THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ECB: JUSTIFICATION, LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE THREATS

The paper first takes a brief look at the economic and judicial justification for the independent status of central banks in general and will thereby also illustrate the different manifestations of independence that need to be distinguished. Recent developments will then form the initial point for a detailed analysis of the concrete range of the ECB’s independence. This analysis will end with a positive conclusion. Until today its independent status has not been violated by any of the analysed measures. Possible threats, however, continue to exist. Safeguarding the independent status of the ECB thus remains an important mission not only for legal scholars. JEL codes: E58; G21; G33


Independence in Times of Crisis
"It shall be independent in the exercise of its powers and in the management of its finances." Though this rule 1 concerning the European Central Bank (ECB) did not enjoy the privilege of being quoted on one of Germany's most prominent tabloid papers ("Bild") as it was the case with the no-bail-out clause of Art. 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the ECB's independent status is something any regular newspaper reader is most surely aware of -at least since the Eurocrisis. 2 From a normative perspective recent developments, however, have once again raised the question of the exact content of central bank independence, a question this paper seeks to find an answer to.
To do so I will first take a brief look at the economic and judicial justification for the independent status of central banks in general (2) and will thereby also illustrate the different manifestations of independence that need to be distinguished (3). Recent developments will then form the initial point for a detailed analysis of the concrete range of the ECB's independence, highlighting normative limitations as well as possible threats (4). The paper, however, will be able to end with a positive conclusion: Until today the independent status has not been violated by any of the analyzed measures. Possible threats, however, continue to exist.

Economic background
Though this might come as a surprise to the general public, the independent status of a central bank is no matter of course. Due to the fact that central banks perform responsibilities of public administration, integrating these agencies into the general hierarchical organization of administration would appear a lot more convincing. And also from a historical perspective independence from governmental interference is by no means the somewhat natural status of a central bank. 3 Not least the Bank of England was in actual fact founded in 1694 especially to help Great Britain's government out of its financial misery that had occurred due to several (and not always successful) war affairs. Quite similarly Alexander Hamilton hoped for significant assistance, "in obtaining pecuniary aids, especially in sudden emergencies" 4 when founding the first Bank of the United States in 1791.
Only the gradual switch of central banks from such "Banks of the State" to "Banks of the Banks" that took place during the 19 th and 20 th century makes the whole "independence debate" 5 understandable. It is only since then that their main objective -with diverging focal points -lies in safeguarding price stability 6 which is also the normative "core purpose" 7 of the ECB 8 according to Art. 127 (1) TFEU. 9 Can a central bank -this is the opening question of the debate -perform this task effectively as long as it is integrated into and thus dependent from (or even controlled by) the government? Two possible problems might hinder such an effective performance: First of all several inflation favoring conflicts of interests might arise as regards the governmental fiscal, wage, and employment policy. 10 And second of all politicians might be apt to consider a price-enhancing expansion of money supply in order to profit from the possible short term economy-boosting effects 11 while neglect-ing the long-term inflationary impact of such measures -especially with general elections coming closer. 12 As can be seen in an article by Milton Friedman published in 1962 13 the answer to this question was discussed more or less openly at first. However, in the middle of the 1980s the pendulum continuously began to swing more and more towards the supporters of independence. 14 Trend-setting thereby was a paper by Kenneth Rogoff, who proposed -in order to avoid the inflationary incentives of the "policymaker" 15 analyzed game-theoretically by Robert Barro and David Gordon 16 -to lay monetary policy in the hands of a conservative (and independent) agent. 17 This agent thereby should be known to place a greater weight on inflation stabilization relative to unemployment stabilization. 18 Though Rogoff saw the problem that his institutional setting might impair the stabilizing function of monetary policy 19 -a function that could be witnessed during the last financial-and following Eurocrisis -he believed such an effect unavoidable yet diminishable by choosing a conservative but not too conservative agent. 20 During the 1990s the necessity of an independent central bank -supported by several empirical studies 21 -finally became 22 a central if not the central pillar of modern central bank theory 23 finding its temporary endpoint in the creation of the "most independent central bank of all" 24 : The ECB.
