Tax Law and the Internal Market: A Critique of the Principle of Mutual Recognition

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 189-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Regulatory Regimes

AbstractThe principle of mutual recognition tests a potential breach of internal market treaty provisions and restricts the scope for a Member State to justify a breach by reference to what happens, or has happened, in a different Member State. The principle of mutual recognition is a distinct principle to that of non-discrimination and does not apply by reference to the functional equivalence of Member States’ regulatory regimes. Mutual recognition has been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as a distinct principle (perhaps a general principle) of EU Law, quite separate to the settled principles of non-discrimination and prohibition of obstacles to market access. The principle of mutual recognition entrenches a neo-functionalist model of the Union project and acts as an accelerant to the harmonisation of the domestic regimes of Member States which are subject to its application, in areas where harmonisation is realistically possible. In areas where harmonisation is not realistically possible, the application of the internal market by reference to the principle of mutual recognition sets aside non-internal-market-compliant Member States’ regulatory provisions, leaving an unsatisfactory space in these regulatory regimes. However, the principle of mutual recognition is, in the light of the application of the principles of non-discrimination and the prohibition of obstacles to market access, quite unnecessary and operates to frustrate legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member States.

15. Harmonisation

2020 ◽  
pp. 340-357
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Individual Action ◽  
Member States ◽  
General Power ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the effectiveness of harmonisation in removing barriers to the four freedoms of the internal market in the European Union (EU). It explains the degree of variation amongst negative, positive, total and minimum harmonisation. It considers the relationship between mutual recognition and harmonisation and discusses concerns regarding the freedom of Member States to take individual action in harmonised fields and Member State competence. It evaluates the scope of the EU’s power to enact harmonising measures in the context of the internal market and the extent to which the Union effectively has a general power to regulate. The chapter also discusses the relevant procedures of Articles 114 and 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

scholarly journals Increasing Legal Certainty without Trust: Why Regulation 2019/515 Cannot Achieve the Unachievable

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Benjamin JAN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Past

More than 40 years after Cassis de Dijon, the mutual recognition in the field of goods is still a failure. The promise of this principle for ensuring both market access and regulatory diversity has not been kept. Therefore, today, businesses rarely rely on mutual recognition to sell their products in another Member State. In an attempt to stimulate this procedure further, the European Union legislator tried to simplify the procedures to be followed by businesses and public administrations through Regulation 2019/515. This article argues that, although the Regulation creates more legal certainty, it fundamentally fails to address the underlying problem of lack of trust that has stalled mutual recognition in the past.

Enhanced Cooperation and European Tax Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Entire Group ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Cooperation Mechanism ◽  
The Law

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.

scholarly journals Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
The Family ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Eu

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?

5. Article 102

2021 ◽  
pp. 180-223
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Dominant Firms ◽  
Abuse Of Dominance

This chapter discusses the main features of Article 102 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is concerned with the abusive conduct of dominant firms. It begins by discussing the meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘effect on trade between Member States’ in the context of Article 102. It then considers what is meant by a dominant position and looks at the requirement that any dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the internal market. Thereafter it discusses some general considerations relevant to the concept of abuse of dominance, followed by an explanation of what is meant by ‘exploitative’, ‘exclusionary’ and ‘single market’ abuses. It then discusses possible defences to allegations of abuse, and concludes by considering the consequences of infringing Article 102.

Differentiation through Derogations—Contesting Internal Market Discipline

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-179
Author(s):  
Maria Weimer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Market Discipline ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Member States ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Decentralized Governance ◽  
Legal Frameworks

This chapter examines attempts to accommodate diversity and disagreement on issues of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union through derogation mechanisms, such as those contained in Article 114 TFEU. More specifically, it considers whether derogations can lead to differentiation in EU harmonization to regulate risk in the internal market. The chapter begins with a discussion of pathways of differentiation available under EU harmonized legal frameworks, with particular emphasis on opt-out clauses under Article 114(4) and (5) TFEU and safeguard clauses in EU secondary legislation. It then explores the practical application of these clauses in the field of GMOs, showing that their strict interpretation by both the Commission and the CJEU leaves little room for differentiation and decentralized governance after GMO authorization. Finally, the chapter analyses the contestation by Member States of such strict interpretation. By continuously invoking opt-outs and safeguards, Member States have achieved de facto differentiation through disobedience.

The European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 299-339
Author(s):  
Robert P. Inman ◽  
Daniel L. Rubinfeld
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Agricultural Policies ◽  
Member States ◽  
Monetary Policies ◽  
Financial Regulations ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
European Policies ◽  
Collective Production

This chapter traces the evolution of EU institutions from a simple six-nation pact to jointly manage the collective production of coal and steel to a 2020 union of twenty-eight members setting common agricultural policies, economic development investments, competition and trade policies, and for nineteen member states, monetary policies and financial regulations. As an economic union regulating market policies, there is little doubt that the union has been a success, particularly for the residents of the originally less economically developed member states. As a monetary union and as a political union, perhaps less so. Politically, the union suffers from a “democratic deficit,” with citizens lacking a direct means to debate and collectively decide the direction of EU policies, and a “rights deficit,” with the union lacking a means to discipline member states that threaten the union's foundational commitment to individual rights and the rule of law. The EU is at a crossroads. One path involves modest reforms within the structure of current institutions. The other would entail a full commitment to Democratic Federalism. To be successful, such a commitment must begin with a union polity willing to view EU policies as European policies, not member state policies for the benefit of each member state alone.

5. Article 102

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Dominant Firms ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

This chapter discusses the main features of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is concerned with the abusive conduct of dominant firms. It begins by introducing the European Commission’s Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article [102 TFEU] to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. It then discusses the concept of undertaking, the requirement of an effect on trade between Member States, the concept of a dominant position and the requirement that any dominant position must be held in a substantial part of the internal market. The chapter also considers the meaning of abuse of a dominant position, which is a complex and controversial issue. A discussion of the defences to allegations of abuse is followed by a brief look at the consequences of infringing Article 102.

6. Free movement of persons

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

7. Treaty enforcement actions against member states

2020 ◽  
pp. 177-193
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter examines the enforcement of legal actions against member states in violation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This is termed the procedural law. It explains what constitutes a breach of TFEU provisions and the process of identifying and reporting violations. It provides examples of the procedures involved in breaches of Articles 258, 260, 259, and 278–279 of the TFEU. This chapter also considers the actions brought by one member state against another, suspensory orders, and interim measures, and describes alternative actions that can help secure compliance by member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document