A euro area Member State can oblige its administration to accept payments in cash, but can also limit that payment option on public interest grounds

In its Judgment in Joined Cases C-422/19 and C-423/19 (Johannes Dietrich and Norbert Häring v Hessischer Rundfunk) the European Court of Justice ruled that a euro area Member State can oblige its administration to accept payments in cash, but can also limit that payment option on public interest grounds. Such a limitation may in particular be justified where payment in cash is likely to involve the administration in unreasonable expense because of the very high number of persons liable to pay.

Two German citizens who were liable to pay a radio and television licence fee in the Land of Hesse (Germany) offered to pay it to Hessischer Rundfunk (Hesse’s broadcasting body) in cash. Invoking its regulations on the procedure for payment of radio and television licence fees, which preclude any possibility of paying the licence fee in cash,[1] Hessischer Rundfunk refused their offer and sent them payment notices. The two German citizens brought an action against those payment notices and the dispute reached the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Germany).

That court noted that the exclusion of the possibility of paying the radio and television licence fee by means of euro banknotes, as provided for by Hessischer Rundfunk’s regulations on the payment procedure, infringes a higher-ranking provision of federal law, under which euro banknotes are to be unrestricted legal tender.[2]

The Bundesverwaltungsgericht, however, queried whether that provision of federal law is compatible with the exclusive competence of the European Union in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro, and referred the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. It also asked whether the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro prohibited the public authorities of Member States from ruling out the possibility of a statutorily imposed payment obligation being discharged in cash, as is the case for payment of the radio and television licence fee in the Land of Hesse.

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice rules that a Member State whose currency is the euro may, in the context of the organisation of its public administration, adopt a measure obliging that administration to accept payment in cash or introduce, for a reason of public interest and under certain conditions, a derogation from that obligation. Findings of the Court First, the Court of Justice interprets the concept of ‘monetary policy’ in the area in which the European Union has exclusive competence for the Member States whose currency is the euro.[3]

The Court begins by stating that that concept is not limited to its operational implementation but also entails a regulatory dimension intended to guarantee the status of the euro as the single currency. Next, it notes that the attribution of the status of ‘legal tender’ only to euro banknotes ssued by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks[4] affirms the official nature of those banknotes in the euro area, excluding the possibility that other banknotes may also qualify for that status. It adds that the concept of ‘legal tender’ of a means of payment denominated in a currency unit signifies that that means of payment cannot generally be refused in settlement of a debt denominated in the same currency unit.

Last, it points out that the fact that the EU legislature can lay down the measures necessary for the use of the euro as the single currency[5] reflects the need to establish uniform principles for all Member States whose currency is the euro and contributes to the pursuit of the primary objective of the European Union’s monetary policy, which is to maintain price stability. Consequently, the Court rules that the European Union alone is competent to specify the status of legal tender accorded to banknotes denominated in euro.

The Court recalls that, where competence is conferred exclusively on the European Union, Member States cannot adopt or retain a provision falling within that competence, even in a situation where the European Union has not exercised its exclusive competence.

However, the Court notes that it is not necessary for the establishment of the status of legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro or for the preservation of their effectiveness as legal tender to impose an absolute obligation to accept those banknotes as a means of payment. Nor is it necessary that the European Union lay down exhaustively and uniformly the exceptions to that fundamental obligation, so long as it is possible, as a general rule, to pay in cash.

Consequently, the Court concludes that the Member States whose currency is the euro are competent to regulate the procedures for settling pecuniary obligations, so long as it is possible, as a general rule, to pay in cash denominated in euro. Thus, a Member State can adopt a measure which obliges its public administration to accept cash payments in that currency. Second, the Court notes that the status of legal tender of banknotes and coins denominated in euro implies, in principle, an obligation to accept them.

However, it makes clear that that obligation may, in principle, be restricted by the Member States for reasons of public interest, provided that those restrictions are proportionate to the public interest objective pursued, which means, in particular, that other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts must be available. In that regard, the Court states that it is in the public interest that monetary debts to public authorities may be honoured in a way that does not involve those authorities in unreasonable expense which would prevent them from providing services cost-effectively.

Thus, the public interest reason relating to the need to ensure the fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation is capable of justifying a limitation on cash payments, in particular where the number of licence fee payers from whom the debt has to be recovered is very high. It is nevertheless for the Bundesverwaltungsgericht to ascertain whether such a limitation is proportionate to the objective of actually recovering the radio and television licence fee, in particular in the light of the fact that the lawful alternative means of payment may not be readily accessible to everyone liable to pay it. (curia.europa.eu / photo: pixabay)

The decision is available here

[1] Paragraph 10(2) of the Satzung des Hessischen Rundfunks über das Verfahren zur Leistung der Rundfunkbeiträge (Regulations of Hessischer Rundfunk on the procedure for payment of radio and television licence fees) of 5 December 2012

[2] Second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the Gesetz über die Deutsche Bundesbank (Law on the German central bank), in the version published on 22 October 1992 (BGBl. 1992 I, p. 1782), as amended by the Law of 4 July 2013 (BGBl. 2013 I p. 1981)

[3] Under Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, given that, according to Article 2(1) TFEU, only the European Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area.

[4] The status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro is established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 16 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 230), and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1).

[5] Article 133 TFEU.

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more