Lawsuit Contesting Greek Bailout To Be Heard By German Constitutional Court Imminently

Tyler Durden's picture

While it is not exactly clear what has caused the substantial sell off in the EURUSD over the past several hours, even with the explicit support of China of all insolvent European states, the news that the German constitutional court in Karlsruhe is about to commence hearing a lawsuit contesting the legality of the Greek bailout is certainly not helping the euro. As Athens News reports, "the suit was filed last July by a group of five Eurosceptics led by economist Joachim Starbatty. According to the plaintiffs, the financial help package for Greece runs contrary to article 125 of the EU Treaty - the so-called no-bailout clause - which does not allow the EU or a member state to undertake the responsibility of covering the debts of another member state." Explaining his lawsuit to Athens News, Starbatty said that "The German constitutional court will discuss the break of the no-bailout clause, the inflationary bias of purchasing government bonds by the European Central Bank, the danger of uncontrollable financial obligations and the rights of national parliaments of both debtor and creditor countries." And if there is one thing Germans are never happy to hear about, it is "inflationary bias" of any one thing.

So far the suit had been delayed, however the fact that the hearing is coming just in time for the passage of the second Greek bailout is likely about to ruffle a few feathers. As Anotnis Karampatzos, a law lecturer at the University of Athens says, "Whatever the outcome of this dispute might be, one thing is sure: the verdict of the constitutional court will affect the political scene in Germany as well as in Europe. This is not only because of the great importance of the case itself, but also because of the status of this court, whose decisions are always treated as landmarks in European jurisprudence."

From Athens News:

Since it was approved in the German parliament, the law for ratification of the aid packages falls under the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, Germany’s highest court, based in Karlsruhe. The court has not provided any information about the duration of the hearing nor the verdict date.

Some believe this is just more hot air, as there is no way that the law could possibly stand in the way of organized bankster crime:

“We consider it highly unlikely that the court would really risk triggering a dramatic European crisis by ruling outright that conditional support loans for the periphery violate the German constitution,” Holger Schmieding, an economist at Berenberg Bank, told Reuters. He noted, however, that the court may perhaps back a demand by mainstream parliamentarians that the German parliament be granted de facto power of a veto over support loans to be disbursed under the European Stability Mechanism.

And some more on Starbatty activist measure:

‘Greece should return to the drachma’
Interview with Joachim Starbatty*

Athens News: What motivated you to file a lawsuit against the financial aid provided to Greece?

Joachim Starbatty: I was often asked if I wished onto Greece a financial disaster by filing a lawsuit against the financial aid to Greece. Quite the contrary. By ruling out the no-bailout clause, the breaking of the Lisbon treaty - admitted openly by Christine Lagarde, the French minister of finance - was a rescue operation of the European creditor banks and has pushed Greece deeper in its trap of indebtedness. We recommend instead that Greece returns to its traditional currency, the drachma, for some time in order to regain international competitiveness by devaluing its own currency. Thus Greece can substitute its lack of internal purchasing power by external purchasing power - for example, by pushing tourism.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said that the euro is a guarantor of Germany’s continued economic success and that the euro’s defence is part of Berlin’s obligation to an EU that offered Germany a way out after the Second World War. Do you agree with this view?
Schaeuble’s speech last week was an attempt to explain to the German public why further payments for Greece are necessary. The euro is only a guarantee of economic success if the exchange rate in the currency union reflects an economic equilibrium. If not, then any currency union would explode or evolve into a transfer union. The obligation of the German government to Europe is not to throw more money into an open hole, but to stabilise the base of the common currency by sound economic measures.
What do you think triggered the Greek crisis in the first place?

I think the ‘easy money’ policy of the European Central Bank since 2002 was catastrophic for all countries on the periphery of the eurozone. In all these countries the real interest rate was below zero during 2002-2006 - the central bank rate was 2 percent in comparison with the increase of the harmonised price index of consumer goods. So politicians and people were misled into excessive indebtedness, the overall economic structure was distorted by bubbles and all these countries lost their international competitiveness. So Greece is only the most remarkable case.
In 1998, you and three other academics filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the introduction of the euro with Germany’s constitutional court. Why do you think your efforts will succeed this time?

