The Supreme Court has referred questions about the European Union’s euro stability mechanism to the Court of Justice, while rejecting Thomas Pringle’s claim that Ireland’s participation would unlawfully transfer sovereign powers and his request to block ratification of the treaty.
The reference, made under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, asks whether European Council Decision 2011/199/EU is valid and whether an EU member state using the euro may enter into and ratify an international agreement such as the European Stability Mechanism Treaty. The court also asked whether that entitlement, if it exists, depends on the decision entering into force.
Pringle, an Irish citizen and member of Dáil Éireann, opposes Ireland’s participation in the ESM Treaty. He argued that it would transfer sovereign monetary powers and require a referendum, and that the treaty and the 2011 decision conflicted with EU law. The Supreme Court said the reference concerns his claims about the ESM Treaty and the European Council Decision. It rejected the sovereignty claim on 31 July 2012. The injunction claim was also rejected, and the remaining issues were deferred pending the reference.
The High Court had dismissed Pringle’s claims after a seven-day hearing. It declined to refer the validity of the European Council Decision, finding it “completely valid”, but referred a question about the effect of any member state failing to notify approval of the decision and its effect on the ESM Treaty. Pringle appealed to the Supreme Court.
Ireland had enacted the European Communities (Amendment) Act 2012 on 3 July 2012 to begin approving the European Council Decision. The Supreme Court noted that Pringle had amended his claim to seek a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court’s referral is not a ruling on the validity of the decision or the compatibility of the ESM Treaty with EU law. It said the answers were necessary to decide the appeal. The court requested the accelerated procedure, citing exceptional urgency and evidence the State had placed before the courts about the consequences of delayed ratification. It said its answers would inform the domestic proceedings.