The EU General Court reminds the European Central Bank of the

Avril 2015
Economie
AGEFI Luxembourg 15
The EU General Court reminds the European
Central Bank of the scope of its powers
O
n 4 March 2015, the EU
General Court rendered its
judgment in a case
brought by the United
Kingdom against a passage of
the European Central Bank’s
Eurosystem Oversight Policy
Framework published in 2011(1).
Specifically, the UK contested
the statement in the Policy
Framework that central counterparty clearing houses (CCPs) settling euro-denominated security
transactions should be legally
incorporated, and have their
managerial and operational control over all
core functions, in the
Eurozone.
In the Policy Framework, the
ECB explained that CCPs settling euro-denominated transactions
can be liable to have adverse effects on
the stability of the financial system as they are
the focal point of credit and liquidity risk.
Accordingly, the ECB stated that CCPs with a
significant credit exposure in one of the main
euro-denominated product categories should be
located in the Eurozone so that their infrastructure could be overseen by the ECB and the national
central banks of the Eurozone Member States.
The UK appealed this statement on location
contained in the Policy Framework in so far as it
excluded CCPs established in Member States not
party to the Eurosystem. It argued that the ECB
lacked the competence to lay down a location
requirement and that such a policy infringed,
inter alia, the provisions of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU (TFEU) relating to the freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, free movement of capital as well as the principle of non-discrimination.
The General Court, first of all, upheld the admissibility of the UK’s appeal. The European Central
Bank (ECB) had contended that the Policy
Framework was not an act which could be challenged in front of the EU General Court. The latter rejected this argument, however, by stating
that, like the acts of other EU institutions or
bodies, acts of the ECB having a legal effect on
third parties are subject to judicial review, irrespective of their form.
In the case at hand, the General Court concluded
that the Policy Framework imposed legal effects
on third parties. In reaching this conclusion, it
emphasised that the Policy Framework was
expressed in clear and specific terms and would
be liable to be considered by third parties as
laying down a requirement. Even if the location
statement in the Policy Framework did not have
the effect of obliging CCPs situated outside the
Eurozone to cease their activity or transfer it to
within that geographic area, the
General Court highlighted that the
statement would likely be applied
by the national regulatory authorities of the Eurozone, who are
able to control the actions of the
CCPs. This was particularly the
case given that the location statement appeared to constitute
the ECB’s definitive position on
the matters concerned and had
the intention of ensuring compliance.
The reasoning of the General Court
classifying the Policy Framework as a
challengeable act is significant for the ECB as the
latter has placed
strong emphasis on
moral persuasion
and acts of ‘soft law’
in the past. Following
this judgment, it cannot be ruled out that
more acts of the ECB will
be challenged before the
European Courts in the future on the basis of
these acts having legal effect on third parties. The
ECB will therefore need to be aware of this when it
adopts further decisions or policy statements.
Second, the General Court judged that the ECB
lacked the power to regulate the activity of securities clearing systems as envisaged by the Policy
Framework.
The ECB had argued in the case that its oversight
of payment, clearing and settlement systems fell
within the objective assigned to it under Article
127(1) TFEU of maintaining price stability and
supporting the general economic policies of the
EU. Moreover, Article 127(2) TFEU stipulates that
the ECB must “promote the smooth operation of
payment systems” whilst Article 22 of the Statute
of the European System of Central Banks and of
the ECB (the Statute) permits the ECB to “make
regulations, to ensure efficient and sound clearing and payment systems” in the EU. The ECB
inferred from these provisions that it could adopt
a location statement on CCPs, who it judged as
playing an important role in the smooth operation of payment systems, without recourse to
express EU Council authorisation.
In this regard, the General Court noted that the
ECB is bestowed supervisory powers as regards
“payment” systems under Article 127(2) TFEU.
Similarly, Article 22 of the Statute provides that
the ECB can adopt regulations in respect of “clearing and payment systems”. The General Court
highlighted that the definition of ‘payment’ systems in EU legislation and the case law of the EU
courts did not include securities clearing systems,
whilst the terms of Article 22 of the Statute clearly referred to payment systems which may also
include a clearing stage rather than all clearing
systems. In the absence of explicit reference to
securities clearing systems or all clearing systems
in the relevant legislation, the General Court
found that the ECB could not therefore adopt
measures relating to the securities clearing systems like it had done in the Policy Framework.
