 So we've reached the end of two very exciting days. At least I was thrilled and I learned a lot. And it was the company of a lot of intellects, really going through the two days. My task at the end of the conference, I always do that, is try to do a little fast, of course, summary of what we've gone through, just to recapitulate a little bit. But I will not take a long time. I always think it's gratifying to see how much we've gone through together. So we started with the speech of Frank, come hell or high water, addressing the risk of climate, environmental related litigation for the banking sector. Now, I had the impression that for many this was new. A lot of people did not realize how important this topic is. And I think it was a good idea of him to bring it here. So he offered an insightful overview of the rising importance of the climate related litigation. And I encourage you to look into the report he was indicating based on the findings of this NGFS report. He noted also how the climate related obligation stemming from the Paris Agreement are trickling down from the level of national states to the private parties. And this includes corporates, but also goes back to banks. And banks are not immune from these developments and climate litigation is becoming more and more a risk that puts in danger the soundness of banks. And therefore, he was saying banks should have more ambitious and realistic plans to control and reduce their exposure to the risk and symmetrically our supervisors to take care that banks take the necessary action. He also said another thing. He said that he cannot exclude that certain rules are already considered to be existing by course that will be soon be asked to pronounce. So duties of banks to also implement the Paris agenda. We move then to a very, it might be interesting topic as well, the preliminary references and how this instrument has been a unifying element for European law. But also what came out in the very challenging first presentation was that it was a challenge to the legitimacy of the supremacy principle. This supremacy principle of course underlines the relationship between the court of justice and the national courts in the implementation of all these procedures and in this particular case. And the argument was made that there would not be a legitimation by people because this is not written in the treaty. That view was opposed. I also personally think differently. But I think it is always very refreshing to have these issues raised, of course. One important point that I like was that the remark that the referral is a tool that has empowered lower courts to go straight to the ECJ without the filter of the higher courts. Whether the higher court likes it is another matter. But the question that was raised is whether this has perhaps also over-empowered them because the traditional, the national courts then feel more like you courts than as national court and sometimes are in a difficult or perhaps attractive position to have to choose between the European pronouncement and the national pronouncement. And that could be politically at least or sociopolitically an issue or an interesting topic. This controversial position brought to a very animated discussion. We all participated. And several members also the panel passionately intervened to defend the supremacy of your law and the legitimacy. And what was indicated was or reminded was the very existence of the declaration number 17, which is attached to the Lisbon Treaty, the legal service opinion, but also the reference to Article 14 of the treaty on the function of the union that speaks of equality of member states, equality that you can never achieve unless you have a single interpretation because otherwise there is different treatment in different member states. Also it was mentioned for more than a half a century this principle has now been contested. Now that particular panel, I heard someone telling me that there were voices probably from the central banking lawyers. I suppose that this was very academic. But we noted online that this was the peak of the attendance. So the average attendance of a whole conference was 100 people online. But here there were 269 just for you to be aware. So I come to panel two. Maybe the panelists of the first panel are still around. So they can be happy about that. The panel two was on independence, accountability, proportionality in the context of the secondary mandate. Also this was opened by controversial thesis. Alexander Thiel had to leave a little bit early, but he was mentioned several times over the two days because he introduced the idea of the political legitimacy necessary in order to apply or to implement the secondary objective and in which way to do it by reference to perhaps a recommendation. He also argued about the double standard of independence that one could imagine to apply. That also provoked some debate. Some people were not excluding it. Others were quite provoked by it. And then among the various points raised, it was also observed that it would be a little bit difficult to distinguish the functions in which the central bank was acting sometimes. And so then to decide which type of independence is it admissible that there is an interference from the government, yes or no. The idea was also to give back the decision to the political fear, a decision which would be allegedly political in nature, but then you might render it to politicize monetary policy decisions as well. Of course, I cannot address all the points because I just wanted to bring some points that somehow remained in my mind. We had then the keynote speech of Professor Stefan Habert on the protection of fundamental rights in the European multi-level system. I found that this speech was a very nice balance between showing how the courts work well together and showing how they actually disagree. Explaining that disagreement is actually okay, provided it is not constant. It's probably quite from a practical point of view a good approach, but I just noticed this. It was anyway very nice that first of all that he came and then that he spoke to us about fundamental principles that as lawyers are for us anyway, really the basic form, all our work in the end. But he also