We filed a lawsuit against the introduction of the euro since a lot of candidates, not just Greece, had not fulfilled the so-called convergence criteria. We have argued that if these criteria are not fulfilled from the very beginning, we cannot expect that the member countries will comply with their financial oblications after the establishment of the eurozone. The reality has confirmed our complaint. We are fighting for a Europe where every country is an esteemed member of the European Union and not only subject to decisions of foreign experts.
* Joachim Starbatty is a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Tuebingen

Perpetuating a stereotype of ‘horrid’ Greeks
By Antonis Karampatzos*
The five German academics who have appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) against the financial aid that is currently given to Greece maintain that in fact the EU, the ECB and the IMF are trying to save the European banks that hold Greek bonds by resorting for this purpose to the money of the German taxpayers, who thus pay the debts deriving from the “luxurious lifestyle of the horrid Greeks”.
The academics are actually re-producing a stereotype that permeates the whole German society nowadays and was initiated in the past by the German press - by Bild daily in particular - as well as by German Chancellor Angela Merkel herself, who wanted to address more effectively the conservative wing of her political party.
This time, however, the difference is crucial: the above-mentioned stereotype is reiterated by academics and, in addition to that, is being brought before the highest court of Germany.
Professor Starbatty is a well-known Eurosceptic. In the past he has also acted against the adoption of euro; this is the reason he became a member of a political party that defended the “D-Mark”.
Nowadays he is focusing on the financial help to Greece. Paradox though it may seem, Professor Starbatty claims that by his recent legal action he wants to protect not just the EU, but Greece as well.
In strictly legal terms, the appeal brought before the constitutional court of Germany initially had a serious problem to face, since a citizen may lodge an appeal with this court only if there is a violation of an individual right that is recognised by the German constitution - and the above-mentioned no-bailout clause does not constitute such a right. In addition, the constitutional court in general lacks the power to refer a case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is, in principle, the competent authority for violations of the EU Treaty.
Nevertheless, the constitutional court did not reject a priori the appeal; instead, it sent it to the federal government to express an opinion on the case. The government, on its part, did not play down the importance of the case and did express its opinion, claiming that the help mechanism aims at preserving the stability of the eurozone and, therefore, serves fundamental German interests.
The government also stressed the fact that the German parliament was not bypassed - as the five academics suggest - but, on the contrary, gave its consent to the help mechanism, although this admittedly happened by means of an “emergency session”. Thus the German MPs did not get a chance to influence the context of the political agreement that had already been reached between the political leaders of the EU.
Whatever the outcome of this dispute might be, one thing is sure: the verdict of the constitutional court will affect the political scene in Germany as well as in Europe. This is not only because of the great importance of the case itself, but also because of the status of this court, whose decisions are always treated as landmarks in European jurisprudence.
* Antonis Karampatzos is a lecturer in law at the University of Athens

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
automato's picture

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right (: something that one may properly claim as due) to life, liberty, and security of person." This statement has been used throughout History with some alterations but Life and Liberty has almost always been the cornerstone. If we are indeed due these things then Society must provide our BASIC human needs of clean air, water, food and shelter. Basic medical care and medicine must be provided as well. I challenge anyone to argue that these things are not a necessity for most of us to have "Life" I firmly believe that most people in the World would be ecstatic if just those basic needs were met. IMO everything else falls under the heading of "the pursuit of happiness". If you want something more than WORK for it. If we could just put our GREED aside to provide Life's basic necessities of security, shelter, nourishment, and healthcare we can still have a World where You can have much, much more than I if you want.

topcallingtroll's picture

I disagree

Those things are sometimes a necessity but should not be a right.


If you have the right to healthcare, then someone else is mandated to provide it or pay for it if you won't pay.

A right generally does not create a mandatory obligation for another person.

For example the right to free speech does not obligate anyone to publish your speech for free.  Nor does it obligate anyone to listen to it.  Your right to free exercise of religion does not obligate anyone to construct a place of worship for you.


I completely disagree that healthcare, food, water, and shelter are rights.  Rights do not create mandatory obligations on others.

