So the council is superfluous as it only passes on the intentions of the community to the board without taking responsibility.

Sorry if I chime in here; I tried not to because I don't see anything good coming from this discussion. OTOH, I am a lawyer (it's not my daytime job, but I studied law and at least worked at courts once) and maybe that influences how I see things.

May view is that:

• Either the e.V. is the new community (or wants to be), so the assumption is that GA=community, board has all the legal duties. In this case, a council would have no function at all. (It could still exist if people need it for their egos. It won't play any role though.)
• Or the e.V. is a group of people who define themselves as working for the community. In this case, the GA would be a (small) subset of the community or could even consist of people who are not part of the community. In this scenario, the council isn't really needed either, but could have a role as it had before: channeling communication between the e.V. and the community (=garage accounts).

In both cases, the e.V. holds all the legal responsibility (as "the community" as such doesn't legally exist) and the members of the board are responsible for everything that happens. There is no way that a council that operates beside the board could have any "power" or could make the board do things. A council can provide advice at most. It could also do work that is not legally required to be done by board members - although people performing such tasks maybe don't need a named entity for it.

The key word is "work". Reading this thread I'm under the impression that people are fighting over power. I've been in enough boards of my country's "e.V."-equivalent and I never felt I had power. I had work to do, and it wasn't fun. As the community probably won't grow much over the years, it might be a wise decision to limit the amount of pre-defined roles to the absolute minimum required by law.