The Supreme Court ruled that Ireland could ratify the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty without a constitutional referendum, finding that the agreement did not involve an impermissible transfer of sovereignty. It also refused to temporarily restrain ratification while EU-law questions in the appeal awaited a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 19 October 2012, addressed two urgent issues in Thomas Pringle’s appeal from a High Court judgment delivered on 17 July 2012. The Court had ruled on those issues on 31 July and reserved its reasons.
Applying the principles in *Crotty v An Taoiseach*, the Supreme Court rejected Pringle’s argument that the ESM Treaty committed Ireland to an open-ended and irreversible transfer of powers. It said the treaty set out a defined policy of supporting the euro area’s financial stability and a specified maximum financial contribution. Any increase in Ireland’s liability beyond that maximum would require a unanimous decision by the ESM Board of Governors and Irish national procedures, including approval by Dáil Éireann and amendment of the ESM Act 2012.
The Court also considered the treaty’s voting arrangements, including an emergency procedure under which decisions could be made by an 85% majority of votes cast. It concluded that these arrangements implemented the agreed policy and did not transfer future policy-making power to another institution or allow Ireland’s maximum contribution to be increased without the required approvals.
The ruling was limited to the constitutional issue based on *Crotty*. The Court said other constitutional arguments, including challenges concerning the ESM Act and alleged incompatibility with EU law, were not before it for decision at that stage. It had separately referred EU-law questions to the Court of Justice, and adjourned that aspect of the appeal pending the ruling.
The Supreme Court also refused Pringle’s application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the State from ratifying, approving or accepting the ESM Treaty while proceedings continued. Applying the *Campus Oil* test, it found the balance of convenience weighed against an injunction and considered that a speedy resolution of the outstanding issues would provide an adequate remedy if Pringle succeeded on the EU-law reference.