If we provided you and others with security, health care, nourishment, and free housing (shelter) then I suspect you wouldn't work very hard to produce anything.  You would just be another parasite taking more from society than you give back.

Your taking more from society than you give back is not noble.  My refusal to support you is not greed.

bigdawg's picture

Well said.  I just wish all the people who thought free shelter, food, water, healthcare, etc. were rights would get together, form a commune, and see how that worked out for them.  They'd all sit around yelling at each other for the other person to provide their "rights".  The only real right we have is the right to Life, and only if we are able to defend it. 

topcallingtroll's picture

I suspect a commune of socialists, each of whom thought they had a right to stuff that obligated someone else to pay for it or produce it, would soon repeat the lesson of the early pilgrims.

Zero Govt's picture

Yep, Top and Big are bang on the money

The biggest bullshit to address in Human Rights is why the fuck we need a bunch of senile judges and fee-feeding parasites (that'll be lawyers) to appoint (annoint) us with our freedom? We were born free, so who needs a bloated system of paid muppets to 'award' us with it!

The problem with Human Rights is it is the State awarding us rights and the State who can also take it away. Or in the case of the fatuous European Court of Human Rights, not give you legal funds because it requires tens of thousands to persue 'justice' in these expensive time-consuming opaque court systems (just as the State, lawyers and Judges designed it)

We had freedom and a free society until the State and the Law/Legal System conned us into believing we needed them... then it strangled our freedom with their monopolistic system and just as it was designed to do, turns justice into how big your wallet is not how just your cause

Any citizen or small business trying to sue either the State, Big Corporates or the rich is absoutely up against it (f**ked).. the Marxists-Fascists system of suppression and oppression is the Law as is the State itself

three chord sloth's picture

These so-called "positive rights" are not rights at all. They are just an IOU from the state for the purchase of your liberty... an IOU that will only be honored during good times, and is worthless during bad.

Rynak's picture

As long as you REJECT people the ability, to work to sustain their lives themselves outside of the free market, the free market is RESPONSIBLE for guaranteeing people not employed, the mentioned services.... else, you quite literarily are not just demanding slavery to be a right, but moreover claim ownership to someone elses life (that is, killing whomever you want).

People with your mentality took something away from people. Now deal with the consequences of having to provide it to them yourself - or give it back to them.

That is something which certain people are not willing to admit. They want power, over peoples life, but don't want to deal with the responsibility. Lazy greedy cheapskates never can get enough.

Quaderratic Probing's picture

I don't want to pay for bridges that you use and I do not. I can buy my own insurance for fire and theft so why do I pay for your Police and fire department? I have no kids in school but I have to pay for the schooling of yours. Why stop at healthcare covered by others?

topcallingtroll's picture

I agree.

Bridges are not rights either.

I have never said we cant have some common elements that I pay for and you use for free. Just dont call them rights.

I also dont see anywhere in the constitution that free public education is a right, but i dont mind paying for it.

Rynak's picture

You pay for it, because there are people who do not want to pay extra costs, for other people's stupdity, and inability of thinking one inch beyond their own life.

Reality to QR: Fires do not care about human concepts like individualism, when it comes to how they develop. In fact, they also don't care about things like property, and thus do not care who is in a building, at a given point in time.

P.S.: I just noticed, that this is a great opportunity, to show that when stuff is done wrong, what follows will be socialism (throwing extra money at the problem): Let us assume, people do not need to pay fire insurance. Let us further assume, one quarter of a city decides to not pay fire insurance. A fire breaks out in that area. Since no one insured, the fire department does nothing, and lets the fire develop into something really big.... then, after one quater of the city burned down, a giant wall of fire will threaten those that are insured. The fire department this time will be unable do deal with this efficiently, because it is underpowered against this. Half of the city burns down, before it is gotten under control. By the time this happens the next time, the fire department will have boosted its forces and equipment x4, even operating a fleet of aircrafts do deal with such massive fires. The 3/4 of the city that are insured, will therefore now pay: 100 / 3 * 4 * 4 = 533% of the original insurance cost.