The General Court thereby rejected the ECB’s
argument that the Policy Framework fell within
the objective of the ECB to maintain price stability under Article 127(1) TFEU or was connected to
the aforementioned tasks assigned to it under
Article 127(2) TFEU and Article 22 of the Statute.
Whereas the TFEU confers express powers upon
the ECB, as described in Article 127(2) TFEU and
Article 22 of the Statute, the General Court pointed out that it was notable in this respect that these
powers did not include securities clearing systems and that the EU Parliament and Council had
not ratified an amendment of the Statute, as permitted under Article 129(3) TFEU, broadening the
scope of the ECB’s supervisory powers to include
securities clearing systems.
The General Court also judged that the ECB did
not have implicit powers to regulate securities
clearing systems either as such supervision was
not necessary to ensure the practical effect of the
provisions of the TFEU for which it had responsibility, which included the oversight of payments
systems, despite the link between payment systems and securities clearing systems.
To understand the General Court’s judgment, it
should be borne in mind that, in the EU legal
order, the ECB is not a legislator. Unlike EU institutions such as the Parliamant, Commission and
Council, the ECB cannot adopt regulations or
directives affecting the whole of the EU. Rather, it
is an institution assigned with operational responsibilities for monetary policy and, since 3
November 2014, prudential supervision in those
EU Member States which are part of the
Eurozone.
To fulfill these responsibilities, the ECB is equipped with limited and defined powers to adopt
binding acts of general scope, such as orientations, guidelines, instructions and even regulations. It results clearly from the judgment of the
General Court that the ECB’s regulatory powers
are limited to the supervisory tasks expressly
conferred to it by the EU legislature.
Moreover, it is quite rare in the EU legal order
that an EU institution is entitled to adopt acts
directly binding upon individuals and economic
operators, especially acts of general scope like the
Policy Framework at hand. That kind of power
cannot be assumed in the absence of an explicit
legal basis stemming from EU legislation.
This judgment should therefore act as a reminder
to the ECB that it must confine its actions to those
explicit supervisory areas and that the way the
ECB has perceived its powers and contemplated
exercising them in the past may therefore be
excessively broad. There is now an increased risk
that certain ECB actions may be challenged before the EU Courts by third parties who feel that the
ECB has gone beyond its remit. The UK is at the
forefront of these challenges having also appealed
the legality of the ECB’s Statement of Standards
published in 2011, Guidelines of 2012 on a transEuropean automated real-time gross settlement
express transfer system (TARGET2) and Decision
TARGET2-ECB published in 2012 in so far as they
also set out a location policy for CCPs. These
cases, which are pending judgment, contain similar grounds to those presented in the case concerning the Policy Framework by arguing that the
ECB has gone beyond the scope of its powers as
well as imposing a location policy which infringes
certain provisions of EU law.(2)
However, in the judgment of 4 March 2015,
having partially annulled the Policy Framework
by concluding that the ECB did not have the
power to regulate the activity of the system of
clearing and settlement, the General Court avoided addressing the issue raised by the UK of whether or not the location statement infringed the
freedom of circulation (both as regards the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment) within the EU.
In this regard, it is submitted that, since the ECB
is in charge of policies within only a part of the
EU, there is an objective risk that, in the fulfillment
of its duties, it does not sufficiently take into
account the legitimate interests of the EU Member
States which are not part of the Eurozone and of
their economic operators who nonetheless provide services in the Eurozone. Indeed, Article 1 of
the 2013 Regulation on the Single Supervisory
Mechanism even makes explicit reference to the
fact that the ECB must not discriminate between
EU Member States by stating that “no action, proposal or policy of the ECB shall, directly or indirectly, discriminate against any Member State or
group of Member States as a venue for the provision of banking or financial services in any currency”(3).
The ECB must therefore be careful to maintain
the level playing field within, and respect the integrity of, the internal market. It cannot be excluded
that the ECB will one day be considered as having
infringed the freedom of circulation by restricting
the freedom of operators in an unjustified or disproportionate manner.
Philippe-Emmanuel PARTSCH (picture)
EU Financial and Competition Law Partner, Arendt & Medernach
Professor of EU Banking and Financial Law, University of Liège
[email protected]
Thomas EVANS
Associate, EU Financial and Competition Law, Arendt &
Medernach
[email protected]
1) Judgment of 4 March 2015, T-496/11 United Kingdom v European
Central Bank. For commentary on the recent case law of the EU courts,
please visit our blog at http://eucaselaw.com/ .