However, this "intellectual revolution" 25 or "intellectual shift toward central bank independence" 26 did not remain undisputed within the (academic) economic field. In actual fact the last years have seen an increasing number of scholars believing that an independent central bank is either not necessary or even harmful for ensuring price stability -and the historical experience of the last financial crisis has added voices to this critical choir. 27 Not least John B. Taylor, referring to the above mentioned article by Milton Friedman, has consistently argued that it is less the institutional position of a central bank but rather the question whether its monetary policy is based on rules (and not on discretion) that is decisive for safeguarding price stability. 28 Taylor himself offers several empirical studies to prove his analysis. However, from a normative perspective Taylor's arguments hardly make a convincing point against central bank independence for two reasons. First of all any rule needs to be interpreted. 29 Though Taylor's rules might include clear legal consequences depending on certain economic circumstances it will be impossible to conclude whether such circumstances are given without some sort of discretion. Different interpretations of economic settings remain possibleotherwise monetary policy might as well be left to electronic devices, a conclusion even Taylor would probably not agree to. At least these remaining discretional considerations, however, should remain in the hands of an independent central bank. And second of all: Nobody has yet been able to formulate monetary rules that fit to any economic development without exception. 30 In actual fact Taylor himself did not believe his "Taylor-Rule" to be necessarily followed under all circumstances -exceptions should be possible. Monetary policy without any discretion of the relevant actors thus seems simply not possible. 31 American central bankers have therefore always emphasized that monetary policy is "a matter of judgement" 32 and thus "an art rather than a science." 33 Taylor's findings thus might give reason to demand a detailed explanation by the central bank when deviating from a well formulated monetary rule, his statement "Monetary Policy Rules Work and Discretion doesn't," 34 however, appears way too simplistic. Putting these necessary at least partly discretionary decisions in the hands of independent central bankers thus is nothing Taylor's rules concept would stand against.
Taylor, however, indeed has a point where he argues that it is less the formal but rather the internal independence of central bankers that is decisive. 35 And indeed: A lot of central bankers might not be equipped with the necessary amount of such internal independence as a study by Roland Vaubel suggests even for the so exemplary German Bundesbank. 36 But is the potential danger of such a "political capture" an argument against the formal independence of central banks as such? Obviously not, as only formal independence offers at least the chance of independent and goal-focused decisions in the first place. Formal independence is thus a necessary yet not sufficient condition 37 where one wants to uphold this chance. 38 The criticism formulated by Bernd Hayo and Carsten Hefeker therefore focuses on a different aspect. They first of all point out that the repeated negative correlation between independence and inflation rate was merely a statistical correlation not to be confused with causality. 39 Several empirical studies in fact pointed to the conclusion that reaching the price stability goal depended less on the institutional status of the central bank but mainly on the inflation culture of a society. 40 Thus, in countries where preventing inflation was regarded as a necessary requirement for the prosperity of a society even a dependent central bank would be able to safeguard price stability. 41 However, no independent central bank would stand a chance against a "culture of inflation" -especially as the independent status was mostly guaranteed only by ordinary statute. 42 Yet again, these findings alone still not deliver a decisive argument against independence as such: In the worst case this status would be merely ineffective and thus useless but still not harmful. Hayo and Hefeker, however, doubt such a "useless but not harmful" conclusion due to the fact that there is no proven negative correlation between independence and inflation. Under such circumstances, Hayo and Hefeker point out, it appeared hardly justifiable to put monetary policy in the hands of an independent and conservative agent whose decisions were not foreseeable yet, once taken, impossible to amend for the politicians in charge 43 -especially due to the existing lobbying structures 44 that might influence the decisions taken by such an agent. Nevertheless Hayo and Hefeker do not oppose an independent central bank under all circumstances. According to their findings there might be rational reasons for a society to stick to such a model where it was compatible with the general political and legal system as well as the organization of the labor market. What they wanted to make clear, however, was the fact that an independent status was neither generally the best status nor for itself sufficient for safeguarding price stability. It appears fair to say, therefore, that a lot of questions (still) remain open.
As a legal scholar one will obviously not be able to solve this economic dispute. However, it makes clear that a society deciding in favor of an independent central bank is at least not completely off track as regards its economic rationality. 45 Yet, from a legal perspective such a decision obviously needs to be compatible with all relevant normative, especially constitutional requirements. And here the democratic principle comes into play -an aspect not least the German literature has dealt with in abundance.

