Here at
europaeus|law, we're monitoring the intense fallout from the announcement by the Eurogroup last night
that the Cyprus bailout will be conditioned on an "upfront one-off stability levy" on deposits
in Cypriot banks. The levy -- 9.9% on bank deposits
exceeding 100,000 euros and 6.7% on anything below that -- will take
place on Tuesday after a bank holiday on Monday.
There will no doubt be much more to be said about this in the
coming days and weeks, but we note the general expectation that the levy, as
structured, will hit small depositors in Cyprus banks especially hard. Moreover, we
want to point out the potential impact that the bailout
conditions will have on the single market, notably harmonized deposit guarantee schemes. As Open Europe asked on its blog:
"Does
this move break EU rules on capital controls and/or deposit guarantees? As
noted above, it seems that depositors will be blocked from withdrawing their
funds from banks. For other EU depositors this surely amounts to a form of
capital control – strictly forbidden under the EU Treaty. Furthermore, as
Sharon Bowles MEP has been tweeting, this move makes a mockery of the current
EU rules on deposit guarantees below €100,000. The Eurozone may protest that
the bank shares given in exchange are of the same value, but this is a very
thin argument. Either of these issues could be challenged at the European Court
of Justice."
Bowles, a Lib-Dem MEP and chair of the EP's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, has
now issued a press release entitled "The Cyprus bailout deal is a disaster for EU rules andSingle
Market principles". She writes:
"This
grabbing of ordinary depositors' money is billed as a tax, so as to try and
circumvent the EU's deposit guarantee laws. It robs smaller investors of the
protection they were promised. If this were a bank, they would be in court for
mis-selling.
"The
lesson here is that the EU's Single Market rules will be flouted when the
Eurozone, ECB and IMF says so. At a time when many are greatly concerned that
the creation of the 'Banking Union', giving the ECB unprecedented power, will
demote the priorities of the Single Market, we see it here in action.
"Deposit
guarantees were brought in at a maximum harmonising level so that citizens across
the EU would not have incentive to move funds from country to country. That has
been blown apart.
"What
else will be blown apart when convenient? All the capital requirements we have
slaved over, what about the new recovery and resolution rules? What does this
mean for confidence in cross-border banking and resolution and preventing the
fragmentation of the banking sector?
"When
the dust has settled on this deal, which I hope it never does, we will see that
the Single Market has been sold down the river for a shoddy price. All the
worse as the consequences for Cyprus of the Greek bond haircuts were
obvious."
On FT Alphaville, Joseph Cotterill (admitedly very half-heartedly)
tried to play devil's advocate on this point, noting:
"It’s
not as if Cyprus is going out to people and saying sorry, we can’t honour what
you’re owed under the depositor guarantee scheme. The levy is parallel to the
government’s obligations there. Securing the official loans on Friday night if
anything made the looming risks of holding a deposit in a Cypriot bank fade
away. These were the counter-party risk, and also redenomination risk, assuming
the alternative to a bailout was Cyprus leaving the euro."
There are, of
course, numerous other legal issues to consider, as Cotterill points out, quoting a prescient piece last year by Lee Buchheit, Mitu Gulati and Ignacio Tirado. But for now let's focus on on the issue perhaps most on the minds of a network comprised of academic specialists in European
law: the impact of the Eurozone crisis on the single market, the cornerstone of European integration for decades. We'll try to follow up with more updates on this point as events develop, but we invite network members and other readers to chime in as well.
Dear Peter,
ReplyDeleteMuch to be said but, for now, and having been involved in the Icesave litigation, I cannot but note the irony of seeing the Commission and Netherlands for example - which argued in that case that states were OBLIGED to UNDERWRITE, whatever the circumstances, the deposit insurance guarantee - now IMPOSE on one such State to UNDERMINE the guarantee....)
We received the comment below from network member Dan Kelemen (Rutgers) and we're pleased to post it on his behalf:
ReplyDeleteDear Peter,
In the history of stupid policy ideas, the proposal - (I call it 'proposal' in the hope it may still not be enacted) - to impose a haircut on depositors in Cypriot banks deserves an exalted place. It is as if those demanding this levy didn't realize that the EU is simultaneously working on a common deposit guarantee scheme as part of the effort to create a European Banking Union. It seems that in an ill-advised effort to suck some money out of shady Russian oligarchs, the EU is shooting its own Banking Union plans in the foot. The only potential upside - for those that favor banking union - is that this whole debacle may highlight once again and perhaps more boldly than before the need for a banking union.
Dan Kelemen