News
BackThe European Commission and the ECB as part of the EU Troika violate current EU law and human rights - this is the conclusion reached by Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Professor at the Centre of European Law and Politics (ZERP) at Bremen University, in a legal opinion commissioned by the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB), the Chamber of Labour (AK), the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI). The recently published opinion was presented on March 4 in Brussels. Fischer-Lescano’s hope: “The best reaction to this study would if complaints were made.”
The EU’s Austerity policy is unlawful, is the conclusion Fischer-Lescano reaches in his legal opinion. By participating in the Troika, the European Commission and the European Central Bank would infringe against the EU’s primary law, which, since the Lisbon Treaty would also include a Charter of Fundamental Rights. “Fundamental and human rights are always binding on EU institutions, these must not be circumvented in a crisis”, said Fischer-Lescano.
Radical destruction of tariff autonomy
The Memoranda of Understanding would contain explicit plans where savings were to be made. However, this directly interferes with fundamental rights, such as the human right to housing and social security and the human right to health, Fischer-Lescano. Concrete examples were interferences in medical care (additional charges on prescription drugs) and in wage formation systems of individual states, where the result, as happened in Greece, is a complete destruction of the tariff autonomy. Apart from the legal aspect, Fischer-Lescano also asked himself the question “what the reduction in the minimum wages has to do with austerity policy in the first place, as minimum wages in particular shall make transfer payments by the public sector superfluous.”
Another problem was that “the principle of parliamentary scrutiny is not adhered to. The European Parliament was not integrated at all as international treaties would actually provide for”, said Fischer-Lescano, but the Memoranda were no formal international treaties.
Also the fact that both Commission and ECB are integrated in the Troika, beyond the ESM construct that exists outside EU law, does not change the fact that fundamental rights are not only binding on institutions but, as set out in an ECJ ruling, they may not exceed their sphere of competence. However, the fact that by means of the Memoranda interferences have taken place in various social and labour market policy areas, which are outside the Commission’s sphere of competence, points towards the fact that a breach of law exists.
ÖGB: Study helps to stop future austerity dictates by the Troika
Bernhard Achitz, Secretary General of the Austrian Trade Union Federation emphasised: “Both the European Commission and the Central Bank are bound to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Individual states are bound to the standards of the International Labour organisation (ILO), which they have ratified.” There were several answers to the questions what ought to be done: “The purely legal answer: Parliament files a nullity suit concerning the Memoranda at the ECJ.” However, this should not result in all aid payments made so far to be declared null and void and reversed. Achitz: “The result of the study may contribute to stop new requirements on the crisis countries in time. “We are tired of drastic cuts in social spending, restrictions on basic trade union rights, such as the actual abolishment of collective agreements, intervention in minimum wages and much more.”
The report would strengthen the claim of European trade unions for a fundamental change of course and a European investment plan, such as the one recently proposed by the ETUC. "Investment in the welfare state and social services must replace short-sighted austerity policies and the Charter of Fundamental Rights must no longer remain a paper tiger, it has to be eventually observed by EU policy.” The study has now also provided legal arguments. “These should result in the Troika no longer presenting such immoral offers in future.”
Portugal: collective bargaining agreement only applies to 300,000 employees
"Since the outbreak of the economic crisis in 2008, Member States have taken a number of measures to cut public spending and to reduce budget deficits", said Veronica Nilsson, Confederal Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). These austerity measures had also affected social rights and led to the deregulation of the national labour law and to the weakening of tariff agreement systems. Nilsson underpinned this statement with figures from Portugal: in 2008, a collective bargaining agreement still applied to 1.9 million employees. By 2012, their number had shrunk to 300,000. However, she was able to understand that the social partners in some crisis countries were no longer willing to negotiate austerity packages: “In Greece, governments had invited to negotiations but signalled at the same time that they, independent of the result, would only implement what the Troika demanded in any case”
Commission should be guardian of the treaties
The Spanish MEP and Social Democrat Alejandro Cercas, who had also criticised the approach of the Troika in a report to Parliament, which will be voted on in the plenum before the end of March said: “The problem of the Troika is that all revolves around the economy, but there is no room for the law. All social issues have been pushed to the side. Either the Troika does not know that fundamental and human rights exist or it does know but could not care less. However, it should be the European Commission acting as the guardian of the treaties.”
He sharply criticised the impact of the Troika’s policy on the social situation of the people in the affected countries. He called it “social tsunami”.
A gun held to the head
Dimitrious Droutsas, Greek MEP and at the time of the first Troika conditions foreign secretary of his country, said it was true that his country needed “far-reaching structural reforms - but this should not be confused with wage cuts.” “In Greece, the health and education system had collapsed; however, these were the foundations of society.” These are also the areas that the legal opinion of Andreas Fischer-Lescano has identified as the best chances to take legal action against the Troika with a high probability of legal success.
The hot potato
Dimitrious Droutsas explained the implementation of the damaging measures by the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), whose member he had been with the fact that a gun had been held to the head of Greece and that it had not been possible to internally prevail against the powerful oligarchy; hence he put any responsibility back into the corner of the Troika and the Euro states.
Even though the Commission was unable to participate officially, several EU officials of the responsible Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs were in the audience and defended their case. On the one hand, as already known from the argumentation of the Commission, they pushed the proverbial “hot potato” back to Greece and the other crisis countries, as these allegedly were solely responsible for the policy, whereby the Commission was just monitoring this process. Without providing any legal or political explanation, they also firmly rejected violating human rights as if it was some kind of unmentionable lèse-majesté. At the same time, they cynically stated that the states affected would have had the option not to accept the aid offered.
