审查不具约束力的法律行为(EBA准则):法律推理中的悖论-对欧洲联盟法院2021年7月15日判决的C-911/19号案件(FBF)的评论

Q2 Social Sciences
Christos A. Vasilopoulos
{"title":"审查不具约束力的法律行为(EBA准则):法律推理中的悖论-对欧洲联盟法院2021年7月15日判决的C-911/19号案件(FBF)的评论","authors":"Christos A. Vasilopoulos","doi":"10.54648/eulr2023024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a case that could be the reference judgment for “actes hors nomenclature”, such as guidelines, the Court has adopted a rather ambiguous reasoning. On the one hand, it states that the acts in question do not produce binding effects, which normally leads to the conclusion that there is no judicial review. On the other hand, the Court considers that even if it cannot exercise its control of legality in the context of a direct action, it can do so via the preliminary ruling on validity. The Court places recommendations and guidelines, which as such do not appear in Article 288, on the same level, and rereads its old Grimaldi case law. The judgment, despite its inconsistencies, is nevertheless of major interest. It highlights that the financial sector has been evolving since the sovereign debt crisis and that the case law still does not provide solutions to the specific problems raised. The evolution of financial law clearly calls for a reshaping of the case law instead of a permanent reference to the rules stemming from the case law process.\nEBA Guidelines, Article 288 TFEU, unclassified acts, AETR doctrine, Court review, Grimaldi case law, Article 74 of CRD/IV, technical criteria","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of Non-Binding Legal Acts (EBA Guidelines): Paradoxes in Legal Reasoning – Comments on Case C-911/19 Fédération Bancaire Française – (FBF), Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15 July 2021\",\"authors\":\"Christos A. Vasilopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eulr2023024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a case that could be the reference judgment for “actes hors nomenclature”, such as guidelines, the Court has adopted a rather ambiguous reasoning. On the one hand, it states that the acts in question do not produce binding effects, which normally leads to the conclusion that there is no judicial review. On the other hand, the Court considers that even if it cannot exercise its control of legality in the context of a direct action, it can do so via the preliminary ruling on validity. The Court places recommendations and guidelines, which as such do not appear in Article 288, on the same level, and rereads its old Grimaldi case law. The judgment, despite its inconsistencies, is nevertheless of major interest. It highlights that the financial sector has been evolving since the sovereign debt crisis and that the case law still does not provide solutions to the specific problems raised. The evolution of financial law clearly calls for a reshaping of the case law instead of a permanent reference to the rules stemming from the case law process.\\nEBA Guidelines, Article 288 TFEU, unclassified acts, AETR doctrine, Court review, Grimaldi case law, Article 74 of CRD/IV, technical criteria\",\"PeriodicalId\":53431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Business Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Business Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2023024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个可能成为“行为或命名法”(如准则)参考判决的案件中,法院采用了相当模糊的推理。一方面,它指出,有关行为不产生约束力,这通常导致没有司法审查的结论。另一方面,法院认为,即使它不能在直接诉讼中行使对合法性的控制,它也可以通过对有效性的初步裁决来行使。法院将第288条中没有出现的建议和指导方针放在同一水平上,并重新阅读了其旧的格里马尔迪判例法。尽管判决前后矛盾,但仍然引起了人们的极大兴趣。它强调,自主权债务危机以来,金融部门一直在发展,判例法仍然没有为提出的具体问题提供解决方案。金融法的演变显然要求重塑判例法,而不是永久引用判例法过程中产生的规则。EBA指南、TFEU第288条、非保密法案、AETR原则、法院审查、Grimaldi判例法、CRD/IV第74条、技术标准
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review of Non-Binding Legal Acts (EBA Guidelines): Paradoxes in Legal Reasoning – Comments on Case C-911/19 Fédération Bancaire Française – (FBF), Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15 July 2021
In a case that could be the reference judgment for “actes hors nomenclature”, such as guidelines, the Court has adopted a rather ambiguous reasoning. On the one hand, it states that the acts in question do not produce binding effects, which normally leads to the conclusion that there is no judicial review. On the other hand, the Court considers that even if it cannot exercise its control of legality in the context of a direct action, it can do so via the preliminary ruling on validity. The Court places recommendations and guidelines, which as such do not appear in Article 288, on the same level, and rereads its old Grimaldi case law. The judgment, despite its inconsistencies, is nevertheless of major interest. It highlights that the financial sector has been evolving since the sovereign debt crisis and that the case law still does not provide solutions to the specific problems raised. The evolution of financial law clearly calls for a reshaping of the case law instead of a permanent reference to the rules stemming from the case law process. EBA Guidelines, Article 288 TFEU, unclassified acts, AETR doctrine, Court review, Grimaldi case law, Article 74 of CRD/IV, technical criteria
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
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
×
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