欧洲银行监管背景下撤销决定的司法审查

B. Budinská
{"title":"欧洲银行监管背景下撤销决定的司法审查","authors":"B. Budinská","doi":"10.7590/187479819x15656877527241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), a system centralising banking supervision in Europe, is comprised of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national competent authorities (NCAs). The paper focuses on a new phenomenon occurring within the SSM, the so-called Top-Down revocations\n which might require the Court of Justice (Court), while reviewing a decision of the ECB, to also incidentally review a decision of an NCA. The paper first shows that such an incidental review creates a tension between, on the one hand, the principle of legality, thus the Court's obligation\n to review EU acts and, on the other hand, the principle of EU law autonomy which prohibits situations where EU law depends in its interpretation, validity or application on national law. Second, the paper analyses Court's case law on 'derivative illegality' and argues that the Court's approach\n adopted there can be carefully applied to Top-Down revocations. Finally, it argues that the Court can review such revocation decisions in three situations: (1) when the review of the revocation decision suffices to determine the unlawfulness of the national measure; and when the lawfulness\n of the national act can be assessed in the light of (2) EU procedural law; and (3) EU substantive law.","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial review of revocation decisions in the context of European banking supervision\",\"authors\":\"B. Budinská\",\"doi\":\"10.7590/187479819x15656877527241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), a system centralising banking supervision in Europe, is comprised of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national competent authorities (NCAs). The paper focuses on a new phenomenon occurring within the SSM, the so-called Top-Down revocations\\n which might require the Court of Justice (Court), while reviewing a decision of the ECB, to also incidentally review a decision of an NCA. The paper first shows that such an incidental review creates a tension between, on the one hand, the principle of legality, thus the Court's obligation\\n to review EU acts and, on the other hand, the principle of EU law autonomy which prohibits situations where EU law depends in its interpretation, validity or application on national law. Second, the paper analyses Court's case law on 'derivative illegality' and argues that the Court's approach\\n adopted there can be carefully applied to Top-Down revocations. Finally, it argues that the Court can review such revocation decisions in three situations: (1) when the review of the revocation decision suffices to determine the unlawfulness of the national measure; and when the lawfulness\\n of the national act can be assessed in the light of (2) EU procedural law; and (3) EU substantive law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":294114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of European Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of European Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819x15656877527241\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of European Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819x15656877527241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

单一监管机制(SSM)是一个集中监管欧洲银行的系统,由欧洲中央银行(ECB)和国家主管当局(NCAs)组成。本文关注的是SSM内部出现的一种新现象,即所谓的自上而下的撤销,这可能需要法院(Court)在审查欧洲央行的决定时,顺便审查NCA的决定。本文首先表明,这种附带审查在合法性原则(即法院审查欧盟行为的义务)和欧盟法律自治原则(禁止欧盟法律在其解释、有效性或适用上依赖于国内法的情况)之间造成了紧张关系。其次,本文分析了法院关于“衍生性非法”的判例法,并认为法院在那里采用的方法可以谨慎地适用于自上而下的撤销。最后,它认为法院可以在三种情况下审查这种撤销决定:(1)对撤销决定的审查足以确定国家措施的非法性;以及何时可以根据(2)欧盟程序法来评估国家行为的合法性;(3)欧盟实体法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judicial review of revocation decisions in the context of European banking supervision
The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), a system centralising banking supervision in Europe, is comprised of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national competent authorities (NCAs). The paper focuses on a new phenomenon occurring within the SSM, the so-called Top-Down revocations which might require the Court of Justice (Court), while reviewing a decision of the ECB, to also incidentally review a decision of an NCA. The paper first shows that such an incidental review creates a tension between, on the one hand, the principle of legality, thus the Court's obligation to review EU acts and, on the other hand, the principle of EU law autonomy which prohibits situations where EU law depends in its interpretation, validity or application on national law. Second, the paper analyses Court's case law on 'derivative illegality' and argues that the Court's approach adopted there can be carefully applied to Top-Down revocations. Finally, it argues that the Court can review such revocation decisions in three situations: (1) when the review of the revocation decision suffices to determine the unlawfulness of the national measure; and when the lawfulness of the national act can be assessed in the light of (2) EU procedural law; and (3) EU substantive law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信