(German) Democratic Theory
Compliance with the democratic principle first of all does not follow automatically from the abovementioned (possible) economic rationality behind the independent status of a central bank. 46 If one considers the dual democratic concept of Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde -a concept especially the German Constitutional Court has taken over 47 -such a central bank lacks the necessary material ("content") legitimation. 48 Due to the unavoidable discretion of any central bank as regards monetary policy this deficit of legitimacy can thereby be compensated only partly (if at all) by binding the central bank to a more detailed statutory framework. 49 The central question for German legal scholars therefore is whether the unavoidable deficit of legitimacy can be justified or not. The literature to this question appears endless, 50 yet the answer given is more or less undisputed today: Due to the at least defensible relation between an independent central bank and price stability the overwhelming majority of German scholars negates a violation of the democratic principle. 51 We thus find a "justification by task" 52 with the following argument: If there is indeed a relation between the two (independence and price stability) then it seems impossible to transfer the task of safeguarding price stability onto a central bank while at the same time denying it the mandatory status needed to perform successfully. Such a "justification by task" is thus only possible for the area of monetary policy 53 -a consequence that might explain the problems a lot of German scholars have with the current policy of the ECB as this also makes it necessary to interpret the monetary mandate restrictively. 54 Any other task transferred to an independent institution cannot be justified with this argument, making it necessary to either find a different one -which will be very difficult according to the German interpretation of the democratic principle -or to refrain from transferring the task in the first place. An independent central bank officially equipped with economic competences therefore always triggers alarm signals for German scholars. It is thus hardly surprising that a lot of German scholars are very reluctant as regards the idea to transfer the responsibility for financial stability formally onto the central bank -an idea that is being vividly discussed amongst economists since the financial crisis. 55 The fact that Art. 127 (1) TFEU states that "the ESCB 56 shall support the general economic policies in the Union" appears acceptable only as long as this part of the mandate is interpreted in a narrow sense respecting its clear subordination under the ECB's primary task of safeguarding price stability. This special "German sensibility" forms the main background of the whole dispute that arose between the German Constitutional Court and the ECB during the Eurocrisis. Unsurprisingly the German Constitutional Court brought forward this argument also in its second preliminary ruling initiated in July 2017. 57 It also seems noteworthy that the independent status of the central bankfrom a German perspective -cannot be justified with the special expertise or competence of the relevant central bankers, automatically leading to "better" monetary decisions. 58 Such a justification "by expertise" would not be acceptable to the German Basic Law as it would undermine (at least in the long run) the general requirement of dual legitimation. 59 Such a concept -once again and just recently proposed by Jason Brennan 60 -would finally lead to a self-abolishment of democracy and indeed: Brennan himself prefers a "moderate epistocracy." However, such a concept not only neglects the basic idea of free equality of each individual but also (and more importantly) completely misses the fact that it is impossible to conclude which decision would actually have been "right" or "better." Even experts (or epistocrats) can be mistaken and with more than one expert asked we will usually find more than one opinion how to proceed. The problem can be witnessed in the current ECB-Debate: German experts are criticizing ECB-experts and each side obviously believes it is right and has the better arguments.

Manifestations of Independence
Independence does not necessarily equal independence as it can manifest itself in various forms. 61 When speaking of independence it is thus vital to define what is actually meant; there is no such thing as "the independence" that either prevails or not.
First of all we can find "Goal-Independence," giving the central bank the authority to define its monetary objective autonomously without interference by the government. However, this form of independence is not to be misinterpreted as giving the central bank complete freedom which monetary policy goal(s) to pursue. The general monetary policy goals are in fact assigned to the central bank normatively by statute. Goal-independence thus allows a central bank not to choose but to autonomously interpret these goals and especially formulate its understanding of price stability in a binding way. The answer to this question is economically less clear than one might think, yet obviously has tremendous consequences as regards the monetary steps required. Although practically all central banks therefore are assigned with safeguarding price stability the internal inflation target can differ significantly and also might change over time -the Bank of Japan, for instance, doubled its internal inflation target from 1% to 2% in January 2013. Next to the Fed the ECB also enjoys such goal-independence; from a normative perspective the ECB therefore not only has the possibility but the duty to autonomously set its internal inflation target. 62 Currently the ECB has set its inflation target at "under, but close to 2%." 63 Compatible with its mandate, however, would not only be a slightly lower (1%) but also a slightly higher inflation target of up to 3%. 64 The Bank of England enjoys no such goal-independence, as the concrete inflation target is decided upon by the government on a yearly basis; 65 its degree of independence thus differs significantly when compared to the one of the ECB.
