The Eurogroup has played a central role in decision-making in the area of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) since its very inception. Nevertheless, it is one of those EU bodies that are least understood. This chapter focuses on the political and legal accountability of the Eurogroup, key aspects of which remained ill-defined for a considerable period of time. The discussion begins with the foundations and tasks of the Eurogroup (Section 2). The focus then shifts to the political accountability of the Eurogroup, the emphasis being on its relationship with the European Council and the Economic Dialogues with the European Parliament (Section 3.1). The chapter further looks at its legal accountability, in light of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Section 3.2). The penultimate section of the chapter provides an assessment of the Eurogroup’s accountability in light of the framework laid down in the introductory chapter to this volume, namely in terms of procedural and substantive ways of delivering the normative goods of accountability (Section 4). Section 5 concludes by outlining the key features of the accountability arrangements and practices pertaining to the Eurogroup.

Affected by the financial crisis and in order to receive financial assistance, several EU member states had to adopt structural adjustment programmes aiming at the reduction of public expenditures. Despite their differences, common feature of all financial assistance schemes was the combination of supranational and international legal instruments and institutions. Newly created financial assistance mechanisms, such as the EFSF and ESM, were created under international law and all financial assistance packages included the participation of the IMF. This hybrid nature of European financial assistance raises the question of whether the actors involved in the award of the assistance are bound by EU human rights. Against this background, this chapter first exposes the doubtful legitimacy of European financial assistance. Second, it analyses the CJEU case law on financial assistance conditionality from a human rights perspective, aiming to respond to the question of whether European actors were and could be bound by human rights when preparing financial assistance conditions. Third, it investigates the possibility of conceiving a legitimate role for courts in applying the procedural and substantive dimension of human rights accountability in times of crisis.

The European Banking Union (EBU) launched in 2012 relies on a complex institutional architecture; that is, a series of EU institutions and bodies as well as national institutions are involved in its functioning. At the EU level, these include the European Central Bank (ECB) – which acts as the authority in charge of monetary and as banking supervisor, two EU agencies (the Single Resolution Board and the European Banking Authority), as well as the European Commission. This chapter examines the existing accountability mechanisms vis-à-vis each of these institutions and bodies with a view to determining whether any accountability gaps exist. To this end, it first maps these mechanisms and analyses how they have been used to date. It finds that the mechanisms have been used indeed, but that some shortcomings exist in the existing institutional framework. It therefore proposes some reforms to improve the existing situation.

This chapter provides the volumes general conceptual framework. It begins by addressing why new approaches to accountability are needed, arguing that accountability literature has reached a stalemate as a result of an impasse between deductive and inductive approaches to accountability in the EU. It then argues that overcoming the stalemate requires developing a generalised framework of what accountability is for, deriving four accountability goods to be used in subsequent chapters. The chapter argues that each of the goods can be delivered in procedural or substantive ways, focusing either on the process by which decisions are made or the substantive worth of decisions themselves. The chapter concludes by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of both varieties of accountability before mapping out how the concepts will be applied across policy fields and institutions in subsequent chapters.

As the most powerful executive actor in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the Eurogroup has faced continuous demands to improve its accountability record since the euro crisis. One reform introduced to meet these demands were the Economic Dialogue – a regular exchange of views between the European Parliament and the President of the Eurogroup designed to ‘ensure greater transparency and accountability’ in the EMU. This chapter investigates the practical functioning of the Economic Dialogues with the Eurogroup between 2013 and the 2019 European Parliament elections. Applying the theoretical framework of the introduction, the purpose is to examine the extent to which the Parliament focuses on procedural or substantive accountability when questioning the Eurogroup President. Moreover, the chapter investigates the reasoning of parliamentary questions in line with the four accountability goods identified at the outset (openness, non-arbitrariness, effectiveness, and publicness). The findings show that Members of the European Parliament are eager to question the extent to which Eurogroup decisions are substantively open and effective, and to a lesser extent whether they are arbitrary or protect EU interests more generally. The analysis is based on fourteen transcripts of Economic Dialogues with the Eurogroup President, which took place between 2013 and 2019.