The designated constitutional judge Astrid Wallrabenstein has outlined in a dispute the Federal constitutional court with the European Central Bank ECB and the European court of justice ECJ in Luxembourg, concrete solutions. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (F. A. S.) she said it was to recognize that “in politics, the Effort is large, to say: Let’s make the Best of it. Now let’s try to live up to what is expected, the Federal constitutional court.“
Konrad Schuller
Political correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung in Berlin.
F. A. Z. Twitter
The Federal constitutional court had on 5. May the bond-buying program for the state of the ECB reprimanded, because the Bank had not explained how they have weighed the side effects. Therefore, the court of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, the counter current handling of the program requires what appears to be, but because of the guaranteed independence of the ECB is difficult.
Wallrabenstein took in this context, the Attempt of German politicians, the position of the EU institutions as a Mediator to turn on. The F. A. S. said she, in your opinion, is it “right” that the Commission and the European Parliament tried to “take the scepter more in the Hand”. Then, if the reactions of politicians, the Bundesbank and the ECB “in the right direction,” went, “it might say in the interest of the court to lie: That’s all right; we can see that our demands are taken seriously”.
The designated constitutional judge also commented on the requirement of the constitutional court, the ECB would need to expressly outline in a “new decision” of your Council, that the side effects of your bonds programme has been weighed. This is a claim to the Bank due to their independence as problematic.
Wallrabenstein said not to, you know, “if it ultimately is so important, that the Declaration requested the ECB takes a new decision’ of the Council”. Perhaps the Federal constitutional court didn’t want to go just be sure that the ECB “deals seriously, and that a Minimum of formal clarity and a certain degree of completeness is ensured”. Then it does not need to necessarily be a “decision”, because it was ultimately “less technical Form than the purpose”.
To the question of whether in the extreme case, the constitutional court, the Bundesbank after the expiry of the time limit set on 5. August could prohibit further participation in the program, said Wallrabenstein, she could not imagine that it is possible to get the right reactions from the world of politics, the Bundesbank and the ECB, Karlsruhe, Germany “needed to be proactive”. They hope “that things will develop ultimately in a right direction, and at the end of all about some injuries, get over”. As in real life, it is about “how to make more after you come together”. If you argue, you should say “excuse me”, and “let bygones be bygones, let’s move on”.