Goal-choice independence as the second form of independence allows a central bank to choose autonomously from a certain catalogue of assigned goals and to decide which of these goals to pursue with priority; it thus reaches further than mere goal-independence. We find this form of functional independence in the United States, for example, where Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act defines the general monetary goals and states that the Fed "shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." Section 2A, however, says nothing as regards a possible hierarchy of these individual goals, a question which is thus left to the Fed to decide. In contrast, the ECB has to pursue its core purpose -price stability -with priority and is only allowed to support the economic policy in the Union as long as this core purpose is not inflicted. From a German perspective such a normative priority appears mandatory due to the above mentioned assumptions regarding the democratic principle -any form of functional independence similar to the one of the Fed would simply not be acceptable.
Finally instrumental independence enables a central bank to autonomously decide on the instruments it deems most fitting to reach the general monetary policy goals. However, usually a central bank will again not be completely free, but bound to a certain instrumental mix laid down in the relevant statute. But this instrumental mix will generally be very broad and usually not exclusive, thus allowing the central bank to react to the countless possible economic surroundings that might occur. 66 Restrictions on the other hand will mainly be introduced by a catalogue of generally forbidden instruments. Art. 127 (1) TFEU for instance states that the ECB shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, 67 binding the ECB to a wide range of market-compliant instruments, while explicitly prohibiting the direct purchase of state bonds in Art. 123 TFEU. 68 The statute then lists a few typical monetary instruments and in Art. 20 even introduces an "instrument-invention-right" according to which the ECB-Council "may, by a majority of two thirds of the votes cast, decide upon the use of such other operational methods of monetary control as it sees fit, respecting Article 2." 69 This instrumental-independence thereby also includes the right of a central bank to decide autonomously on the methods it uses to measure the current inflation rate and the general economic situation of the respective monetary area. Again we find no broadly accepted economic method all central banks would have to revert to in this field -and the existing models indeed vary significantly in the results they produce.

Limitations and Threats
What are the limitations of these forms of independence and what measures might pose a threat to the independent status of the ECB?

Limitations
Limitations here refer to boundaries of independence and thus to measures that might challenge the independent status without violating it. These measures are thus permissible from a normative perspective what doesn't mean they might not infringe other social behavioral customs or the idea of "approved political etiquette." As it is obviously not possible to discuss all measures that are compatible with the independent status of a central bank, I would like to focus on the following three: Public criticism of the central bank by the media and political or economic actors (1), certain duties to report to other European institutions (2) and finally duties to cooperate that might arise from the instance that the ECB became a formal institution with the Treaty of Lisbon (3).

Public criticism
The fact that monetary policy will hardly ever remain undisputed in public was recently and once again proven during the financial-and the following Eurocrisis. In most cases such criticism will thereby focus on the concrete measures taken by the ECB, thus touching its instrumental independence. The ECB's definition of price stability -as part of its goal-independence -has indeed hardly ever been part of such a public debate and in actual fact seems broadly accepted. 70 The question interesting here, however, is: When does such open critique of the ECB appear problematic as regards its independence?
First of all critique, possibly even very harsh critique, expressed by the interested public (either by academic scholars or the relevant media) will generally not infringe the ECB's instrumental independence. Monetary policy of an independent central bank does not take place in a discourse-free area and it can and has to be expected that any central bank (respectively its governors) are able to withstand such open critique. At least in a democratic system no institution can expect to act without ever being criticized. In fact, especially in a highly disputed area such as monetary policy, open criticism can positively influence the performance of a central bank as it is constantly forced to reflect its own decisions and diligently examine the proposed alternatives -even where the critique should not be mirrored in an adjustment of its monetary actions. Such external input can thus rationalize the internal decision making process and finally lead to a "better" central bank. Any central bank is therefore well advised not to completely neglect such critique but to implement it at least into the public presentation of its measures taken by making clear why these might have fallen out differently. And it would by no means be condemnable if a central bank should react to such critique by modifying or even completely changing its decisions. Commentaries such as "the central bank capitulated" are thus simply mistaken. It would obviously not be very functional if a central bank should stick to decisions only in order to prevent the impression that it might have reacted to external critique. Independence does not manifest itself in a general resistance to criticism, even though it would be just as senseless if a central bank should generally arrange its actions according to the public opinion. Its own conclusion as regards the "correct" economic decision therefore always has to remain the only benchmark for its monetary policy, no matter who formulated it in the first place -something that indeed requires a certain amount of internal independence and sovereignty of the central bankers, especially in times of crisis.
