Abstract
As a first remark, the Court widened the scope of its jurisdiction in order to interpret international agreement concluded exclusively by Member States. In this type of instruments, the Court sees very important implications to the EU legal order and it therefore considered that even in the absence of any EU law provision conferring Juridiction to the Court in that particular context, the latter must remain the sole judge it order to so solve dispute between Member States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See for instance Isaac (1992), p 136.
- 2.
- 3.
In that respect and before this judgment some authors pointed out “the declaratory value” of the new Article 136 para 3 TFEU. De Gregorio Merino (2012), pp 1613–1646, sp. 1629 and Borger (2013), pp 113–140, sp. 132. Certain authors have reluctances about the need to amend Article 136 TFEU for the reason that the ESM is established outside the EU law. See in this respect Sester (2012), pp 156–178, sp. 170.
- 4.
Editorial Comments, Debt and Democracy: United States then, Europe now? (2012) in CMLRev, 1833–1840, p 1835.
- 5.
The judgment was issued less than 4 months after the reference for a preliminary ruling.
References
Borger V (2013) The ESM and the European Court’s Predicament in Pringle. GLJ, 113-140
de Gregorio Merino A (2012) Legal Developments in the Economic and Monetary Union during the debt crisis: the mechanism of Financial assistance. CMLRev, 1613–1646
Isaac G (1992) Droit Communautaire Général, 3 edn. Masson, Paris
Louis J.-V. (2006) L’Europe. Sortir du doute. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 118-121
Sester P (2012) The ECB’s Controversial Securities Market Programme (SMP) and its role in relation to the modified EFSF and the future ESM. ECFLR, 156–178
de Witte B (2001) Chameleonic Member States: differentiation by means of partial and parallel agreements. In: de Witte B, Hanf D, Vos E (eds) The many faces of differentiation in EU law, Intersentia, Anvers
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Lhoneux, E., Vassilopoulos, C.A. (2014). The Pringle Judgment and Future Perspectives. In: The European Stability Mechanism Before the Court of Justice of the European Union. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01478-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01478-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01477-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01478-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)