Nota a la sentencia Icesave del Tribunal de la Asociación Europea de Libre Comercio (AELC) de 28 de enero de 2013. Garantía de depósitos bancarios, discriminación territorial y deuda soberana tras la crisis financiera en Islandia

• Main Author: Méndez Pinedo, Elvira
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: Spanish
• Published: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales 2013
• Subjects: Islandia; Espacio Económico Europeo; Tribunal EFTA - Icesave; Directiva 94; 19; CE Garantía Depósitos; Iceland; European Economic Area; EFTA Court - Icesave; Directive 94; EC on deposit-guarantee schemes; Bajos
• Online Access: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4540739

The key issue decided by the EFTA Court in its judgment Icesave was whether the European banking legislation in 2008 required European Union (EU) Member States and therefore also Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA ) to nationalize private debt left by the bankruptcy of Landsbanki bank in the UK and the Netherlands (Icesave branches) when this debt lacked a connection to the Icelandic economy and territory. Did European law (EU / EEA) require at the time and place to convert part of that private bank debt (guaranteed deposits) into sovereign debt?. The answer, at least for events in Icelandic adjudicated under the earlier Directive 94/19/EC on deposit guarantee schemes is negative. The Court further finds that there was no discrimination neither under the scope of the directive in question (which was not even applied) nor under the general prohibition of discrimination under Article 4 EEA Agreement (failure of comparison test). This article argues that while the Court's conclusion is accurate, its legal reasoning leaves two legal essential questions unanswered. Firstly, discrimination on the grounds of territory is a separate category that is not prohibited by EU/EEA law. Secondly, this is a question of powers reserved exclusively to the State. Given that the European banking legislation then in force left intact the fiscal and budgetary sovereign powers of the EU/EEA States, the emergency measures adopted by Iceland fell outside the scope of the harmonized European law. The effectiveness of European law cannot be extended indefinitely to impose State responsibility for breach of law EU / EEA in these circumstances. La cuestión clave decidida por el Tribunal de la Asociación Europea de Libre Comercio (AELC) en su sentencia Icesave fue si la legislación bancaria europea obligaba en 2008 a los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea (EU) y por ende del Espacio Económico Europeo (EEE) a nacionalizar la deuda dejada por el colapso del banco Landsbanki en el Reino Unido y los Países Bajos (sucursales ...