Criticism by politicians on the other hand might have to be interpreted differently. 71 Though such criticism clearly is no formal instruction in the sense of Art. 130 TFEU, depending on how it is formulated it might come very close. Although again independent central bankers should generally not let themselves be influenced by such critique, 72 this internal independence might be on for a tough test, depending especially who expressed such critique. To avoid any impression of being influenced, at least certain central bankers might act "too independent" and decide to generally omit such political critique in order to prove their independence -even in cases where they might actually find the presented arguments convincing. This danger especially exits where the independent status of a central bank is not easily amended by the respective government, 73 as is indeed the case for the ECB. 74 Well-intentioned critique formulated by politicians thus might lead to worse central bank decisions -a result no one could have an interest in.
These possible negative effects, however, should not lead to the conclusion that politicians would have to refrain from any comments regarding the monetary policy of the ECB from a normative perspective. Again one needs to consider that independence does not uncouple the central bank from all political discourse -as Milton Friedman pointed out, "Money is too important to be left to the central bankers." 75 Or, in other words: Elected politicians have to be able to talk about monetary policy. Well-intentioned advice, presented in a factual manner is thus perfectly acceptable, 76 one can and must expect a certain amount of coolness on the side of the central bankers in this respect. Practical experience confirms this result, being appointed as a central banker generally seems to lead to an appropriate amount of independence-awareness on the side of the appointed 77 -a phenomenon also known as the Beckett-Effect. 78 Political statements, however, become problematic where they are formulated in a demanding manner and are more or less openly connected with certain expectations how the central bank should react in the near future. Yet, in most cases and as long as these statements are not linked to the threat of consequences or sanctions 79 such a behavior will be less a normative than a question of decent political style. 80 There is thus no clear cut between acceptable political statements on the one hand and inacceptable influencing on the other, 81 and it would be indeed utopian to link the independent status with the end of any form of political pressure. 82 In fact the independent status is the necessary (though not sufficient) requirement, for the central bankers to face up to such political pressure. One should thereby also consider that it might be a lot more threatening for the democratic process if politicians should generally refrain from any critical statement due to a false understanding of independence than if they should now and then go a little too far with their critique -especially as neither the public nor the media would appreciate such "over-the-line-criticism." So this also speaks for a reserved approach towards the normative limitations for political critique. As a general rule, therefore, critical statements formulated by politicians might challenge the internal independence of the central bankers but will not violate the instrumental independence of the ECB itself.

Duties to report to European institutions
Not only compatible with its independent status but necessary in any democratic system are certain duties to report to other institutions (and the public) that are thus foreseen in practically all central bank systems. For the ECB we find such rules in Art. 15 of its statute and Art. 284 (3) TFEU. 83 Additionally, the ECB is monitored by the Court of Auditors and is integrated into the European Anti-Fraud System (OLAF). 84 Only such duties to report secure the minimum standard of accountability necessary for any authority in a democracy. 85 By reporting and explaining the central bank thus takes the necessary responsibility for its actions and thereby also ensures that no other institution is held responsible in public. Above that reporting and openly discussing its policies ("monetary dialogue") 86 has at least partly the same effect as public criticism: The ECB is forced to reflect its actions and thereby might find better solutions how to react in future. In the long run a central bank will indeed only succeed if it is able to explain in a comprehensible manner why it acted in a certain way (and not in another), making arbitrary action more or less impossible. 87 Independent activity is no secret occupation, the ECB is no "Black-Box." Its actions need to be critically accompanied not only by the public but also by the European Parliament 88 and even the national parliaments. 89 And within this process critical statements are not only possible but welcomed as long as they are brought forward in an adequate manner. Central bankers do not have to be handled as if they were "raw eggs."

