Commission fights German court challenge

Germany's oldest court overturned a 2018 judgment of the European Court of Justice that had already approved ECB purchases, saying the court exceeded its powers when signing the bank measurements.

This unprecedented decision raised fundamental questions about the independence of the ECB and the supremacy of EU law in the bloc.

On Sunday (May 10), von der Leyen stressed that EU monetary policy is an exclusive competence, that EU law takes precedence over national law and that ECJ decisions are binding on all courts. nationals.

Von der Leyen said the commission is studying the next possible steps, including the option of infringement procedures, the names of EU probes in case a member state breaks common rules.

Pressure is put on the commission to act. But there are limits to what an infringement procedure can do legally, making the decision more and more political.

In the framework of infringement procedures, the committee, through dialogue, calls on the Member States to remedy a breach of EU law and, if this fails, the executive of the EU brings the Member State to the ECJ. It can take years.

However, an infringement procedure in itself would not override the decision of the German Constitutional Court and would also risk raising questions about compliance by the Committee on Judicial Independence.

It would also place the German government, which has no control over the court or its central bank, in a difficult situation.

Although proceedings are underway against "behavior of a member state", as expressed by an EU official, it should be the German government that defends Karlsruhe's decision before the ECJ .

However, being tough on Germany could increase the perception of independence of the head of the German commission, a former ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But if there are risks to such a legal action by the commission, doing nothing is also a gamble.

"This case goes to the very heart, at the very foundation of the EU," said an EU official about the German court's decision.

"The EU is based on law, on the voluntary agreement of member states," said the official.

The official added that for the EU to work and EU law to apply everywhere in the same way, there must be a common interpretation of the common rules, which only the ECJ can provide.

"The ECJ is the last judge, and it is compulsory for all judges in Europe," said the official, adding that EU law has taken precedence over national law since a case in 1964.

Not the "United States"

Meanwhile, some Europeans disagree that the EU Superior Court should have the final say and that the EU institutions have gone too far.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that the Karlsruhe judgment was "one of the most important" in the history of the EU and that "the ECJ doesn & # 39; Has no unlimited powers ".

Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga told the Magyar Nemzet newspaper that the position of the Budapest government is that countries and their constitutional courts have the last word, if the competences of the EU and the Member States are collide.

"The decision of the German Constitutional Court confirmed the opinion that the European Union is not equal to the European United States in this regard."

However, Hungary and Poland have been caught in various legal and political battles with the EU for years to break EU rules.

"The union is based on the uniform interpretation and application of the right to organize, otherwise we do not have a union," said the EU official bluntly.

Merkel: "Soluble"

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has tried to ease tensions between her country's highest court and the commission by telling her party members on Monday May 11 that the problem is "solvable".

She said a crash could be avoided if the ECB demonstrates the need for its bond buying program.

Detlef Seif, EU deputy spokesman for Merkel's conservative parliamentary bloc in the Bundestag, was quoted by Reuters as saying that the Karlsruhe court had not questioned the primacy of the highest EU jurisdiction in its decision.