mentioned, and you all heard that, that the Constitutional Court of Germany was the first one to recognize the supremacy also on constitutional law. However, they cut the borderline between constitutional law, European law in a way that others have then criticized in the group. He finally concluded that hierarchy is maybe not the best criterion or principle to describe the relationship between the courts. And this we know is the question of pluralism or the question of hierarchy is a very important, very debated one. So we come to today, well, I spared the dinner. Yesterday, I hope you had a nice chat and nice conversations, I had the impression. In the third panel, the first of this morning, the question of the illegal war lunch by Russia against Ukraine was in a way underlying all the discussion about the central bank immunities and the sanctions on central banks or on the foreign reserves of central banks. Then we had the pleasure to hear the US experience, which I found described in a very clear way because it's a complex system. But the discussion also clarifies that there is not a super, super clarity between on the two concepts of state, what is a state and central bank, what is central bank, which type of, so all these are areas in which there is always a borderline or a great border that of course allows us and allowed us this morning to have very nice conversation. Let me move to panel four. This filling the gas central banks competent authority legislative frameworks, it was focusing on the classification and practical developments relating to ECB opinion. It was found that the opinions actually carry more weight and influence on legislation. The closer the matter is to the competence of the ECB. There was also a proposal to look at opinions as a form of soft slow instruments filling the gaps in legislation, which in turn raised questions as to opportunity to differentiate between those cases where the ECB is called to enforce the law and those cases where the ECB is one of those on which the ECB is in a way enforced. And then the accountability and justice ability of the ECB opinion were considered, taking as a means of comparison the case law on the lack of procedural requirements. I come to the fifth panel, which is in which the incorporation environmental consideration, the supervision of prudential task was dealt with. This is basically the article 11 of the treaty that was analyzed. The looming question was whether the climate change should be framed under the secondary objective or rather under the primary objective. I personally question whether this is a good discussion for supervision as we are in a different realm, but in any event the inclusion and incorporation environmental considerations are also for the supervisory part. The question here is always price stability and financial stability are the two aspects in which all these considerations come also into consideration. The interesting element was the time dimension. It has been observed that in the discussion that the prudential measures that support the fight against climate change or the brown penalizing factor for example, one should not see a trade-off between the price stability and financial stability on the one side and the environmental protection on the other, but rather between the appropriateness to intervene in the shorter or having to intervene later, but much more massively to manage a situation that will be much more complicated for banks. And also the proportionality principle was identified as the device to settle this kind of trade-offs. The last panel, sorry because I could not yet print it, but you all have heard it was dealing with the monetary sovereignty. This concept was explored from different perspectives. On the one hand, from the one of our small states whose biggest concern is the currency substitution. This can happen easily when you have a case of hyperinflation or in a situation in which the state somehow allows or even guarantees another currency or gives legal tender to a cryptocurrency. Another perspective was the one of a monetary union, so the story a little bit of the EMU was reminded in which the states have transferred the sovereign competencies to the central bank, to the European central bank. The criticism was made that central bank perhaps has made the two restrained use of that sovereignty and looking more inside than outside and only very recently the interest in putting the euro into the international monetary system again has been revived so to say. And the third perspective was the one of the development of the central bank digital currency by some central banks and the question was asked whether the reason, the very reason is maybe maintaining the monetary sovereignty. That was the final panel and I think it is a very, very interesting topic that will still have to be explored the monetary, the central bank digital currency as you know is still in study so there will be further development and the geopolitical situation is such that this question will not leave us. So we've reached the end of our conference. I introduced the conference yesterday if you remember wishing to all of us candid discussions, provocative questions, spirited debate. I think we had that and I think we can be happy and we really created an open exchange that we were aiming at. Thank you to all the participants. Thank you to all the speakers in particular because they have put a lot of energy into this. Thank you for the team that in the background really has made it possible for all this to happen. There are so many details, so many things to check, et cetera. I cannot name the whole group but I would like to name one person that is Antonio Rizzo who is the coordinator, the one that has been behind every step and every problem to be solved and together with the rest of the team has made this possible, so thank you very much. Maybe we can clap for them and also our photographer of course. So we've reached the end, let us conclude the conference. I wish you a nice trip back and I especially wish you not to forget this in three hours but to continue the nice relationship, the contacts you had, the ideas that have started here at least until next year when I hope we will meet again. Thank you very much.