The vehemence of the reactions clearly showed that the study has hit a sensible spot. Also the fact, that today nobody is prepared to accept responsibility for a policy, which was allegedly without any alternative, clearly shows that it has to be regarded as failed.
Further information:
Presentation by Prof. Andreas Fischer-Lescano
Study
Photos
Radical destruction of tariff autonomy
The Memoranda of Understanding would contain explicit plans where savings were to be made. However, this directly interferes with fundamental rights, such as the human right to housing and social security and the human right to health, Fischer-Lescano. Concrete examples were interferences in medical care (additional charges on prescription drugs) and in wage formation systems of individual states, where the result, as happened in Greece, is a complete destruction of the tariff autonomy. Apart from the legal aspect, Fischer-Lescano also asked himself the question “what the reduction in the minimum wages has to do with austerity policy in the first place, as minimum wages in particular shall make transfer payments by the public sector superfluous.”
Another problem was that “the principle of parliamentary scrutiny is not adhered to. The European Parliament was not integrated at all as international treaties would actually provide for”, said Fischer-Lescano, but the Memoranda were no formal international treaties.
Also the fact that both Commission and ECB are integrated in the Troika, beyond the ESM construct that exists outside EU law, does not change the fact that fundamental rights are not only binding on institutions but, as set out in an ECJ ruling, they may not exceed their sphere of competence. However, the fact that by means of the Memoranda interferences have taken place in various social and labour market policy areas, which are outside the Commission’s sphere of competence, points towards the fact that a breach of law exists.
ÖGB: Study helps to stop future austerity dictates by the Troika
Bernhard Achitz, Secretary General of the Austrian Trade Union Federation emphasised: “Both the European Commission and the Central Bank are bound to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Individual states are bound to the standards of the International Labour organisation (ILO), which they have ratified.” There were several answers to the questions what ought to be done: “The purely legal answer: Parliament files a nullity suit concerning the Memoranda at the ECJ.” However, this should not result in all aid payments made so far to be declared null and void and reversed. Achitz: “The result of the study may contribute to stop new requirements on the crisis countries in time. “We are tired of drastic cuts in social spending, restrictions on basic trade union rights, such as the actual abolishment of collective agreements, intervention in minimum wages and much more.”
The report would strengthen the claim of European trade unions for a fundamental change of course and a European investment plan, such as the one recently proposed by the ETUC. "Investment in the welfare state and social services must replace short-sighted austerity policies and the Charter of Fundamental Rights must no longer remain a paper tiger, it has to be eventually observed by EU policy.” The study has now also provided legal arguments. “These should result in the Troika no longer presenting such immoral offers in future.”
Portugal: collective bargaining agreement only applies to 300,000 employees
"Since the outbreak of the economic crisis in 2008, Member States have taken a number of measures to cut public spending and to reduce budget deficits", said Veronica Nilsson, Confederal Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). These austerity measures had also affected social rights and led to the deregulation of the national labour law and to the weakening of tariff agreement systems. Nilsson underpinned this statement with figures from Portugal: in 2008, a collective bargaining agreement still applied to 1.9 million employees. By 2012, their number had shrunk to 300,000. However, she was able to understand that the social partners in some crisis countries were no longer willing to negotiate austerity packages: “In Greece, governments had invited to negotiations but signalled at the same time that they, independent of the result, would only implement what the Troika demanded in any case”
Commission should be guardian of the treaties
The Spanish MEP and Social Democrat Alejandro Cercas, who had also criticised the approach of the Troika in a report to Parliament, which will be voted on in the plenum before the end of March said: “The problem of the Troika is that all revolves around the economy, but there is no room for the law. All social issues have been pushed to the side. Either the Troika does not know that fundamental and human rights exist or it does know but could not care less. However, it should be the European Commission acting as the guardian of the treaties.”
He sharply criticised the impact of the Troika’s policy on the social situation of the people in the affected countries. He called it “social tsunami”.
A gun held to the head
Dimitrious Droutsas, Greek MEP and at the time of the first Troika conditions foreign secretary of his country, said it was true that his country needed “far-reaching structural reforms - but this should not be confused with wage cuts.” “In Greece, the health and education system had collapsed; however, these were the foundations of society.” These are also the areas that the legal opinion of Andreas Fischer-Lescano has identified as the best chances to take legal action against the Troika with a high probability of legal success.
The hot potato
Dimitrious Droutsas explained the implementation of the damaging measures by the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), whose member he had been with the fact that a gun had been held to the head of Greece and that it had not been possible to internally prevail against the powerful oligarchy; hence he put any responsibility back into the corner of the Troika and the Euro states.
Even though the Commission was unable to participate officially, several EU officials of the responsible Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs were in the audience and defended their case. On the one hand, as already known from the argumentation of the Commission, they pushed the proverbial “hot potato” back to Greece and the other crisis countries, as these allegedly were solely responsible for the policy, whereby the Commission was just monitoring this process. Without providing any legal or political explanation, they also firmly rejected violating human rights as if it was some kind of unmentionable lèse-majesté. At the same time, they cynically stated that the states affected would have had the option not to accept the aid offered.
The vehemence of the reactions clearly showed that the study has hit a sensible spot. Also the fact, that today nobody is prepared to accept responsibility for a policy, which was allegedly without any alternative, clearly shows that it has to be regarded as failed.
Further information:
Presentation by Prof. Andreas Fischer-Lescano
Study
Photos