Duties to cooperate
With the treaty of Lisbon the ECB was assigned formal institutional status by being included in the list of institutions in Art. 13 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). 90 Formally this changed nothing as regards its independent status. Yet, the ECB articulated concerns that the "mutual sincere cooperation" with the other institutions it is now obliged to might interfere with its independent status. 91 These concerns, however, were unfounded. First of all such an obligation to cooperate with the other institutions might not have been laid down explicitly in the treaty before, it nonetheless existed. The ECB never acted completely autonomously outside the EU's formal institutional system, was in fact smoothly embedded in this complex structure, a point made quite clear by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its OLAF-Judgement. 92 And second of all, the degree of this imperative to cooperate is limited by the concrete institutional mandate of the respective institution as created by the treaties. A duty to cooperate therefore only comes into consideration as far as the mandate of the ECB is not threatened or infringed. It is only within this frame that the ECB is obliged to consider the interests of the other institutions and commence a cooperative dialogue; 93 an obligation, however, that never turns into an unconditional duty to coordinate in advance -a conclusion confirmed when looking at the other independent institutions. 94 And such a dialogue between the relevant institutions in any case appears more than sensible, especially when it comes to the overlapping areas of monetary and fiscal-and economic-policy. 95

Fiscal and wage policy of the Member States
The fact that the fiscal and the wage policy of the Member States have a significant influence on monetary policy is first of all neither surprising nor specifically problematic. All these policies might pursue different objectives yet do not stand completely separately next to each other. 96 If a central bank thus reacts to fiscal or wage policy decisions by amending its monetary policy this is nothing objectionable -just as monetary policy decisions might have consequences for the fiscal policy of a Member State when the central bank adjusts the key interest rate for instance. Regularly consultations between central bank and Member States thus appear more than sensible in order to avoid unexpected decisions for the respective other side. As regards the independence it is crucial alone that the ECB finally decides on its monetary policy autonomously solely on the foundation of its monetary mandate. And within this decision making process it is not objectionable if the central bank should finally vote for an option of action that interferes least with (or even supports) financial policy. Well founded and independent monetary policy is not necessarily linked to hurting fiscal or other policies of the Member States. Actions of the central bank should only then have negative consequences where this seems unavoidable from a monetary policy perspective -then, however, the central bank has no other choice than to interfere and take such "hurtful" actions.
Independence is threatened, however, if fiscal and wage policy should provoke economic consequences that make it more or less impossible for the central bank to fulfill its mandate. As regards the financial policy this is the case especially in times of excessive public debt. 97 Due to the reduced political scope of action in such times, states have a huge interest to at least partly reduce their debt burden by monetarizing their debt with the help of an unanticipated inflationary monetary policy and additional seigniorage earnings. 98 In "normal" times one should obviously expect an independent central bank to resist such political pressure. In fact this kind of pressure was the actual reason to introduce independent central banks in the first place. It gets problematic, however, as soon as the public debt ratio reaches a level that raises doubt on the medium-and long-term sustainability of public debt. If in such an environment the real interest rate should be above the economic growth rate (r bigger g) -and this is no particular unrealistic scenario -this debt ratio will rise further even in the case of a balanced primary budget ("dept trap"). 99 If one excludes a national bankruptcy that obviously can only be the absolute last resort from a political perspective there are only two ways to reduce the debt ratio under such circumstances: Either the state manages to produce significant primary surpluses, an option that will not only be very stressful but hardly possible overnight or monetary policy becomes more expansive. The amount of continuously rising pressure on a central bank to do the latter is easily imaginable and might for itself create inflationary tendencies no matter whether the central bank finally gives in or not. If instruments such as the fiscal compact 100 and others try to keep public debt at a sustainable level then this is therefore clearly to be welcomed by any independent central bank. 101 However, to avoid dramatic economic downfalls one will have to ensure that respective measures are not taken by all Member States at the same time -an aspect in my view currently not sufficiently respected 102especially as the debt ratios are by no means critical in all the Member States of the Eurozone. None the least in Germany the public debate completely negates the positive consequences of a modest public indebtedness.
