Abstract
European integration has been strongly influenced by the case law of the European Union (EU) Court of Justice, not by chance considered the “Master of Community Law”. New fields of EU law, such as banking union law, are confirming the role of European judges as the architects of Union law. Despite the number of regulations provided for the banking union, unparalleled in any other area of the law, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and of the General Court has resulted decisive for grounding the new European Banking Union (EBU) and giving it internal coherency and consistency within the institutional EU system. The economic relevance of the EBU litigation indicates that European judges will maintain a crucial role in the future as well for guaranteeing both the general interests of the Union and the rights of the interested parties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Those measures have been taken mostly on the legal basis of the internal market rules provided by the TFEU. A large part of the EBU measures find their legal basis in the economic and monetary union and regard only the Eurozone States.
- 2.
Beyond the regulations on the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), quoted at notes 6 and 7, inter alia: Regulation n. 1092/2010, on European Union Macro-Prudential Oversight on the Financial System and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board Directive 2013/36 on Access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms.
- 3.
That is, the ECB Regulation n. 468/2014 of 16.4.2014, establishing the SSM Framework Regulation, and the ECB Regulation 2015/534 of 17.3.2015 on reporting of supervisory financial information.
- 4.
That is, the decision 2011/199 which amended Article 136 of the TFEU.
- 5.
That is, the ECB decision of 17.9.2014 on the separation between the monetary policy and supervision functions of the ECB.
- 6.
That is, the Inter-institutional Agreement between the European Parliament and the ECB on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability and oversight over the exercise of the tasks conferred on the ECB within the SSM.
- 7.
Council Regulation (EU) n. 1024/2013 of 15.10.2013, conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions. The SSM has been effective since 4.11.2013.
- 8.
Regulation n. 806/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15.7.2014, establishing uniform rules and uniform procedures for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of an SRM and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation n. 1093/2010. The SRM has been effective since 1.1.2016.
- 9.
See, among others, the Capital Requirement Regulation (CRR) and the Capital Requirement Directive (CRD).
- 10.
The Directive 2014/49 of 16.4.2014 on harmonization of national deposit rules is just a first step toward a real “third Pillar” of the EBU.
- 11.
For example, the Board of Appeals of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.
- 12.
Joint Board of Appeals for the three Agencies.
- 13.
See the High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU, February 2009.
- 14.
Toward a Genuine Economic Monetary Union, 2012.
- 15.
Regulation n. 1094/2010 of 24.11.2010.
- 16.
Regulation n. 1093/2010 of 24.11.2010.
- 17.
Case 9/56.
- 18.
Case 98/80.
- 19.
Article 298.1: “In carrying out their mission the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration”.
- 20.
The United Kingdom did not adequately consider the prior case law, such as ENISA (C-287/2014), on the scope of Article 114 of the TFEU.
- 21.
The Consiglio di Stato also asked the ECJ whether the answer to that question is different where it is a peculiar national procedure (“giudizio di ottemperanza”) that is brought before the national court. However, this second question is not connected to the issues here examined.
- 22.
According to the opinion of Advocate General Hogan, delivered on 5.12.2018, the appeal should be dismissed.
- 23.
Confirmed in the Arkea case (T-212/15).
- 24.
Joint cases T-133/16 to 136/16.
References
Brescia Morra C., Smits R., Magliari A. (2017), The Administrative Board of Review of the European Central Bank: Experience After 2 Years, Eur. Bus. Org. Law Rev., 567–589
Cassese S., The new framework of administrative arrangements for the protection of individual rights, ECB Legal Conference 2017, 239–254
Chiti E., Recine F. (2018), The Single Supervisory Mechanism in Action: Institutional Adjustment and the Reinforcement of the ECB Position, Eur. Public Law, 101–125
Chiti E., Vesperini G. (eds) (2015), The Administrative Architecture of Financial Integration. Institutional Design, Legal Issues, Perspectives, Il Mulino
Chiti M.P. (2014), The transition from banking supervision to banking resolution. Players, competences, guarantees, Towards the European Banking Union, E. Barucci, M. Messori (eds.), 89–98
Chiti M.P. (2016), The New European Economic Governance and the Banking Union, European Review of Public Law, 189–204
De Lucia L. (2014), The microphysics of European administrative law: administrative remedies in the EU after Lisbon, Eur. Public Law, 277–307
De Witte B., Beukers T. (2013), The Court of Justice approves the creation of the ESM outside the EU legal order: Pringle, Common Market Law Review, 805–848
ECB Legal Conference 2017 (2018), Shaping a new legal order for Europe: a tale of crises and opportunities, ECB
Fabbrini F. (2016), The European Court of Justice, the ECB and the Supremacy of EU Law, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 3–16
Judicial review in the Banking Union and in the EU financial architecture (2018), Quaderni Giuridici della Banca d’Italia
Kokott J., Sobotta C., Judicial review and institutional balance with regard to European monetary policy, ECB Legal Conference 2017, 104–110
Lehman M., Varying standards of judicial scrutiny over central banks actions, ECB Legal Conference 2017, 112–131
Lo Schiavo G. (2017), The Role of Financial Stability in EU Law and Policy, Wolters Kluwer
Repasi A. (2017), Judicial protection against austerity measures in the euro area, Common Market Law Review, 1123–1156
Tridimas T., Xanthoulis N. (2016), A legal analysis of the Gauweiler Case, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 17–39
Zilioli C. (2016), The ECB’s Powers and Institutional Role in the Financial Crisis, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 171–184
Zilioli C., Justiciability of central banks decisions and the imperative to respect fundamental rights, ECB Legal Conference 2017, 91–102
Zilioli C. (2018), La Corte, giudice costituzionale delle competenze attribuite alle istituzioni dell’Unione: il caso della Banca centrale europea, Liber Amicorum in Honour of Antonio Tizzano, Giappichelli, 1051–1065
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chiti, M.P. (2019). The European Banking Union in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: Chiti, M.P., Santoro, V. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of European Banking Union Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13475-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13475-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13474-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13475-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)