2) See T-45/12 United Kingdom v European Central Bank regarding
the ECB’s 2011 Statement of Standards and T-93/13 United Kingdom
v European Central Bank regarding the 2012 TARGET2 Decision
ECB/2012/31 and Guidelines ECB/2012/27.
3) Council Regulation N° 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring
specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (JO L 287, pp.
63-89).
Les principaux instruments de cofinancement
publics en faveur des PME luxembourgeoises
e 1er avril dernier, la Chambre de
Commerce du Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg, en étroite collaboration avec le Ministère de l’Economie,
l’Office du Ducroire et la SNCI, a organisé le séminaire «Les principaux instruments de cofinancement publics en
faveur des PME luxembourgeoises».
cherchent de l’aide dans l’accomplissement des
procédures administratives auxquelles ils sont
confrontés lors de la création et du développement de leur projet ou entreprise. Marie-Paule
Grün, membre de la Direction Générale PME et
Entreprenariat du Ministère de l’Economie, a de
son côté présenté les différentes aides directes du
Ministère de l’Economie en faveur
des PME luxembourgeoises.
L’objectif de ce séminaire était de présenter aux
PME luxembourgeoises les principaux instruments publics qui sont à leur disposition pour cofinancer leurs projets d’investissement, d’innovation et d’internationalisation. Lors de son mot de
bienvenue, Carlo Thelen, Directeur Général de la
Chambre de Commerce, a souligné l’importance
pour les porteurs de projets et les PME de trouver
les fonds nécessaires pour lancer et développer
leurs activités.
Il existe 5 régimes d’aides de l’Etat,
à savoir le régime général d’aides à
l’investissement, le régime d’aides
aux créateurs ou aux repreneurs
d’entreprises, le régime d’aide
«sécurité alimentaire», le régime
d’aide aux projets de recherchedéveloppement ainsi que le régime d’aide à l’innovation de
procédé et d’organisation dans les
services.
L
Les fonds propres étant rarement suffisants, le
recours à des solutions de financement externes
s’avèrent nécessaires pour la grande majorité des
PME. Dans ce cadre, de nombreux instruments
de soutiens financiers ont été développés en
faveur des PME luxembourgeoises par les acteurs
publics, afin de leur permettre un accès plus facile aux fonds nécessaires à leur développement.
En clôturant son intervention, Monsieur Thelen a
rappelé le rôle majeur de L’Espace Entreprises, qui
est le guichet unique à l’attention de tous ceux qui
et long terme, le financement à l’étranger ou encore la facilité «Université de Luxembourg et CRP».
Ensuite, ont été présentés de manière détaillée les
nouveaux instruments lancés récemment, à
savoir le prêt indirect développement, le prêt
direct recherche, développement et innovation
ainsi que le prêt entreprises novatrices.
L’économie luxembourgeoise étant de taille réduite, il est indéniable que les sociétés
luxembourgeoises ne peuvent se
limiter au marché domestique. Se
lancer sur des marchés plus éloignés, qu’elles connaissent moins
bien comporte cependant des
risques et des coûts considérables.
Dans ce cadre, des solutions d’assurance-crédit ont été développées afin de protéger les exportateurs contre les risques commerciaux et politiques.
Outre les solutions d’assurancecrédit, l’Office du Ducroire gère
également les aides financières
liées aux activités à l’export, tels
que les frais de promotion, d'exposition ou de formation à l'exportation.
Ces différents régimes sont évidemment soumis à des critères d’éligibilité définis par le Ministère en
conformité avec la réglementation
de l’Union européenne.
La SNCI, représentée par son sousdirecteur PME et membre du
Comité de Direction, Marco
Goeler, a passé en revue les instruments classiques de la SNCI tels que le crédit d’équipement,
le prêt de création-transmission, le prêt à moyen
La dernière oratrice de ce séminaire, Simone
Joachim, Secrétaire générale de l’Office du
Ducroire, a mis en avant les produits et services en
faveur des PME luxembourgeoises dans le cadre
de leur développement à l’échelle internationale.
De gauche à droite : Marie-Paule Grün, membre de la Direction
Générale PME et Entreprenariat du Ministère de l’Economie, Marco
Goeler, sous-directeur PME et membre du Comité de Direction, Simone
Joachim, Secrétaire générale de l’Office du Ducroire
Le séminaire s’est clôturé par une
séance de questions/réponses très
animée, durant laquelle les quelques 120 représentants de PME ont eu l’occasion de poser leurs
questions aux différents orateurs.