Dómur EFTA dómsstóls vekur endalausa furðu lagaspekinga í hvíventna

sem vonlegt er. Margir benda á að fjármálaveldinu sé gefið skotleyfi á almenning með þessum dómi og rökfærslan sé eins og út úr kú miðað við Evrópska túlkunarhefð á laga og regluverki:

,,In my view, this jeopardises the effectiveness of deposit-guarantee schemes (DGS) by allowing Member States and their supervision entities to shield behind formalities linked to the design of such DGS and to reject any liability potentially derived from their errors of assessment or insufficient solvency requirements in case of a systemic crisis. The issue of State liability is discussed in such formalistic terms that the Icesave Judgment seems completely disconnected from the general supervisory trends required in an area where risk assessment and risk-avoidance / risk-mitigation policies impose a much more sophisticated exercise to all other players (namely, the banks and the DGSs themselves).

The simplicity of the analysis, which omits any appraisal of the proportionality of the regulatory measures carried out by the State (both in terms of their suitability and their sufficiency), sets a bad precedent in an area where the incentive to set per-se rules in discharge of State liabilities seem already excessive.

Moreover, regardless of the attempt to restrict these findings to the 'pre-2009' version of the Directive, the extremely broad wording of paragraphs 144, 172 and 176 of the Icesave Judgment indicate otherwise. Particularly in view of the fact that at paragraph 139 the EFTA Court hints at the inapplicability of the 'post-2009' version to 'a banking crisis of a certain size[, which] would require further assessment'--and, indeed, this seems to be the most plausible (future) interpretation, unless a significant reversal of the Icesave Judgment is intended."

http://howtocrackanut.blogspot.co.uk/