In case number C-589/15, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) upheld a decision by the General Court of the European Union that the proposed European citizens’ initiative submitted by a Greek national in order to allow the cancellation of the public debt of countries in a state of necessity cannot be registered on the basis of article 11 in the Treaty of European Union (TEU),
Mr Alexios Anagnostakis, a Greek citizen, transmitted a draft European citizens initiative, “One million signatures for ‘a Europe of solidarity” for the European Commission to register. The objective of that initiative is to enshrine in EU legislation the “principle of the “state of necessity” whereby, when the financial and the political existence of a state is in danger because of the serving of an abhorrent debt, the refusal of its payment is necessary and justifiable”.
On 6 September 2012, the Commission refused to register Mr Anagnostakis’ proposal on the ground that it fell manifestly outside the framework of its powers. Mr Anagnostakis then brought proceedings before the General Court of the European Union but the General Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission was not empowered to propose to the EU legislature to enshrine the principle that it should be possible to cancel the onerous public debt of countries in a state of necessity (see EUROPE 11400). Mr Anagnostakis then brought an appeal before the Court of Justice.
Although the ECJ acknowledges that the Commission must give clear reasons for any decision refusing registration of a proposed initiative, it asserts that the proposed initiative was very succinct and lacked clarity and confirms the conclusion of the General Court that the Commission's decision contains a sufficient statement of reasons. The judges then assert that paragraph 1 and 2 of article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), stipulate that the Council can in certain conditions adopt measures appropriate to the particular situation in a state but this cannot serve as a basis for adopting a measure according to which a country in a state of necessity can unilaterally decide not to repay its debt.
Lastly, the Court considers, that Article 136 TFEU under which the Council can adopt measures as part of the Eurozone’s economic and budgetary policy, cannot justify the use of the principle of countries in a state of necessity.
The ECJ therefore rejected the appeal by Mr Anagnostakis. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)