Ekki įstęša til aš óttast jafnręšisregluna!

Flestir eru sammįla žvķ aš engin rķkisįbyrgš sé į innistęšutryggingarsjóši. Žrįtt fyrir žaš óttast fólk tap ķ dómsmįli og mögulegar afleišingar žess jafnvel žó lķkurnar séu litlar sem engar. Sį ótti er vegna mögulegs brots į jafnręšisreglunni. Aš žar sem ķslensk stjórnvöld įkvįšu aš tryggja innistęšur aš fullu į Ķslandi en ekki ķ erlendum śtibśum žį sé mögulegt aš byggja dóm į žvķ aš um óheimila mismunun hafi veriš aš ręša sbr. 4. grein EES samningsins.

Fjórša grein EES samningsins bannar mismunun į grundvelli žjóšernis (e. nationality). Um slķkt var ekki aš ręša. Innistęšur allra, bęši ķslendinga og śtlendinga, ķ ķslenskum śtibśum voru tryggšar. Hinsvegar voru innistęšur Ķslendinga ķ śtibśum ķ Bretlandi og Hollandi ekki tryggšar. Žvķ er ekki um mismunun į grundvelli žjóšernis aš ręša.

Lög ESB gilda ekki į Ķslandi, nema žau sem innleidd eru ķ EES samninginn eša tengjast öšru samstarfi viš ESB. Reglur ESB um mismunun hljóta hinsvegar aš verša lagšar til grundvallar viš mat į mismunun. Žaš eru žrjś meginskilyrši sem žurfa aš vera til stašar til aš réttlęta mismunun.

1) Ground of general interest – can be justified only if motivated by public policy, public security or puplic health. Mismunun žarf aš hafa veriš naušsynleg til aš tryggja öryggi og velferš almennings. Žaš įtti viš į Ķslandi sbr. įlit ESA. Žar segir m.a. aš ķsl. stjórnvöld hafi haft fullan rétt til inngripa žar sem öryggi og velferš almennings hafi veriš ķ hśfi. Ef ekki hefši veriš gripiš til ašgerša hefšu ķslensk fyrirtęki t.d. ekki getaš greitt śt laun og almenningur žvķ ekki getaš keypt naušsynjar eins og mat, lyf ofl.

2) Principle of subsidiarity – the pursued objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by other means, only by adobting a discriminative measures. Ašrar leišir, sem ekki fólu ķ sér mismunun, til aš tryggja aš markmišum yrši nįš voru ekki fęrar. Žrįtt fyrir aš ķsl. stjórnvöld hefšu viljaš tryggja innistęšur breta og hollendinga žį var žaš ekki mögulegt. Ķ įliti ESA kemur t.d. fram aš žaš hefši rżrt trśveršugleika ašgeršanna ef rķkiš hefši tekiš į sig slķka skuldbindingu sem žaš gat augljóslega ekki stašiš undir en ķ įliti ESA segir: „The success of the emergency measures depended largely on the credibility of the action taken. Measures taken to back up the Icelandic banks as a whole would probably have lacked the necessary credibility.“

 

3) Principle of proportionality – the adopted measure shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the pursued objective. Ekki var gengiš lengra en naušsyn krafši til aš nį markmišum.   Ef innistęšur hefšu eingöngu notiš lįgmarkstryggingar žį hefšu fyrirtęki ekki getaš greitt śt laun en eitt af markmišunum var einmitt aš tryggja aš hęgt yrši aš greiša almenningi laun svo hann ętti fyrir naušsynjum. Innflytjendur matvęla og lyfja hefšu heldur ekki getaš fjįrmagnaš innflutning naušsynja o.s.frv. ESA oršar žaš svo: „Almost every family and business in Iceland is said to have been a customer, holding debit and savings accounts with these banks. The Icelandic authorities claim that deposits with banks are not just savings; the current accounts are used by the bank's customers for their regular financial transactions. Limits in accessing such accounts would have instantly risked causing a full run on the banks with consequent serious risks for public security. Businesses could not have used funds to pay for their resources and to pay wages to employees; retail suppliers could not have imported necessities for the public, drugs and food etc; lawyers' trust accounts and other similar forms of deposits would have been non-operable with dire consequences. The general public would not have been able to access money deposited at the banks, e.g. proceeds from sales of real-estate, to finance the purchase of a new home. Money could not have been withdrawn to honour large payment obligations to banks and other institutions. This would have increased the already existing risk of systemic financial collapse.“

Ennfremur kemur žetta fram ķ įliti ESA: „The Authority cannot agree with the complainants' view that, the Icelandic authorities could and should have relied on the Icelandic deposit guarantee scheme and that the Deposit Guarantee Directive shows that on 7 October 2008 any guarantee of depositors in excess of EUR 20,000 must have been unnecessary.“

Ž.e.a.s. ESA lżsir žvķ yfir aš žeir geti ekki veriš sammįla žvķ aš trygging innistęšna umfram lįgmarksinnistęšutryggingu hafi ekki veriš naušsynleg.

Óttast einhver aš hafa brotiš jafnręšisregluna?


« Sķšasta fęrsla | Nęsta fęrsla »

Bęta viš athugasemd

Ekki er lengur hęgt aš skrifa athugasemdir viš fęrsluna, žar sem tķmamörk į athugasemdir eru lišin.

Innskrįning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveikiš į Javascript til aš hefja innskrįningu.

Hafšu samband