IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/eucflr/v19y2022i6p950-970n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Reflections on the Standard of Review in the Experience of the ESAs Joint Board of Appeal and of the SRB Appeal Panel

Author

Listed:
  • Lamandini Marco

    (Marco Lamandini is professor of commercial law at the Alma Mater Studiorum Università, degli Studi di Bologna. He also serves as a vice-chair of the Academic Board of the European Banking Institute (EBI) and as a member of the Academic Board of the European Capital Markets Institute (ECMI). He has been the second President of the Joint Board of Appeal of the European Financial Supervisory Authorities and is a member of the Appeal Panel for the Single Resolution Board (SRB), as well as a member of the Italian Arbitro Bancario Finanziario. Italy)

  • Ramos Muñoz David

    (David Ramos Muñoz is associate professor of commercial law at Universidad Carlos III, de Madrid, and a regular visiting professor at the Alma Mater Studiorum Università degli Studi di Bologna. He is a member of the European Banking Institute (EBI) and of the European Law Institute (ELI). He is an alternate member of the Joint Board of Appeal of the European Financial Supervisory Authorities and an alternate member of the Appeal Panel for the Single Resolution Board (SRB). Spain)

Abstract

950In light of the experience we surmise that, in the EU law of finance, both for European courts and the BoA and AP the question is not about changing the standards of review as they stand; it is about ensuring that the standard of legality review is meaningfully applied, because the reviewing court or quasi court is capable of engaging in a dialogue with the supervisory institution in its own terms and challenge its reasoning, having due regard to all factual elements of the case. What kind of error of assessment counts as ‘manifest’ cannot be determined independently of the Court’s understanding of what falls within the acceptable range, which, in turn, cannot be established without reference to the court’s willingness to take an hard, or better said, closer look at all factual and legal elements of the reasoning. Thus, albeit with nuances often determined by the specific features of each case, in the supervisory and resolution context it seems to us that the marginal v full review debate is, in the Banking Union, more academic than practical and that a full assessment of facts, to the extent that procedural rules allow a proactive evidentiary role, Q&A and expert witness, and a stringent review of the interpretation and application of law (and thus of the substantive legality) is possible, and thus full legal accountability and full effective judicial protection is warranted.951

Suggested Citation

  • Lamandini Marco & Ramos Muñoz David, 2022. "Some Reflections on the Standard of Review in the Experience of the ESAs Joint Board of Appeal and of the SRB Appeal Panel," European Company and Financial Law Review, De Gruyter, vol. 19(6), pages 950-970, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:950-970:n:8
    DOI: 10.1515/ecfr-2022-0027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2022-0027
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ecfr-2022-0027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:950-970:n:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.