this Wednesday the Ultimatum of the Federal constitutional court runs in the dispute over the bond purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Complainant around the former CSU politician Peter Gauweiler and the AfD-founder Bernd Lucke, seem to be not yet fully convinced that the claims of Karlsruhe has been met. You have requested access to the file, not granted by the Bundestag yet.
Corinna Budras
editor in the business, and for Frankfurter Allgemeine objection.
F. A. Z.
Christian Siedenbiedel
editor in the economy.
F. A. Z.
Now, the Federal Constitution is to help the court; such a request is received in Karlsruhe on Friday, a court spokesman confirmed. The reason is that In the extensive documentation, provided by the ECB, the Federal government and the Bundestag, available, are, according to the Complainant three documents, which are subject to confidentiality.
This has piqued your interest: While the published documents are “in terms of content, banal”, it is in the secret documents to the Central questions of the proportionality test, stressed Lucke, so the impact of the purchase program, PSPP on the private pension Savings of private households, on the real estate market and the Rent, on the stability of the banks, and sound public financial management.
Weidmann convinced
This would have a correspondence between the Finance Minister, Olaf Scholz, and the President of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Schäuble, revealed. “For me, is not comprehensible, why these effects are kept secret,” said Lucke. Thus, it is clear that the dispute will still drag on for a while in the length.
Typically, the procedure the possible reason are terminated rights violations with the decision of the Federal constitutional court, because these have the force of law, all constitutional organs, authorities and courts are bound by it. This time, however, the uncertainty is greater, because the demands of a proportionality test, leave room for interpretation, especially when not all of the information to be disclosed.
The competent Rapporteur in the procedure, Peter Huber, had made in an Interview with the F. A. Z.-clear: “decisions must be justified to the Public. How this is done, I don’t really care.“
debate
This could suggest that the dispute goes to a second round. The Complainant can insist that the judges need to more intensively examine whether the requirements of the judgment are met. They will decide, however, if you know the content of the documents.
