Advertisement

In Capital We Trust: The Eurozone: A Congeries of Material Norms Without a Constitution?

  • Agustín José MenéndezEmail author
Chapter
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter reconstructs the content of the key norms and practices constituting and disciplining public power in the Eurozone. On the one hand, the fundamental substantive norms uphold the primacy of private property, entrepreneurial freedom and sound money. On the other hand, a series of procedural norms fragment, enervate and pulverise the power held by representative institutions and decision-making processes, and result in the selective empowerment of collectives of executives, central banks and key actors in the financial sector. The abstract and concrete weight assigned to economic freedoms, the multiplication of decision-making procedures alternative to representative decision-making, and the entrenchment of structural biases in favour of private property and entrepreneurial freedom have largely “taken the risk out of democracy” by fragmenting, enervating and pulverising public power.

Keywords

Constitutional law European law Capitalism Economic freedoms 

References

  1. Basso, L. (1958). Il principe senza scettro. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  2. Carswell, S. (2010, September 25). The big gamble: The inside story of the bank guarantee. Irish Times. Available at http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0925/1224279646952_pf.html
  3. Court of First Instance. (2000). Ruling in case T-296/97, Alitalia, ECLI:EU:T:2000:289.Google Scholar
  4. D’Albergo, S. (1991). Costituzione e organizzazione del potere nell'ordinamento italiano. Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  5. Desan, C. (2014). Making money. Coin, currency and the coming of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Economist, The. (2008, October 4). On life support. The Economist. Available at http://www.economist.com/node/12342156?story_id=12342156
  7. Eriksen, E. O. (2009). The unfinished democratization of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission. (1979). Communication from the Commission concerning the consequences of the judgment given by the Court of Justice on 20 February 1979 in Case 120/78 (“Cassis de Dijon”). OJ C 256 of 3.10.1980, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2002, February 28). Germany agrees on the implementation of the understanding with the Commission on State guarantees for Landesbanken and Savings Banks. Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-02-343_en.htm?locale=en
  10. European Council. (2009). Conclusions of the Presidency. European Council, 15 and 16 October 2008, par. 5. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/103441.pdf.
  11. European Court of Justice. (1966). Ruling in joined cases 56 and 58/64, Consten Grundig, ECLI:EU:C:1966:41.Google Scholar
  12. European Court of Justice. (1973). Ruling in case 6/72 Continental Can, ECLI:EU:C:1973:22.Google Scholar
  13. European Court of Justice. (1979a). Ruling in case 120/78, Cassis de Dijon, ECLI:EU:C:1979:42.Google Scholar
  14. European Court of Justice. (1979b). Ruling in case 85/76, Hoffmann, ECLI:EU:C:1979:36.Google Scholar
  15. European Court of Justice. (1983). Ruling in case 322/81, Michelin, ECLI:EU:C:1983:313.Google Scholar
  16. European Court of Justice. (1985). Ruling in joined cases 25 and 26/84, Ford vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1985:340.Google Scholar
  17. European Court of Justice. (1991a). Ruling in case C-76/90, Säger, ECLI:EU:C:1991:331.Google Scholar
  18. European Court of Justice. (1991b). Ruling in case 18/88, Régie des télégraphes et des téléphones, ECLI:EU:C:1991:474.Google Scholar
  19. European Court of Justice. (1991c). Ruling in case C-41/90, Höfner, ECLI:EU:C:1991:161.Google Scholar
  20. European Court of Justice. (1995a). Ruling in case C-55/94 Gebhard, ECLI:EU:C:1995:411.Google Scholar
  21. European Court of Justice. (1995b). Ruling in case C-415/93 Bosman, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463.Google Scholar
  22. European Court of Justice. (1995c). Ruling in case C-163/94, Sanz de Lera, ECLI:EU:C:1995:451.Google Scholar
  23. European Court of Justice. (2002a). Ruling in case C-367/98, Golden Shares, ECLI:EU:C:2002:326.Google Scholar
  24. European Court of Justice. (2002b). Ruling in case C-218/00, Inail, ECLI:EU:C:2002:36.Google Scholar
  25. European Court of Justice. (2012). Ruling in case C-370/12, Pringle, ECLI:EU:C:2012:756, par. 135.Google Scholar
  26. European Court of Justice. (2013). Ruling in joined cases C-399 and 401/10, Bouygues, ECLI:EU:C:2013:175.Google Scholar
  27. European Court of Justice. (2014a). Conclusions of AG Cruz in case Case 62/14 (OMT), ECLI:EU:C:2015:7.Google Scholar
  28. European Court of Justice. (2014b). Ruling in case C-33/13, Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358.Google Scholar
  29. European Court of Justice. (2015). Ruling in case C-67/14, Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:59.Google Scholar
  30. European Court of Justice. (2017). Conclusionsof AG Wathelet in case C-284/16, Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2017:699.Google Scholar
  31. European Court of Justice. (2018). Ruling in case C-284/16, Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.Google Scholar
  32. European Court of Justice. (2019a). Conclusions of AG Bot in case Opinion 1/17, on CETA, ECLI:EU:C:2019:72.Google Scholar
  33. European Court of Justice. (2019b). Opinion 1/17 on CETA, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341.Google Scholar
  34. European Union. (2016). Five Presidents’ Report. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf
  35. German Constitutional Court. (1994). Ruling in Brunning. Available at http://www.proyectos.cchs.csic.es/euroconstitution/library/Brunner_Sentence.pdf
  36. Grimm, D. (2017). The constitution of European democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hovenkamp, H. (2006). The antitrust enterprise: Principle and execution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lassalle, F. (1931). ¿Qué es una Constitución? Madrid: Cenit.Google Scholar
  39. Menéndez, A. J. (2012). De la Crisis Económica a la Crisis Constitucional. León: Eolas.Google Scholar
  40. Menéndez, A. J. (2014). A European Union in constitutional mutation? European Law Journal, 20, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mortati, C. (1940). La Costituzione in Senso Materiale. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  42. Sciascia, L. (1988). Opere I. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  43. Sciascia, L. (2016). Il Consiglio d’Egitto (A. Foulke, Trans.). London: Apollo Classics.Google Scholar
  44. Stie, A. E. (2012). Democratic decision-making in the EU: Technocracy in disguise? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Troper, M. (2003). The logic of justification of judicial review. I.CON, 1, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuori, K. (2016). Has Euro area monetary policy become redistribution by monetary means? ‘Unconventional’ monetary policy as a hidden transfer mechanism. European Law Journal, 22, 838–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiler, J. H. H. (1999). The constitution of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations