Rechtszaak over Stabiliteitspact van start voor Europees Hof (en)

Met dank overgenomen van EUobserver (EUOBSERVER) i, gepubliceerd op woensdag 28 april 2004, 17:40.
Auteur: Richard Carter

EUOBSERVER / LUXEMBOURG - Legal teams from the European Commission and the Council of member states battled head-to-head at the European Court in Luxembourg today (28 April) in a bid to retain supremacy over EU economic policy.

The case relates to a specific instance, but the battle is really over who has control over EU member states' budgets - Brussels or individual national governments.

The specific instance in question occurred last November when member states (the Council) voted to suspend a disciplinary procedure initiated by Brussels against France and Germany for repeatedly breaking the rules underpinning the euro - the Stability and Growth Pact.

The Commission was infuriated by this decision and promptly referred the case to the European Court of Justice, resulting in today's hearing.

Court-room drama

The Court, with 14 judges, heard arguments from two legal spokesmen representing the two institutions.

These spokesmen were backed by teams of legal advisers, who scurried around the court, passing around hastily scribbled notes or frantically searching through vast legal tomes.

Each spokesman addressed the Court for approximately 30 minutes and then answered lengthy and detailed questions from the Law Lords.

The hearing, conducted entirely in French, lasted about two hours in total.

Every word counts

And although much attention was concentrated on detailed legal arguments over the treaty, the hearing seemed to turn on the interpretation of a single word - "may".

Representing the Commission, Michel Petite argued that the Council had a duty to implement Brussels' recommendations to continue with the disciplinary procedure against France and Germany.

Furthermore, argued Mr Petite, the Council broke procedural rules by issuing a political statement rather than a legally binding document.

Although this political statement in effect suspended the disciplinary procedure, it was "throwing some of the elements of the Stability and Growth Pact into confusion", argued the Commission.

Due to this confusion, concluded Mr Petite, the budgetary situation in the EU is "indeterminable and precarious" and relied totally on the goodwill of Paris and Berlin, rather than on strict laws.

But Jean-Claude Piris, representing the Council, replied that it was up to member states to decide whether to implement Commission recommendations.

He pointed to an article in the Treaty which stipulates that the Council "may" adopt the Commission's recommendations and argued that member states are permitted to disregard what Brussels says.

Member states are at the heart of this process, stated Mr Piris, and the Council has no political duty to "rubber stamp" the decisions of the Commission in this instance.

The Council should use its discretion in such cases, concluded the spokesman, and this is what they had done by ruling the Commission's recommendations "inappropriate".

Shadowy proceedings

The judges will now deliberate on the case and are expected to give their decision in early summer.

The Advocate-General will give his opinion to the judges, who then come to a decision "on the basis of compromise and consensus", according to one Court official.

If there is disagreement between the Law Lords, a vote may be taken and a simple majority will decide the outcome.

However, the process is veiled in secrecy and no-one is clear as to exactly how it works.

"No-one knows because no-one has ever been in there except the judges and they don't say", said one source close to the Court.


Tip. Klik hier om u te abonneren op de RSS-feed van EUobserver