Another option is, that the fire department gets involved, even if someone isn't insured. In any case, the result will be not individualism, not liberty - but plain simple egoism! Those acting sane, will pay more than 5 times the normal insurance cost, so that a bunch of irresponsible cheapskates can pay zero while endangering everyone with their egoism.

That folks, is what this kind of "individualism" and "libertarianism" (intentionally in quotes) really is about: Egoism and parasitism. It has nothing at all to do with fairness. Nothing at all to do with individuals overally being better off. All it has to do with, is egocentrism and shortterm thinking.

shortus cynicus's picture

Sorry, but this is utterly wrong understanding the meaning of word "right".

To have right doesn't mean that someone else must provide it for you. It mean that anyone else can't forbid or tax you for providing it.

Just imagine, that practically all countries deny you a right to use your own land to build a shelter, produce food and water WITHOUT PERMISION from government.

Why do I have to get permission to sleep on my property, or drink water from my own well or make own food? That's my basic rights as human and I don't want to be jailed for "not asking for permission" !!!

What next? Do I need permision to breath, think, talk, move, ground communities, have children, kill enemies?

Urban Redneck's picture

Your "right" to life merely means that neither I, northe State, has the "right" to revoke your life without proceeding through a delineated process.

Your "right" to liberty merely means that neither I, nor the State, has the "right" to revoke your liberty and lock you away in our dungeons without proceeding through a delineated process.


Needs (which are actually nothing more than desires) and Rights are not the same thing. 


Even you to drag history into the discussion- Even before 1776, rights were endowed by a creator (God), or in 1215, the divine right of the King (Head of State), was constrained by the divine rights God granted his subjects.

In short - go beg God for your clean air, water, food and shelter, it is not the duty of your fellow citizens to provide it for you.



The Aviator's picture

here we go. 2008 all over again. Time to cash out of paper and go all physical gold and silver.

slow_roast's picture

Or just not have Euros maybe.  How about that idea?  If the Euro goes down, the USD goes significantly higher and there will be such a flight to liquidity that gold would possibly go go down.  Just saying...

NidStyles's picture

That's the best time to buy gold and silver, is when the paper pusher's are dumping it for cheap to prevent losses. Buy Physical, and reap the reward's.

ONEPurpose's picture

Yea, it's happening already Aviator. America isn't catching on yet, but China and India are importing like crazy. Good for me, get it while it's cool. I just converted all my SLVs to physical, not riding that wave to the ground when fiat is crushed.  

Atomizer's picture

There is no crisis. Just bankers who fucked up.

Athens needs the 12 billion euros to pay its bills next month and avert the euro zone's first sovereign default, which would send shockwaves through a jittery global financial system.



Atomizer's picture

I've done enough damage in one day. Going to bed. CD has it right, $5.45 Gold Bond remedy.

Thanks again for all you do Tyler and staff. :>)

vegas's picture

Ohhhhhh goody: a lawsuit. This will help clear matters up.

Chris Jusset's picture

A lawsuit will accomplish nothing because there is no "law" when it comes to bailing out bankers.  Indeed, the only "law" is that bankers will continue to be bailed out into perpetuity.

topcallingtroll's picture

The German courts are known to be fairly honest, but they do not want to be responsible for causing a recession and bank failures if they did an honest interpretation of the law.


It will be interesting to see what twists and stretching of the law it requires for the german court to allow the bailouts.

dogbreath's picture

its too bad germany is so full of socialist fags.  i doubt the professor will win because this is not about the greeks but the bankers, bond holders and the hidden derivatives.  but this bubble has to pop eventually and maybe it will be these judges that put a halt to the farce.

Lord Welligton's picture

All they need is a 20 foot by 20 foot picture of Theodoros Pangalos outside the court.

The Germans can work out the rest for themselves.

WorkOutWellForAll's picture

After erupting in laughter over the fat vice-man, I muse whether Buddhist ethics offer some solace the ravages of our current world. Who amongst you would accept his enormous belly in exchange for his salary and powers? I'm believe many here make more than the man -- but some may not.