The consequences of a failed national wage policy within a monetary union also became visible during the Eurocrisis. To prevent a reduction of competitiveness it is essential that wage rises within a monetary union do not exceed the rise in productivity as the alternative remedy of a currency depreciation is impossible. If this requirement is not respected huge trade deficits as well as rising unemployment rates might follow being an additional burden on the national finances that will yet again almost certainly augment the pressure on the central bank. However, also due to different wage calculation regimes 103 the Member States, especially Greece, did not stick to this necessity. The reforms initiated in the respective Member States in the last years therefore point in the right direction -even Greece was just recently able to refinance itself on the financial markets for the first time in years. Yet, all these measures should not lead to an "austerity policy at all costs" -granting sufficient time for these reforms and shaping them in a socially acceptable manner thus is vital for their success in the long run. 104

Bond purchases
During the Eurocrisis the ECB purchased a significant amount of bonds of so called "crisis states" according to its "Securities Market Program" (SMP). The SMP was finally replaced by the "Outright Monetary Transactions" (OMT) program, that, however, leads to not a single bond purchase. In addition to this and in order to raise the inflation rate the ECB is currently buying bonds in a volume of around 60 billion Euros per month of all Member States of the Eurozone according to its quantitative easing "Public Sector Purchase Program" (PSPP). All these measures were thereby covered by its monetary mandate 105 -the doubts concerning the OMT program raised by the German Constitutional Court in 2014 106 were convincingly rejected by the ECJ in 2016. 107 And one can assume that the ECJ will give the same answer as regards the PSPP when it decides on the preliminary ruling initiated by the German Constitutional Court in July 2017. 108 However, during the hearings concerning the OMT-program the German Bundesbank brought forward that such bond purchases might also raise questions as regards their compatibility with the independent status of the ECB. Though possibly justified to ensure the monetary transitional process, the Bundesbank pointed to the fact that they would nonetheless open the ECB to blackmail due to its own growing interest to prevent any form of state bankruptcy with a significant amount of bonds failing. 109 Is it thus possible for the ECB to infringe its own independent status when reverting to certain monetary measures by creating a situation where (sometime in the future) it might refrain from necessary monetary actions and risk missing its own inflation target in order to prevent possible and in the end self-inflicted losses?
To answer this question it is first of all important to recall that loss risks occur any time a central bank purchases any security paper outright. They are thus no special feature of state bonds. However, potential losses will usually be a lot higher in these cases than with other security papers and it is only with state bonds that central banks have a significant indirect influence on their default risk when setting the relevant interest rates. The dilemma a central bank finds itself in is therefore hardly to be denied. 110 To separate from this possible dilemma, however, is the question whether it can be used to formulate clear normative limitations for state bond purchases by a central bank. If one does not want to generally forbid such purchases -a step hardly convincing due to the fact such purchases form a classical monetary instrument of practically all important central banks worldwide -one will have to set certain quantitative restrictions. But where? The relatively small amount of equity of the ECB (currently about 11 billion Euros) is obviously too low. So how much instead? Ten times the amount? Twenty times? And how to value each bond purchase respecting the clearly differing insolvency risks of the Member States within the Eurozone? 111 These problems show that any quantitative limitation would have to be arbitrary and speak out for a formalistic interpretation. From a normative perspective it is thus only relevant whether the ECB reached its purchase decisions uninfluenced by other European or national institutions. The central bank itself is responsible for assessing possible risks when purchasing bonds and thereby also has to consider possible political pressure that might occur in times of crisis. In the end it all depends on the central bankers themselves: "As long as there is no absolute (and absolute convincing) strict rule, the people and personalities in charge will matter." 112

Judicial control
Let me finally take a look at the relationship between independence and judicial control. While this had been more of an academic question in the past -hardly any central bank's monetary actions worldwide were ever taken to court 113 -the problem became practical in the aftermath of the Eurocrisis with the German Constitutional Court putting the ECB's OMT-program to a normative test by initiating a preliminary procedure before the ECJ in 2014. 114 In July 2017 it then initiated a second preliminary ruling regarding the ECB's general bond purchase program (PSPP). From a rule of law-perspective such a judicial control not only seems possible but virtually mandatory. It would hardly be acceptable if an institution dealing with administrative affairs were exempted from any other than public control simply because of its independent status. 