{"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}
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
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.