I'm questioning at the allure of wealth and power. If it's not gluttony, are the other accoutrements of monetary security actually superior to ethical values? I'm indirectly responding to the ridicule of the health care rights above.

Or perhaps approach in a different manner, must you adopt such callous self-protective views in order to accumulate wealth? I believe the root taboo is living a good life without working. Even without luxury, such a secure, long, life pursuing friends, family, and freedom -- this is totally abhorrent to the resentful slaves of monetary accumulation, who then defame anyone who suggests non-money accumulating justice ideas.

In Buddhism, generosity creates wealth -- is the claim -- and yet, this wealth, I have heard commented, is not necessarily material -- could be knowledge, or opportunity, or even happiness? I, who was born wealthy, but just entered the ranks of unemployed gladly, because I despise the indignity of work -- even though I dread imagined poverty -- I would never desire to get stuck with those grasping, dismissive views of the "conservatives", whose sound business sense is laced with fascist disregard.

Yes, the fat man deserves ridicule -- maybe termination. But I believe we can find a place to sleep, eat, and someone to treat his heart attack in a more fairly distributed wealth arrangement. I believe it is the top wealthy who turn the medium wealthy into crypto-fascist Republicans -- which is too much to pay for prosperity.

StychoKiller's picture

All animals are equal -- but some are more equal than others.

Just WHO decides what is "fair?"

Our work, or your (Big Brother's) gun(s):  Pick one, you cannot have both.

The Aviator's picture

I converted my SLV to physical a long time ago. SLV naked short positions are now 11% of total outstanding shares!

nathan1234's picture

The manipulations without doubt are being done by JPM and Goldman at the helm- with recourse to funds being provided to them by Ben.


The Fonz's picture

HSBC seems to get left off of that JPM and GS list. From what I have read they seem to a pretty large stake in gold manipluation, and may have a pretty sizeable position in silver as well.

allenaki's picture

I hope the German Constitutional Court does not approve the second "bailout" in order to let us free to continue alone.
Poor, but independent, and with the national currency.

Lord Welligton's picture


The Euro is a shit construct.

But it's not the Germans.

It is the French that are your enemy.

allenaki's picture


The Germans owe Greece billions from the War Reparations.
But Traitors-greek politicians did not chase the case systematically.

This is another story of mystery, spy and bribing..

allenaki's picture

turdball wrong typing, was in the translator machine to find out what that means in greek, this was not for you, I'm sorry

Lord Welligton's picture

Not a problem.

But let me be clear.

It is the French that are the enemy.

Particulary their Prime Minister.

"What made me who I am now is the sum of all the humiliations suffered during childhood"

And now he wants to take it out on you.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Yup, those french.
While they do not fight too well, the franco-german axis is the one to figure out in Europe.
And how Italy/Vatican play the role of balancing/gatekeeping.

Fr those who might be unaware, the city of Paris is so loaded with esoteric signatures that it would boggle the mind of the un-initiated.

Now look at ze statue of liberty.... where did she come from? What else was planted in the US by way of such power-symbols?
It's all hidden in plain sight.

Landrew's picture

I am not sure who the villain is. I know the French are

involved much deeper than any of us knows by their

silence at odd times. The entire banking system may be

in lock step. If that is true one of them will stop the music

and the chairs will all be gone.

allenaki's picture

and with the gold standard again of course, there is no other way out

Tunga's picture

Sometimes you just have to lie.

gwar5's picture

Who knew the EU experiment once had a basis in reality? 

quark's picture

You have a fundamental right to pursue all of those things, but no man has a right to demand their fulfillment. You can only have a 'right' to health care if a provider of the service can be conscripted to provide the service. Your 'right' to health care entails the involuntary servitude of another, and you have no right to fulfill any need you think you have by pressing another into slavery. The same holds true on the subject of shelter - you cannot realize your demand for shelter without pressing the laborer who builds housing into your service against his will..... so again, your position that these things are a fiundamental right requires eliminating the freedom of another person, and as such employs violence and cannot be a fundamental right.

The fundametal right to life and liberty require the forced services of no man - it requires only that the right is respected for all and curtailed for none. So long as everyone respects these rights of all others, my enjoyment of the right is not in conflivct with your right to the same.

