Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat die schlussfolgerungen des Rates bezüglich der Nichteinleitung eines Haushaltsdefizitverfahrens gegen Frankreich und Deutschland aufgehoben. Im Urteil des Gerichtshofes hieß es, der Rat habe Verfahrensfehler begangen.
The ECJ has delivered its much awaited judgement on the controversial decision by the Council to effectively suspend an excessive deficit procedure against France and Germany. On the first count, the court ruling recognises the possibility of a de facto suspension of the rules because the Commission cannot bring an action for annulment of a decision as no decision was actually taken. But on the second count, it ruled in the Commission’s favour by saying that the procedure by which the conclusions were adopted was incorrect:
- Regulation 1467/97 sets out situations in which a decision to hold the process in abeyance could be taken – this was not one of those situations
- Voting rules for a decision to give notice to a country were used rather than voting rules for adopting a recommendation for a country to correct an excessive deficit
Positionen
In a statement, theCommissionwelcomed the ruling in that it "confirms the Commission’s view as to the respective roles of the Commission and the Council in the application of the Stability and Growth Pact making thereby budgetary policy coordination more transparent and more predictable in the future". Commission President Romano Prodi welcomed the ruling saying that "it confirms the central role of the Stability and Growth Pact regulations in the European budgetary surveillance process.”
TheCouncilwelcomed the clarification rendered on the interpretation of both the provisions of the Treaty on the excessive deficit procedure (Article 104) and the Stability and Growth Pact, clarifying the respective roles of the Commission and the Council. As regards the latter finance minister noted with satisfaction a passage of the ruling that read: "Responsibility for making the member states observe budgetary discipline lies essentially with the Council."
The Council however said it would closely examine the implications of the court’s decision for the application of the pact’s provisions and proposals for strengthening and clarifying the implementation of the pact as part of prospective discussions this Autumn. It also noted that "France and Germany have undertaken firm commitments to reduce the budget deficit as set out in the Conclusions of 25 November and have taken steps to implement those commitments; and expects them to remain fully engaged to fulfilling the commitments set out therein".
TheEPP-EDspokesperson on economic and monetary affairs, Austrian MEP Othmar Karas, was also upbeat about the judgement, commenting that "this trend-setting ruling clarifies, that the Council took too many liberties. The attempt to reduce Europe to the Council alone has collapsed today". He went on to say that "the Commission has demonstrated that they are not to be blackmailed. Now the Council cannot and must not go back to normal. They now have to make a decision compliant with the rule of law and the treaties of the European Union", concluded Karas.
ELDRleader Graham Watson said it was "a bad day for pact breakers". His interpretation was that "the European Court of Justice has clearly said that European Member States should not unilaterally depart from the rules that they make for themselves. By refusing to honour their own rules on the Stability Pact, finance ministers broke European law. We cannot have a Europe in which the rules count for the small but not the large. The price we risk paying when large Member States flout the rules is bigger bullies and weaker European law for all of us. The new European Commission must refashion a pact that is every bit as committed to fiscal discipline and controlled public spending but much less vulnerable to political abuse."
Hintergrund
In recent years France and Germany have persistently flouted the Stability and Growth Pact rule that says eurozone countries must keep their public deficits to a maximum of three per cent of their GDP. On 25 November 2003, the Council chose not to accept the Commission's recommendations, which would have taken the two countries a step further towards the ultimate sanction of fine as set out in the excessive deficit procedure.
The Commission requested a ruling by the European Court of Justice in which it sought:
- annulment of the Council's failure to adopt, despite the Commission's recommendations, decisions establishing that neither France nor Germany had taken adequate measures to reduce their deficits and decisions giving notice to each of those two Member States
- annulment of the conclusions adopted by the Council in so far as they contain decisions to hold in abeyance the excessive deficit procedures with regard to France and Germany and decisions modifying the recommendations
The European Court of Justice decided to use a fast track procedure to reach its judgement (seeDEURACTIV 16 February 2004).
Zeitstrahl
- A Commission proposal on economic governance is due out in autumn 2004
