Dispute over ECB bond purchases Get together!

As of: June 9th, 2021 6:05 p.m.

It is understandable that the EU Commission is reacting to the Karlsruhe ECB ruling with proceedings against Germany. But that won’t resolve the dispute. Only the courts themselves can do that. A comment from Frank Bräutigam, ARD legal editors If anyone at Karlsruhe’s Schlossplatz had hoped that the high waves after the Karlsruhe ECB judgment of May 2020 would fizzle out silently, they were disappointed today. The EU Commission is initiating infringement proceedings against Germany because of a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court. ´ That has never happened before. The relationship between Karlsruhe and Luxembourg has always been somewhat tense. But this is now a unique escalation.

Do not lose sight of questions of democracy

The starting point of the Federal Constitutional Court on EU issues is absolutely correct and important. To see that the legal limits remain an important currency at the EU level. Because one must not lose sight of the individual voter, i.e. questions of democracy. Because the individual states have not given up all their competences to the EU. With its “yes, but” approach, the court has achieved a lot in several rulings since the financial crisis in 2012 at the latest. In this specific case of the ECB bond purchase, pulling the emergency brake, accusing the ECB and ECJ of arbitrary action, went too far.

The EU Commission had to react

That was not proportionate: in terms of content, but also with a view to the possible role model effect for other states such as Poland or Hungary. What happens there in terms of content within the judiciary is of course not comparable to Germany. Nevertheless, there is this bare result: The German court does not adhere to what the ECJ says. Then why should we do this? The fact that, from its point of view, the EU Commission must therefore react and initiate a procedure – which is understandable.

Dilemma for several actors at the same time

But you also have to be aware that if you think through the process started today, it will lead several actors into a real dilemma. First of all, the federal government, which now has to take a position as a first step. What is she supposed to do? Somehow signal an independent court to correct its judgment or take other action? And in the last step, the ECJ would decide on a breach of contract. Who? Yes exactly. One of the arguing actors. He would be a kind of judge in his own case. Would that lead to a good solution?

Take “cooperation relationship” at its word

Arguing over who “has the last word” is almost always devastating. In private life, in politics and also within a network of national and European courts. It is the last thing the citizens of the EU need in these times. If the “cooperation relationship” between the courts can be heard in many speeches, this must be taken literally. Mind you: the courts cooperate with each other. Not the courts with the state and the EU. They are supposed to strictly control these two. The fact that there is often still room for improvement at the ECJ on this point has expressly contributed to this conflict.

It is the courts’ turn

An example from the two companies at issue here shows that cooperation is fundamentally possible. Because the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court (the Second Senate acts in the ECB conflict) has shown with important rulings from 2019 that Karlsruhe and Luxembourg can achieve control of national and European fundamental rights in the interests of the citizens together. That means: the current situation can only be defused by the courts themselves. Not from the Federal Government or the EU Commission. The actors from the judiciary know each other. Well, actually. You have to pull yourself together. It is unclear what the one solution to the specific dispute should look like, but there has been no lack of creative ideas in Karlsruhe or Luxembourg for many decades.

Editorial note Comments generally reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editors.

Judgment on Presale Fees Defeat for ticket retailer CTS Eventim

As of: 06/09/2021 5:24 p.m.

Are ticket retailers allowed to keep advance booking fees for concerts that have been canceled due to corona? The Munich Regional Court has declared a clause ineffective that excludes a refund. However, there is no general claim. Several CTS Eventim customers are upset. You had booked a concert at the ticket dealer early on, which was then canceled due to Corona. Nevertheless, CTS Eventim withheld the advance booking fee. Now they want the fee back. The North Rhine-Westphalia consumer center therefore took it to court and sued the company. With success: the consumer advocates were partially right at the Munich I Regional Court. The judges declared ineffective a clause in which the company had excluded a reimbursement of the advance booking fee if the event was canceled or postponed. A corresponding sentence in the general terms and conditions is illegal.

It depends on the contracts

In the opinion of the court, the ticket retailer must bear the risk of an event alone and should not pass costs on to the customers if the event does not take place. After all, the dealer collects a commission if an event goes off successfully, the judges argue. In addition, the amount of the advance booking fee is often not visible in the ticket prices, the court complained. This is not transparent. However, the judgment, which is not yet final, does not mean that all customers are now entitled to a refund of the advance booking fees for the concert that has been canceled due to Corona. That depends on the respective design of the contracts. CTS Eventim would only be responsible for the reimbursement at a commercial agency. Eventim arranges event tickets either through a commercial agency or through an organizer through a commission. In the latter case, the concert promoter would be responsible for the reimbursement. “We are assuming that in a large number of cases Eventim wrongly withheld amounts of money,” said Wolfgang Schuldzinski, board member of the consumer advice center in North Rhine-Westphalia. Now those affected who are in dispute with the group could ask it to pay and refer to the judgment.

