Suchergebnisse

Abstract

950In light of the experience we surmise that, in the EU law of finance, both for European courts and the BoA and AP the question is not about changing the standards of review as they stand; it is about ensuring that the standard of legality review is meaningfully applied, because the reviewing court or quasi court is capable of engaging in a dialogue with the supervisory institution in its own terms and challenge its reasoning, having due regard to all factual elements of the case. What kind of error of assessment counts as 'manifest' cannot be determined independently of the Court's understanding of what falls within the acceptable range, which, in turn, cannot be established without reference to the court's willingness to take an hard, or better said, closer look at all factual and legal elements of the reasoning. Thus, albeit with nuances often determined by the specific features of each case, in the supervisory and resolution context it seems to us that the marginal v full review debate is, in the Banking Union, more academic than practical and that a full assessment of facts, to the extent that procedural rules allow a proactive evidentiary role, Q&A and expert witness, and a stringent review of the interpretation and application of law (and thus of the substantive legality) is possible, and thus full legal accountability and full effective judicial protection is warranted.951

This paper offers some lessons drawn from the first years of experience of both the joint Board of Appeal (BoA) of the European Supervisory Authorities and the Appeal Panel (AP) of the Single Resolution Board.The paper outlines their institutional design and the main substantive and procedural issues that have arisen in the cases so far decided by both bodies. It offers a view "from the inside", which shows not only the certainties of appeal bodies, but also their many challenges. The paper also discusses design strengths and weaknesses of the current EU adjudicatory system of public law disputes in the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union, bearing in mind the importance of independent review, and the Vaassen criteria for "courts". The paper concludes by offering preliminary stocktaking and reflections on a possible way forward to enhance the complementary (and supporting) role of financial appeal bodies to the EU courts.