Universiteit Leiden

nl en

Jouke Tegelaar wins faculty Jongbloed thesis prize 2015-2016

The thesis “Exit Peter Paul? Divergente toezichthoudersaansprakelijkheid in de Europese Unie voor falend financieel toezicht, bezien vanuit het Europeesrechtelijke beginsel van effectieve rechtsbescherming” (Exit Peter Paul? Divergent supervisory liability in the European Union for failing financial supervision, viewed from the EU principle of effective judicial protection) was awarded the faculty Jongbloed thesis prize 2015-2016 on 20 January.

Does the old situation still apply?

In the 2004 Peter Paul judgment – where the title of the thesis comes from – the European Court of Justice held that the first European banking directives (adopted in the late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s) were not intended to protect depositors. The financial supervisory authorities were therefore not liable towards depositors for failing in their duty to adequately exercise their supervisory responsibilities. European law had no role and as a consequence the liability regime for financial supervisory authorities was defined by each Member State, usually by limiting or excluding the liability of their supervisory authorities.

The question rightly put by Jouke Tegelaar is whether this situation still holds true.  Following on from the global financial crisis, new European regulation, such as MiFID, is explicitly intended to protect investors and depositors. Breaches of this regulation by national supervisory authorities resulting from inadequately exercising their supervisory duties therefore lead to liability towards harmed investors and depositors. Invoking national rules which limit or exclude liability of financial supervisory authorities is no longer allowed in the current situation; such rules constitute an infringement of European law and may therefore no longer be applied. In short, before the global financial crisis there had been uncontrolled growth of national liability regimes limiting the liability of financial supervisory authorities in Europe, while an inevitable consequence of new European financial regulation is that those regimes have to be harmonised.

Refined approach

The thesis deals with a technically and legally complex subject in a very refined way. Each intermediate step is made explicit and reasoned so that the reader is able to understand the intricate arguments. Various fields of law are successfully explored and weaved together to form a cohesive argument. Tegelaar does not avoid the debate and arrives at sharp though subtle conclusions. The thesis concludes with a clear illustration to clarify the application of the abstract rules, using a concrete case. This example shows that the divergence of liability regimes in the European Union can lead to a violation of Community law. In the Peter Paul judgment used in the title of the thesis, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that the first banking directives were not intended to protect depositors. Financial supervisory authorities were therefore not liable to depositors for failing in their duty to adequately exercise their supervisory responsibilities.

Winners 2016

  • 1st prize:  Ms. J. Tegelaar “Exit Peter Paul?”- thesis supervisor Professor Matthias Haentjens
  • 2nd prize: Ms. A. Scholten “The European Fiscal Board” - thesis supervisor Dr. Armin Cuyvers
  • 3rd prize: Ms. L. Sieders  “Bringing Neutral back into Gender-Neutrality” - thesis supervisor Jens Iverson

Winners in previous years

  • 2014-2015 Welmoed Wels (Dead body management in armed conflict: paradoxes in trying to do justice to the dead)
  • 2013-2014 Coen Vernooij (Levenslang en de strafrechter: Een onderzoek naar de invloed van het Nederlandse gratiebeleid op de oplegging van de levenslange gevangenisstraf door de strafrechter)
  • 2012-2013 Ruben de Graaff (Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue?)
  • 2011-2012 Victor Bouman (De baai geblokkeerd: Piraten in het nauw?)
  • 2010-2011 O.C.J. Klaver (Gegarandeerde kwaliteit? De toepassing van het depositogarantiestelsel op de notariële kwaliteitsrekening)
  • 2009-2010 Iryna Levdokymova (The EU-US SWIFT Agreement: Which Fate under the Lisbon Data Protection Framework)
  • 2008-2009 Lisette Valk (CVA-Ketenzorg: medische of juridische kopzorg)
  • 2007-2008 Peter van Schijndel (Identiteitsdiefstal)
  • 2006-2007 Sander David Dikker Hupkes (What Constitutes Occupation? Israel as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip after the Disengagement)
  • 2005-2006 Erik Kok (A membership approach. The legal status and loss of protection of members of non-governmental armed groups under the law of non-international armed conflict)
  • 2004-2005 Kasper Jochem Olivier Jansen (Kennis van de Laedens als vereiste voor onrechtmatigheid)
  • 2003-2004 Dianne Johanna Maria Beurskens (Wederzijdse bijstand volgens Napels II)
  • 2002-2003 Nadia Djebali (Procedures ter beslechting van interstatelijke verrekenprijsgeschillen)
  • 2001-2002 Felix Benjamin Ronkes Agerbeek (Zeg ik dat goed? EU-ambtenaren en hun vrijheid van meningsuiting)
  • 2000-2001 Karlijn Teuben (Rechterlijke afspraken als “Recht in de zin van art.99 wet RO)
  • 1999-2000 P.M. Waszink (Judicial Activism)
  • 1998-1999 H.J.T.M. Roosmalen (The King can do no wrong)
  • 1997-1998 T.C. Leemans (Uitvinding in dienstbetrekking)
  • 1996-1997 Johannes Jacobus Catharinus van de Graaff (Defiscalisering van de Algemene Bijstandswet)
  • 1995-1996 Jacob Hendrik van der Winden (Ik voel me alleen! Zij zijn machtig en met velen. Geen vrijplaats voor folteraars? Het universaliteitsbeginsel in het internationale recht)
  • 1994-1995 Pauline Laan  (Algemene voorwaarden in het handelsverkeer)