The Euro Group and judicial protection: Has the Court of Justice created a loophole?
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X211048602 |
| Author | Phedon Nicolaides |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Debate |
The Euro Group and judicial
protection: Has the Court of
Justice created a loophole?
Phedon Nicolaides
Abstract
The Court of Justice made legal history in Ledra Advertising when it found that the EU could
incur non-contractual liability even for acts that formally fell within the intergovernmental
sphere. In Chrysostomides, however, by ruling that the Euro Group is not an EU ‘institution’,
the Court has made it largely impossible for individuals to obtain judicial protection. The
decisions of the Council that give effect to agreements in the Euro Group can be drafted in
innocuous and general language, minimizing or even expunging any liability. The powers of
the Commission to act against such agreements in the Euro Group are also unclear and
probably non-existent.
Keywords
Euro Group, article 340 TFEU, non-contractual liability, judicial protection
Introduction
On 16 December 2020, the Court of Justice ruled in a landmark judgment that the Euro Group was
not an EU institution or an entity established by the Treaties. Consequently, the Euro Group could
not be held liable under Article 340(2) TFEU.
If the Euro Group is not liable, the question that arises immediately is how individuals can avail
themselves of judicial protection from actions of the Euro Group. The Court of Justice has provided
an answer to this question. Individuals who are harmed can seek redress via the liability of the
Council, when it gives effect to agreements struck in the Euro Group, or the Commission, if it
fails to prevent agreements that may violate EU law.
University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Phedon Nicolaides, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands
Email: phedon.nicolaides@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Legal Debate
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2021, Vol. 28(6) 919–930
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X211048602
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial