scholarly journals The ECJ, Volkswagen and European Corporate Law: Reshaping the European Varieties of Capitalism

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1027-1051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peer Zumbansen ◽  
Daniel Saam
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Lower Saxony ◽  
Golden Share ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital ◽  
The Eu

On its website “The EU Single Market – Fewer barriers, more opportunities”, the European Commission lists the judgments by the European Court of Justice [ECJ] dealing with the free movement of capital under Art 56 EC Treaty (ex 73b). The latest update of this list is the Court's Volkswagen decision of 23 October 2007 (Case C-112/2005), which the Commission had launched against the Federal Republic of Germany on 4 March 2005. This suit, brought under Art. 226 EC Treaty, had been long coming. That the Volkswagen statute, which effectively gave the Federal government and the Land (federal state) of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) a veto against majority acquisition while only holding a fifth of all shares, would come into the Commission's purview, could hardly surprise, given the Commission's activity with regard to such ‘golden share’ provisions under Portuguese, French, Belgian and English company laws. The most recent decision of the ECJ in the case of Volkswagen is of interest in more than one respect. Not only does it constitute a continuation and further accentuation of a line of argument that the Court has been unfolding over past few years with regard to the Member State provisions in conflict with the EC's guarantee of the free movement of capital as laid down in Art. 56 EC.

Recent Golden Share Cases in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1099-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Szabados
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Golden Share ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Special Rights ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

AbstractIn several golden share cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court”) condemned Member States for reserving certain special rights in privatized companies for themselves. In spite of the Court's consistently strict approach in the golden share cases, the more recent golden share judgments demonstrate that the Court's practice is not free from uncertainties. In its case law, the Court seems to hesitate between the application of the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital. Additionally, it is not entirely clear which measures are caught by provisions on the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital.

scholarly journals The Ambiguous Relationship Between the EU and its Internal Borders

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-70
Author(s):  
Aude Bouveresse
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Individual ◽  
European Citizen ◽  
The Eu

      The free movement of EU citizens within the Union reveals the ambiguous relationship between the EU and borders. While the functioning of the internal market is essentially based on freedom of movement and implies the elimination of borders as barriers to trade, the freedom of movement of the European citizen remains defined largely within the conceptual framework of borders, since nationality is a prime requirement for European citizenship. Inside the EU, as this article highlights, borders are necessary and problematic at same time. The Court has played with the concept of borders to address these ambiguities with a view to deepening integration. The conclusion is that if the Court has been able to effectively remove obstacles related to internal borders concerning the free movement of goods and the movement of active economic persons, such has not been the case for the free movement of European citizens, economically inactive. It follows from the division of competences and the case law of the European judges that solidarity remains intrinsically linked to nationality and therefore inevitably leads to the re-establishment of borders and the separation of peoples. This demonstrates the resistance of the “paradigm of a European market citizenship”. By revaluing nationality in the context of the enjoyment of the rights linked to citizenship, the European Court of Justice could hamper the integration process by renationalising the individual and establishing new borders.

scholarly journals Unveiling the overlooked freedom – the context of free movement of capital and payments in the EU law

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-145
Author(s):  
Ondrej Hamuľák
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Slow Release ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Provision ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Free movement of capital and payments represents the youngest of the freedoms within the single internal market of the European Union. Th e title “youngest” points on the very slow release of capital markets within the European Community and the European Union which leads to the tardy development of this freedom. It is young also from the view of the legal effects because it was the last of the freedom where direct effect of basal Treaty provision was accepted by the Court of Justice. In the heading of this article I awarded the forth freedom with the adjective “overlooked” which is clearly my subjective opinion on the approach of the EU law scholars to this part of the internal market law. In the most of the substantive textbooks and casebooks we may find only marginal space devoted to this field, especially in comparison with the other market freedoms. My objective is to off er and general introductive insight to this area and to certain extent cover the emerging gap.

