当前位置: X-MOL 学术Eur. Bus. Org. Law Rev. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Recalibrating the Debate on MiFID’s Private Enforceability: Why the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is the Elephant in the Room
European Business Organization Law Review ( IF 1.790 ) Pub Date : 2020-05-14 , DOI: 10.1007/s40804-020-00189-6
Evariest Callens

The genesis of MiFID I initiated a fierce scholarly debate on the following question: does MiFID dictate private enforceability of the rules embedded in the directive? More specifically, under a general reference to the effet utile doctrine, certain authors have argued that MiFID requires member states to provide private law remedies for infringements of certain (investor protecting) MiFID provisions. However, another strand in legal scholarship has sternly denounced this idea. In their reading, member states might equally achieve an effet utile in light of the investor protection objective by solely providing administrative enforcement mechanisms. According to this vision, it is thus for the member states to decide whether, and if so under what conditions, private law remedies are made available. This debate has never resulted in a widely endorsed consensus and persists in the MiFID II era. My thesis, somewhat provocatively, is the following: legal scholarship has erroneously overlooked the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights when assessing the private enforceability of MiFID. As the Charter requires effective judicial remedies for violations of rights conferred upon individuals by EU law, I contend that its omission in the debate on MiFID’s private enforceability has led to serious misconceptions about the enforcement of MiFID. Furthermore, in light of my article’s central thesis, I extend existing scholarship on MiFID II’s controversial paragraph about remedial action in a new direction. I present two fresh textual arguments that might shed light on the meaning of this paragraph. The arguments, which—to the best of my knowledge—have not been advanced in legal scholarship before, draw upon an integrated and coherent reading of the text of MiFID II. More precisely, the novel arguments are based on the relation between the contested paragraph and the structure and wording of MiFID II as a whole.

中文翻译:

重新校准关于 MiFID 私人可执行性的辩论:为什么欧盟基本权利宪章是房间里的大象

MiFID 的起源 我就以下问题发起了一场激烈的学术辩论:MiFID 是否规定了指令中嵌入的规则的私人可执行性?更具体地说,根据效用原则的一般参考,某些作者认为 MiFID 要求成员国为违反某些(投资者保护)MiFID 规定的行为提供私法救济。然而,法律学术界的另一股势力严厉谴责了这一想法。在他们的解读中,成员国可以通过仅提供行政执法机制,同样实现投资者保护目标的效用。根据这一愿景,因此由成员国决定是否提供私法救济,如果可以,在什么条件下提供私法救济。这场辩论从未导致广泛认可的共识,并在 MiFID II 时代持续存在。我的论文有点挑衅性地如下:在评估 MiFID 的私人可执行性时,法律学者错误地忽视了欧盟基本权利宪章。由于宪章要求对侵犯欧盟法律赋予个人权利的行为采取有效的司法补救措施,我认为在关于 MiFID 私人可执行性的辩论中的遗漏导致了对 MiFID 执行的严重误解。此外,根据我文章的中心论点,我将现有的学术成果扩展到 MiFID II 中关于补救行动的有争议的段落,并朝着新的方向发展。我提出了两个新的文本论证,可能会阐明这一段的含义。论据,据我所知,之前在法律学术领域没有取得过进步,利用对 MiFID II 文本的综合和连贯阅读。更准确地说,新颖的论点是基于有争议的段落与整个 MiFID II 的结构和措辞之间的关系。
更新日期:2020-05-14
down
wechat
bug