. The reaction to these concerns has been a series of populist measures by the EU – a restriction on short-selling (upheld by the CJEU), criminal penalties for market abuse, and a possible financial transactions tax (FTT).

As widely expected, the CJEU today ruled against the UK’s legal challenge to the plans of a group of EU Member States to impose an FTT. In the form proposed by the European Commission, the FTT could possibly do significant damage to the UK’s financial industry, based in the City of London. So at first sight, the failure of the UK’s legal challenge today looks like a significant setback to the City. However, in reality it is no such thing, since the UK will still be able to bring a separate legal challenge to the FTT, if and when it is finally adopted – and such a challenge would have a much better chance of being successful.

Background

Far from being a ‘one size fits all’ template, for many years EU law has provided for a number of different possibilities for some Member States to go ahead and adopt EU measures without all Member States participating. This is known in EU jargon as ‘differentiated integration’.

The best known of these possibilities are the rules on the EU’s single currency (along with some related rules on bailouts and economic governance) and on EU Justice and Home Affairs Law. But also there is a lesser known possibility for some Member States to go ahead without the others in any area of EU law, known as ‘enhanced cooperation’.

This possibility was first introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam (in force 1999), but it was subject to strict rules, such as a de facto veto for each Member State. To make it easier for these rules to be used, particularly in light of the planned large enlargement of the EU, they were amended by the Treaty of Nice (in force 2003). They were amended again by the Treaty of Lisbon (in force 2009), and they have been used in practice three times since that point.

The first use of the enhanced cooperation rules was to adopt a Regulation on the choice of law in divorce in 2010. This proved uncontroversial. Secondly, the EU agreed in 2011 to create a unitary patent for a large number of Member States. Spain and Italy could not agree to the details of this proposal, since they wanted equal status for their languages. They brought a legal challenge to the Council’s decision to authorise enhanced cooperation in this case, but the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed this challenge in 2013.

The third use of the enhanced cooperation procedure was to authorise a group of Member States to adopt an FTT. As noted already, the UK’s challenge to the decision authorising the FTT was dismissed today.

So why is the UK’s failure today not really a significant setback? The reason is that enhanced cooperation is a two-step procedure. First of all, the EU Council authorises a group of Member States to go ahead in a particular area. These authorisation decisions do not go into any detail about the law concerned. Secondly, the EU institutions then negotiate the details of the legislation which will apply to the participating Member States. This is known as the measure ‘implementing’ enhanced cooperation.

When the enhanced cooperation procedure was used for the first time (as regards choice of law in divorce), the Council very quickly agreed on the measure implementing enhanced cooperation. However, on the second occasion when this procedure was used (the unitary patent), it took nearly two years for the EU to adopt the legislation implementing enhanced cooperation. This was due to a need to agree these implementing rules with the European Parliament, as well as very difficult talks between Member States on a separate treaty creating a Unified Patent Court, particularly because it was hard to agree (among other things) where that Court would be located.

Similarly, although the Commission proposed legislation to set up an FTT back in 2011, and tabled a revised version of this proposal in 2013, once the EU authorised enhanced cooperation as regards the FTT, the participating Member States clearly appear to have difficulties reaching agreement on this proposal (each of the participating Member States has a veto).

Certainly, the Commission proposal is objectionable from the UK’s point of view. It provides not only for taxing transactions which take place in the financial markets of the participating Member States (reasonably enough), but also for taxing transactions which take place in the financial markets of non-participating Member States – as long as one of the parties to the transaction is located in a participating Member State. To this end, the proposal would deem a British bank to be a French bank (for instance) in certain circumstances.

There is a very good argument that this proposal violates the EU’s rules on free trade in the internal market, and interferes with the taxation powers which would normally belong to the UK and other participating Member States. The EU Treaties require any enhanced cooperation to be consistent with those rules. Indeed, it is widely known that the EU Council legal service believes that, for these reasons, the Commission’s proposal would be illegal – if it were in fact adopted.

While the CJEU today rejected those arguments at this stage of the process, this was simply because the final shape of the FTT has not yet been decided. It is entirely possible that the participating Member States might not agree on an FTT at all, or that they might agree on an FTT which does not contain such elements.

Even if they do agree to adopt the Commission’s proposal, the UK will be able to challenge that Directive when the time comes. Similarly, some of Spain’s detailed arguments against the legality of the unitary patent have been raised in a second legal challenge (still pending) which that country has brought against the legality of the EU measures implementing enhanced cooperation in this field.

Conclusion

If the UK had been successful today, it would have ended any prospect of an FTT for the time being. Its failure keeps the prospect of an FTT alive. But because the Court of Justice rightly did not rule on the merits of the UK’s case against the Commission proposal – simply because that proposal has not yet been adopted – the UK has only lost a minor skirmish, not the war.

The mere fact of bringing this legal challenge has made it clear to the participating Member States that the UK will vigorously defend its legal position, and may therefore have contributed to their difficulties in agreeing to the Commission proposal. And the government’s legal action, although unsuccessful, may yet play some role in ensuring that an FTT, if one is finally agreed, does not have an extraterritorial scope.

Without extraterritorial features, an FTT would of course not raise as much money. Then again, the UK could also reduce its budget deficit if it could (for instance) collect a toll from drivers on German motorways, or tax all the cheese bought in France. The absurdity of these scenarios shows why a future British legal challenge to the final FTT, if such a challenge is necessary, would have a much greater chance of success.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 5, chapter 14

Read More