For best experience please turn on javascript and use a modern browser!

Why did the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the ECJ come to such different answers in their rulings on the ECB’s Public Sector Purchase Programme? In this event, Nik de Boer and Jens van 't Klooster further explore the results from their recent research, where they analyse the new challenges that ECB faces in implementing its monetary policy and ask to what extent judicial review can help address these.

Detail Summary
Date 5 October 2020
Time 12:00 -13:00

Why did the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the ECJ come to such different answers in their rulings on the ECB’s Public Sector Purchase Programme? In this event, Nik de Boer and Jens van 't Klooster analyse the new challenges that ECB faces in implementing its monetary policy and ask to what extent judicial review can help address these.

Since 2008, the ECB has faced a range of new challenges, which were not anticipated in its mandate: a sovereign bond market panic, technical limits to the efficacy of its tools and increasingly difficult questions concerning the environmental impact of its operations. As a result, the ECB’s decisions suffer from democratic authorization gaps; it makes choices with far-reaching consequences, for which its mandate provides central bankers with almost no guidance. In the face of such authorization gaps, courts can either choose to merely accept choices made by the ECB, as the ECJ has mostly done, or, as the BVerfgG decided to do, itself weigh in on monetary policy.

They argue that neither approach can improve the tenuous democratic legitimacy of the ECB in the absence of proper democratic guidance. However, as they show, there are many ways in which the member states and the political institutions of the EU can provide the ECB with guidance on how to deal with its new choices.