A HIGH Court judge has ruled that Independent TD Thomas Pringle has raised a legal issue related to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty that requires to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
That issue, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy said, had implications for the effect and operation of the ESM treaty, which provides for a conditional permanent bailout fund for distressed euro states.
However, the judge refused yesterday to grant Mr Pringle an injunction restraining the Government proceeding to ratify the ESM treaty. The outcome of the reference to the CJEU would bind all euro member states, not just Ireland, and she should not grant the injunction sought.
Mr Pringle indicated later yesterday he intended to appeal to the Supreme Court the refusal of the injunction and the judge’s findings rejecting his claims the ESM treaty breaches EU law, EU treaties or the Irish Constitution.
John Rogers SC, for Mr Pringle, and Michael Cush SC, for the Government, both indicated they were anxious that the appeal be heard quickly and they would apply to the Supreme Court today to hear the appeal before July 31st.
Ms Justice Laffoy yesterday provided a summary to the sides of her conclusions on the issues raised by Mr Pringle, and said she would hand down her detailed judgment early next week.
As well as rejecting Mr Pringle’s claims the treaty breached the EU treaties or EU law, she dismissed his contention that approval by the Irish people via a referendum was required before the European Council Decision 2011/199/EU (the decision) providing for establishment of an ESM had the force of law in this State.
However, she found that an issue arose concerning the implications of the intentions of members of the ESM to ratify the ESM treaty now, before the actual coming into force next January of that decision.
While finding the decision, made March 27th, 2011, was “completely valid” in EU law, the judge said she found it more difficult to determine the implications of the intention to ratify the ESM treaty now in circumstances where the decision will not come into force until January 1st at the earliest.
In the context of Mr Pringle’s case, the principal issue that arose was what effect failure of one or more states to comply with article 2 of the decision would have on the effect and operability of the ESM, Ms Justice Laffoy said. “I have come to the conclusion that a reference to the CJEU is necessary to address that issue.”
The judge noted the Government and State had argued Mr Pringle was not entitled to have a question referred to the CJEU because, they contended, he was outside the legal time limits to seek such a reference. The judge said she was not satisfied Mr Pringle was time-barred but added “consideration may be given” whether the CJEU should also be asked to decide whether the reference was admissible.
In opposing the action, the Government argued delayed ratification of the ESM treaty could “impact very detrimentally” on Ireland’s proposed re-entry to the financial markets and capacity to raise the funding necessary to run the country going into 2014.