Free Movement of Services versus National Labour Law and Industrial Relations Systems: Understanding the Laval Case from a Swedish and Nordic Perspective

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 493-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Rönnmar
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Eu Enlargement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

European integration, the internal market and free movement of persons and services are important aspects of EC labour law and EU industrial relations. As a result of EU enlargement and the emphasis on free movement within the EU, the problems of posting of workers, low-wage competition and social dumping are high on the agenda. This is illustrated by the epochal and much-debated Laval and Viking cases from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

scholarly journals Analysis of ECJ case law on discriminatory treatment of cross-border inheritance tax

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-28
Author(s):  
Gracia Luchena
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Inheritance Tax ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

Recently, the European Commission has launched a package which deals with issues of double taxation and discriminatory tax treatment in the area of inheritance and estate tax. In the paper the Commission discusses ten cases in which the European Court of Justice examined the inheritance tax rules of Member States. In eight out of the ten cases it concluded that the Member States in question breached EU rules on the free movement of capital and/or freedom of establishment. For example, on the 3rd of September 2014, the ECJ entered/made a judgment resolving that the Spanish Inheritance Tax should impose restrictions on the free movement of capital, one of the fundamental principles of the EU’s Single Market. Taking into consideration the merits of the case the Court of Justice finally concluded that the situations between resident and non-resident taxpayers or between goods located in Spain or abroad are comparable and that therefore the applicable tax treatment should be the same.

scholarly journals Free movement of workers in the EU and occupational pensions

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Del Sol ◽  
Marco Rocca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Cross National

The European Union appears to be promoting at the same time both cross-national mobility of workers and an increased role for occupational pensions. There is, however, a potential tension between these two objectives because workers risk losing (some of) their pension rights under an occupational scheme as a consequence of their mobility. After long negotiations, the EU has addressed this issue through a minimum standards Directive. Shortly before the adoption of this Directive, the Court of Justice also delivered an important decision in the same field, in the case of Casteels v British Airways. By analysing the resulting legal framework for safeguarding pension rights under occupational schemes in the context of workers’ mobility, we argue that the application of the case law developed by the Court of Justice in the field of free movement of workers has the potential to offer superior protection compared to the Directive. We also highlight the fact that the present legal framework seems to afford a much fuller protection to the intra-company cross-national mobility of workers employed by multinational companies, while also seemingly favouring mobility for highly specialised workers.

Square Pegs and Round Holes: The Free Movement of Persons Under EEA Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 165-186
Author(s):  
Christian NK FRANKLIN
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Free Trade Association ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhilst the European Union’s aim of achieving an ‘ever closer Union’ is not an objective of EEA cooperation, homogeneity demands that we follow the same path: as the Union gets ever closer, so too does EEA cooperation, in light of the demands of the fundamental principle of homogeneity. This is particularly well demonstrated by looking at developments in the field of the free movement of persons. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA Court) in this field shows that in situations where homogeneity is put to the test, there seems little to suggest that a more national sovereignty-friendly approach has been adopted than under EU law. Notwithstanding the integral differences between the EU and EEA legal constructs, the EFTA Court has proven highly adept at keeping pace with EU developments in the field through a number of bold and creative interpretations of EEA law, and by using different tools to arrive at uniform conclusions.

Das PSPP-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: Umfang der Übertragung von Souveränität und Überprüfung von Ermessensgebrauch

IG ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-226
Author(s):  
Achim-Rüdiger Börner
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
National Constitution ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Eu

In its judgment of 5 May 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has held that the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB), which started in 2015, and the relevant decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 11 December 2018, holding that the programme is compatible with European Union (EU) law, are ultra vires acts. Indeed, this decision is based on a French understanding of discretion which has previously been adopted in the European Treaties and according to which discretion is controlled only for undue, illegal influence. Today, the Treaties have adopted a review of discretion under the aspects of suitability, necessity, and appropriateness. Moreover, criticism at the decision of the FCC neglects that the accession to and the membership in the EU have to observe the thresholds of the respective national constitution, as its violation is not and may not be expected by the Union or any other Member State. Ultra vires acts of the Union, which remain uncorrected by the Union itself, are subject to disapproval and rejection by the constitutional court of any Member State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document