...
首页> 外文期刊>European Business Organization Law Review >Recalibrating the Debate on MiFID's Private Enforceability: Why the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is the Elephant in the Room
【24h】

Recalibrating the Debate on MiFID's Private Enforceability: Why the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is the Elephant in the Room

机译:重新校准关于MIFID的私人能力的辩论:为什么基本权利的欧盟宪章是房间里的大象

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

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 IPs 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.
机译:MIFIDⅠ的成因在以下问题上发起了激烈的学术辩论:MIFID是否决定了指令中嵌入的规则的私人可执行性?更具体地说,在对EFFET易学官的一般提及下,某些作者认为,MIFID要求会员国提供私人法律补救措施,以便侵犯某些(投资者保护)MIFID规定。然而,法律奖学金中的另一条股署长谴责这个想法。在他们的阅读中,通过仅提供行政执法机制,成员国可能同样鉴于投资者保护目标,同样实现了Effetute。根据这一愿景,因此,成员国决定是否在什么条件下,提供私法补救措施。这场辩论从未导致过广泛的共识,并持续存在于MIFIDⅡ时代。我的论文有点挑衅,是以下情况:法律奖学金在评估MIFID的私人可执行性时,错误地忽视了基本权利的欧盟章程。由于宪章需要违反欧盟法律赋予个人的权利的有效司法补救措施,我争辩说,它在关于MIFID的私人能力的辩论中的遗漏导致对MIFID执行的严重误解。此外,鉴于我的文章的中央论文,我将现有的奖学金关于在新方向上关于补救行动的MIFID IPS争议段落。我提出了两个可能阐明了这段含义的新文本论点。在我的知识中的争论中,尚未在法律奖学金中提前进入,借鉴了对MifidⅡ的综合读数。更精确地,新颖的论点是基于有争议的段落与整个MifidⅡ的结构和措辞之间的关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号