Following this, the Federal Constitutional Court conducted an oral hearing in Karlsruhe on 30 and 31 July 2019 (cf.

In its Judgment of 11 December 2018, the CJEU held that the PSPP neither exceeded the ECB’s mandate nor violated the prohibition of monetary financing. In particular, these concerned the prohibition of monetary financing of Member State budgets, the monetary policy mandate of the ECB, and a potential encroachment upon the Members States’ competences and sovereignty in budget matters. In its Order of 18 July 2017, the Second Senate referred several questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. 123 TFEU) and the principle of conferral (Art. With their constitutional complaints, the complainants claim that the PSPP violates the prohibition of monetary financing (Art. As of 8 November 2019, the total value of the securities purchased under the EAPP by the Eurosystem amounted to EUR 2,557,800 million, including purchases under the PSPP in the amount of EUR 2,088,100 million. The PSPP accounts for the largest share of the EAPP’s total volume. Under the PSPP, the Eurosystem central banks – subject to the framework set out in detail in the ECB decisions – purchase government bonds or other marketable debt securities issued by central governments of euro area Member States, by ‘recognised agencies’ and international organisations or by multilateral development banks located in the euro area. The ECB launched the PSPP with its decision of 4 March 2015, which was later amended by five subsequent decisions. As set out in the reasoning communicated by the ECB, the EAPP is meant to increase money supply and intended to support consumption and investment spending in the euro area and ultimately contribute to achieving an inflation target of levels below, but close to, 2%. The PSPP is part of the Expanded Asset Purchase Programme (EAPP), a framework programme of the Eurosystem for the purchase of assets on financial markets. The decision published today does not concern any financial assistance measures taken by the European Union or the ECB in the context of the current coronavirus crisis.

123 TFEU, the Federal Constitutional Court did not find a violation of the prohibition of monetary financing of Member State budgets. As regards the complainants’ challenge that the PSPP effectively circumvents Art.

The review undertaken by the CJEU with regard to whether the ECB’s decisions on the PSPP satisfy the principle of proportionality is not comprehensible ( nachvollziehbar) to this extent, the judgment was thus rendered ultra vires. In its Judgment of 11 December 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has taken a different stance in response to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Federal Constitutional Court however, this does not merit a different conclusion in the present proceedings. 79(3) of the Basic Law ( Grundgesetz – GG) by failing to take steps challenging that the ECB, in its decisions on the adoption and implementation of the PSPP, neither assessed nor substantiated that the measures provided for in these decisions satisfy the principle of proportionality. 38(1) first sentence in conjunction with Art. 20(1) and (2), and Art. The Court found that the Federal Government and the German Bundestag violated the complainants’ rights under Art. In its judgment pronounced today, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court granted several constitutional complaints directed against the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB). ECB decisions on the Public Sector Purchase Programme exceed EU competences

Nota fiscal em ingles