CTS Eventim suffers from the lull in concerts

The dispute over the advance booking fee shows how tense the situation in the concert event industry is. The largest German ticket retailer CTS Eventim is suffering from the unusual concerts and events. In the first quarter of this year, sales collapsed by almost 90 percent compared to the same period in the previous year. The Bremen company slipped into the red. The number of employees including temporary workers fell by almost a third. Nevertheless, CEO Klaus-Peter Schulenberg does not give up hope of a new start soon. He relies on the “longing of people to experience culture together”. The more people vaccinated, the greater the chance of concerts.

The Bonn Regional Court has sentenced a former employee of the Hamburg private bank MM Warburg to a prison term of five years and six months for so-called cum-ex transactions. The public prosecutor had accused the man of serious tax evasion in 13 cases. The court found him guilty on five counts. In view of the length of the proceedings, however, two months of the sentence are already enforced, said a court spokeswoman. The judgment is not yet final. The proceedings had started on November 17, 2020, according to the spokeswoman, the judgment was made on the 29th day of the hearing.

Bank continues to reject guilt

After the announced judgment, the Warburg Bank stated that the decision would not surprise after the stipulations of March 2020. “The primary responsibility of the domestic custodian banks and the initiators of the transactions is not sufficiently taken into account,” she said. “It is questionable whether the judgment will stand up to a possible revision in view of the numerous rejected bias requests and rejected requests for evidence.” The bank had already paid tax claims in connection with the cum-ex scandal last year, but always emphasized that the additional claims were unjustified. They are “not to be understood as an admission of guilt”. The money house always emphasized that it had adhered to the legal rules in all transactions. Several proceedings are ongoing at the Bonn Regional Court in connection with the Cum-Ex scandal, and investigations are being pooled at the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office. The court last admitted the indictment against a former employee of a Swiss private bank in May.

Decision on revision in the first Cum-Ex judgment

The German state suffered billions in damage in the cum-ex deals. Investors have a capital gains tax paid once on stock dividends reimbursed several times with the help of banks. To do this, they moved shares with – that is, cum – and without – ex – dividend entitlement to one another around the cut-off date for the dividend payment. The cases had spread widely, so banks and law firms are constantly being searched. In the first major criminal case nationwide, the court in Bonn imposed suspended sentences against two British stock traders in March 2020. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is reviewing the judgment and wants to negotiate an appeal on June 15. According to the BGH, all those involved have appealed. Until the first judgment, it was unclear whether cum-ex transactions are only inadmissible under tax law or whether they are also punishable by law.

COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson. Photo: AFP / VNA On April 13, US federal health authorities recommended to suspend the use of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine for “cautious” reasons, awaiting the results of investigating the possible link between the vaccination. this with thrombotic side effect. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are reviewing six cases of thrombosis following the vaccination. Meanwhile, according to Reuters, on April 15, US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci hopes that US regulators will soon make a quick decision on resuming Johnson & Johnson’s vaccination, bringing the vaccine back. immunization program. The day before, the US CDC advisory committee postponed at least a week to vote on whether to resume use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to wait for more data on thrombotic risks. Mr. Fauci feared that the prolonged delay of the vaccine could affect people’s hesitancy. “I think we need to continue to emphasize that this is a very effective and usable vaccine that is very, very valuable in a global context,” he said. Following the US, some countries have made similar moves with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine
On April 13, the South African Ministry of Health announced it had suspended the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the country’s vaccination program, although South Africa has not received a report related to coagulation after 290,000 people in the country. has received the COVID-19 vaccine from the brands. Two weeks ago, South Africa licensed the use of vacicne Johnson & Johnson and so far only vaccinated this vaccine to health workers in the study framework. Before the above developments, Dutch Health Minister Hugo de Jonge said that the country has not decided whether to launch the Johnson & Johnson vaccine injection this week or not. He stated that the Netherlands will wait for information from the European Pharmaceutical Authority (EMA) before making a decision. In contrast, some countries continue to use the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Belgium has said it will not stop the vaccination at this stage. Poland started to vaccinate Johnson & Johnson when the government confirmed that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. Meanwhile, Spanish officials have not received the notice of stopping the Johnson & Johnson vaccination. For its part, the World Health Organization (WHO) says it is monitoring global data of various reports to see if similar cases occur elsewhere, and it will take time. Time to evaluate vaccine data from Johnson & Johnson. Denmark completely discontinues the AstraZaneca vaccine; Thailand is still considered the mainstay Prime Minister of Thailand Prayut Chan-O-Cha (middle) was vaccinated against COVID-19 by AstraZeneca company in Bangkok, on March 16, 2021. Photo: AFP / VNA Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the AstraZeneca vaccine was also in the same situation. The AstraZeneca vaccine is suspected of causing thrombosis, causing a series of European countries to suspend use, despite WHO recommendations. Recently, on April 14, Denmark became the first European country to permanently stop using the AstraZeneca vaccine due to concerns about rare blood clotting side effects. Denmark thinks that AstraZeneca’s vaccine may not be needed because it has managed the COVID-19 pandemic and may just depend on the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. Before that, from March 11, Denmark, along with Iceland and Norway, have suspended the use of this vaccine. Followed by a number of other European countries, including France, Germany and Italy. Federal Health Ministers and states in Germany unanimously recommend a second shot after getting the first shot with the AstraZeneca vaccine, under which one shot of the preparation is given to those under 60 years of age. This could be a second shot with another vaccine. In Bulgaria, Health Minister Kostadin Angelov also announced that the launch of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in the country could be stopped because people are not interested. The European Drug Administration – the European Union’s (EU) drug regulator – then recommended that countries continue to use vaccines as the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any potential risks. hidden from humans. Last week, the European pharmaceutical regulator listed clotting as an extremely rare side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Some countries have started to re-use the vaccine after the suspension, but limited in the number of people vaccinated. As is the case in the UK, the country says it will offer another vaccine for people under the age of 30. While some countries are vaccinated with AstraZeneca, Thailand Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul announced that the AstraZeneca vaccine will be the mainstay of the Southeast Asian country’s COVID-19 vaccination program. Mr. Anutin confirmed that Thailand has the expertise to closely monitor vaccine information and the decision is based on science. Thailand’s vaccination campaign mainly relies on domestically produced AstraZeneca vaccine and 2 million doses of Chinese vaccine to vaccinate about 35 million people, equivalent to 50% of the population – Thailand’s goal. must be reached by the end of 2021. Along with Thailand, Korea has decided to continue to vaccinate AstraZeneca for those who qualify. People younger than 30 years of age have not yet received the vaccine because the risk of blood clots outweighs the benefit of the vaccination. Continued reassurance and investigation of coagulation phenomenon after vaccination Health care workers give COVID-19 vaccine to people in Llanelli, South Wales (UK), April 9, 2021. Photo: AFP / VNA While countries are moving differently with the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, WHO continues to assert the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. On April 15, WHO Director in Europe Hans Kluge reaffirmed that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh the risks. “Make it clear that there is no doubt that the AstraZeneca vaccine is effective in reducing hospital admissions for COVID-19 and preventing severe illness that leads to death. The WHO has recommended this vaccine as soon as possible,” he said. as possible for adults to increase resistance to the SARS-CoV-2 virus “. WHO officials also pointed out that out of the 200 million people who got the AstraZeneca vaccine, there are only a few rare cases of a blood clotting disorder. He emphasized that the risk of blood clots in patients with COVID-19 is much higher than in those receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. A study by scientists at the University of Oxford UK showed that COVID-19 patients have a higher risk of developing blood clots in the brain than those vaccinated against the disease. Data from over 500,000 patients with COVID-19 show that blood clotting occurs at an incidence of 39 out of 1,000,000 patients. Of the more than 480,000 people who received the COVID-19 vaccine made by BioNTech / Pfizer or Moderna, the incidence of coagulation was 4 / 1,000,000, while the rate was slightly higher for those receiving the vaccine. AstraZeneca – about 5 / 1,000,000 after the first injection. After the coagulation incident with the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, the researchers found that this rare side effect only occurs with vaccines using adeno virus vector technology (the virus that causes the common cold). There has been no record of coagulation in people who received the vaccine using other technologies from Pfizer and Moderna. However, the link between the technology using adeno virus vectors and coagulation is only a simple guess, there is no evidence. Russian vaccine has not caused any blood clotting cases and is increasingly “expensive”. Vaccine Sputnik V in Moscow, Russia. Photo: AFP / VNA When Western countries investigated blood clotting side effects, the Gamaleya Research Institute – which develops the Russian vaccine Sputnik V – said the vaccine has not caused any adverse reactions related to blood clotting. According to the Gamaleya Institute, there is no reason to equate the safety of the Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca vaccines with Sputnik V. All three of these vaccines are vector-based, using the adeno virus to deliver the protein of SARS-CoV- 2 into human cells, helping to stimulate the immune system’s response. However, all three manufacturers use different structures and technologies in vaccine formulation. Iran is the latest country to order Russian vaccines. Iranian Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali confirmed that the contract to buy 60 million doses of Sputnik V has been signed and completed, enough to give 2 doses to 30 million people. Ambassador Kazem Jalali also announced that Iran will receive the vaccine by the end of 2021. Russia is also transferring technology to produce this vaccine to a number of countries. Most recently, the Korean company ISU Abxis on April 15 announced an agreement with the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) on the technology transfer and production of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine for Korean companies. . It is expected that the production of vaccine trials will soon be deployed at a facility in Yongin, south of Seoul. The Russian Sputnik V vaccine is the second most popular vaccine in the world approved for use by national pharmaceutical regulators.