In short..... you cannot have a fundamental right to a thing that requires another man to be pressed into service unvoluntarily to provide it - you only have very base needs and wants, which you can enter into a social contract to try and provide for these things. Tyrannies are almost always the result when people fail to make the proper distinction between what is a right and just a very important need......


infinity8's picture

wrong - saying that people should have the right to basic health care is not the same as saying the provider should give it for free. there are lots of examples from lots of countries that operate differently than the US. how the fuck did health insurance come to be? why does anyone want to give $$ to some fat, bloated, middle-man for health care that they DON'T provide? why are medical benefits not contracted like legal services, retainer? now that we figured out HSA's, why the fuck conventional health insurance? as far as health care overhaul, imo, everyone should have an HSA (w/employer contributions as a benefit) so that $$ intended for medical care would be there. (and you can spend them with whichever provider you CHOOSE)

topcallingtroll's picture

the provider is not necessarily required to give it for free but the important distinction is still correct.  Someone is forced to pay for healthcare that someone else claims as a "right."


Again I draw the line at rights that create mandatory obligations on others.  You have the right to worship as you choose.  You do not have the right to force people to pay for a place of worship for you.


Real rights do not create obligations on others.  That is a taking away of other people's rights.

infinity8's picture

i'd rather have some of my tax dollars going to fix someone's broken leg from some accident or prescribe Rx for pneumonia than a long fucking laundry list of where it currently goes. are you one of those "firemen" that would watch someone's home burn because they haven't paid their $75 annual fee ?

infinity8's picture

besides, what a shitty business model. i know doctors are supposed to be smart but, why would they want everything funnelled thru some fat bastard? i'm sure they get their kick-back $$ from insurance co's and pharma but, how much would they save in overhead to not have to deal w/insurance co's? there is already a growing number of doctors that will not deal w/any insurance. (the top 10% probably and most people w/conventional health insurance are stuck w/the rest)

topcallingtroll's picture

You are still ignoring the fact that if a person can't pay the reduced fee by eliminating insurance overhead, that under your system other people are forced at the barrel of a gun to hand over money so that said person can have his "rights."


Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.  Violence, kidnapping, and forceful taking of your property is the result.  If we must take things from other people, then we need to take as little as possible to maintain only the basics of government and liberty.

topcallingtroll's picture

actually yes I would let it burn.  I used to live in Tennessee and I love the rural people there.

If every house was going to be saved even if they didn't pay the fee to support the voluntary fire department, then a lot more people would "forget" to pay the fee.  This is a voluntary association.  There is no government fire department in that area.  The people have chosen to live that way and I wholeheartedly respect their choice.

Bottom line, in Tennessee if you live in a rural area without a fire department you damn well better pay your fee.  Freeloaders and parasites are not tolerated.

bigdawg's picture

Well, you're free to use your own money to pay for someone's broken leg or prescription...who didn't feel the need to purchase insurance.  Just don't obligate me to do it.  I'll keep my obligations to friends, family, and charities of MY choosing.

Yeah, I heard about the fireman watching the home burn down because someone didn't feel the need to pay their annual fee.  The person, whoever they are, chose not to pay.  They knew the consequences...and made a horrible risk/reward decision.  So, you're faulting the fireman for that one?  What about the homeowner?  Let's see...I can risk my $100,000+ home because I don't want to pay $75...the homeowner was a complete idiot.  You tell me that someone couldn't come up with $75 if they really wanted to? 

topcallingtroll's picture

just another quick response.  I might agree with you that we should soften the harsh edges of society.  I don't like to see children begging on the streets.

Just because we as a society may make a decision to spend money on something shouldn't require us to call it a right.  I am willing to pay for the healthcare of others in some circumstances, but it should never be considered a right to force me to pay for it.

quark's picture

That you are willing is the important point (which I know you understand)....

I am willing to as well, but my willingness to be a good neighbor and citizen in this regard ceases when it is coerced by threats of violence. A social good cannot be performed when it is predicated on a foundation of evil (health care for the indigent = good; appropriating 'contributions' at the business end of of a rifle = bad)....