115 Additionally such judicial control is able to at least partly diminish the justified yet still unsatisfying legitimatory deficit of the ECB. 116 And finally even from the perspective of the central bank itself such a judicial control appears acceptable as it is not intended to direct its monetary policy in detail but simply seeks to monitor the compliance with the general normative requirements of the ECB's mandate. However, this last point already marks the potential area of conflict: If a central bank wants to pursue its monetary goals effectively it needs sufficient room for manoeuver -especially in a complex and inhomogeneous monetary area as the European Monetary Union (EMU). Economically it will usually be impossible to determine a single monetary measure that clearly strikes out all the possible others. The independent status itself in actual fact only makes sense if it enables the central bank also to choose autonomously when to act and how to act. Where such a choice is taken either by the normative frame itself or the interpreting court hardly any room for autonomous decisions of the ECB remains. As regards the independence of a central bank it is thus not judicial control generally 117 but rather the intensity of such control that might appear problematic. 118 Judicial control therefore has to step back where the court is functionally overstrained due to the economic complexity of the respective manner. The central bank needs to be equipped with a sufficient margin of appreciation that is extracted from judicial control. 119 The detailed content of undefined legal terms (such as "price stability") is thus to be determined not by the respective court but by the ECB itself. And the same is true for the evaluation of the current and future economic surroundings of the whole monetary area and the decision on the thus necessary monetary actions. Within its judicial control the court is thereby limited to verifying the general tenability of the central bank's conclusions. It would not be compatible with the independent status if a court were to replace such tenable conclusions with its own -even if these should be regarded as equally tenable. 120 In its first request for preliminary ruling, however, the German Constitutional Court did exactly that by simply resuming the opposing position of the German Bundesbank, without losing a single word regarding the tenability of the opinion of the ECB. Why though should the opinion of the Bundesbank be of any higher normative value than the one of the ECB, especially if one considers the fact that the Bundesbank is actually a dependent part of the ESCB with the ECB at the top? 121 And in its second request for preliminary ruling initiated in July 2017 the Constitutional Court explicitly pointed out that "the acceptance of the goals as defined by the relevant European institutions combined with the appreciation of a wide margin of discretion of these institutions and a limitation of judicial control is eligible to enable these institutions an independent disposition as regards the range of the competences transferred upon them. Such an understanding of the competences does not sufficiently respect the principle of conferral and the necessity to interpret the ECB's mandate in a restrictive manner." 122 The Constitutional Court then goes on to point out why it believes that the ECB's bond purchase program therefore neither respects Art. 123 TFEU nor Art. 127 TFEU and thereby once again takes hardly any opposing statements by legal scholars 123 into account that might prove at least the tenability of the ECB's actions. The independence of the ECB therefore might be on for a tough test.

Conclusion and Outlook
The independent status of a central bank remains economically disputed yet can be justified from a democratic perspective and continues to be the "normative reality" for the ECB. This status is neither threatened by harsh critique nor by duties to report or to cooperate that, in fact, actually might have a positive effect on its performance. However, a mistaken finance and wage policy of the Member States might have problematic consequences so that it seems more than sensible to try to ensure a sustainable level of debt with instruments such as the fiscal compact. On the other hand the positive effects of public indebtedness should not be neglected in this context. The biggest threat for independence in actual fact might arise from a too intense judicial control granting the central bank not the necessary margin of appreciation it takes to successfully pursue its monetary goals. As regards the first preliminary ruling of the German Constitutional Court the ECJ in the end found the right answer and rejected the deficient approach of the German judges. However, finding the right balance between necessary control and autonomy of a central bank will continue to remain an important task not only for legal scholars 124 -especially as the German Constitutional Court is apparently still struggling to accept any limitations at all.  (1177): "We demonstrate that society can make itself better off by selecting an agent to head the independent central bank who is known to place a greater weight on inflation stabilization (relative to unemployment stabilization) than is embodied in the social loss function A." See also D. Masciandaro and D. Romelli, "Ups and Downs of Central Bank Independence from the Great Inflation to the Great Recession: Theory, Institutions and Empirics," 15, who believes that this effect is at least partly rooted in the experiences of the financial crisis: "When that rule or principle became muddied, and discretion in policy-making returned in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the case for central bank independence began to look more problematic. Thus the historical pendulum is now swinging back, toward a politically controlled Bank of England or a more accountable Federal Reserve.