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 Obrót nieruchomościami rolnymi w świetle traktatowej swobody przepływu kapitału – rozważania na gruncie orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-46
Author(s):  
Beata Włodarczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
General Interest ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

The aim of the article is to outline the legal issues of trading in agricultural property in the European Union, which is entirely subject to basic treaty rules. The free movement of capital, regulated in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is of particular importance in relation to cross-border operations connected with trading in agricultural property. Therefore the legislation in force and applicable in EU Member States should ensure that citizens of other Member States have the possibility of exercising this freedom. However, the free movement of capital is not absolute. In the light of the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, regulations limiting free movement of capital may be introduced at national level, provided that they pursue general interest objectives and comply with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

20. Free movement of payments and capital

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Monetary Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

This chapter examines the rules concerning free movement of payment and capital within the European Union provided in Articles 63–6 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains the scope of and exceptions to the free movement of capital. The chapter also considers restrictions on free movement of capital between Member States and third countries. It highlights the willingness of the Court of Justice (CJ) to borrow principles from the other freedoms. This chapter also considers briefly the provisions relating to monetary union and the developments in the light of the financial crisis.

scholarly journals Cross-Border Conversions in the European Union After the Polbud Case

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-77
Author(s):  
Iryna Basova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
A Company ◽  
Legislative Measures

Cross-border conversions may be considered as an achievement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, Court) since its case law paves the way towards acceptance of such cross-border operations in all Member States. In the Polbud case, the CJEU clarified the scope of the freedom of establishment in regard to cross-border conversions. That judgement should give an impulse to those Member States whose law remains silent on the issue, lacks regulation or is not in line with the provisions on the freedom of establishment, to take appropriate legislative measures. However, a creation of a legal framework at the European level is still needed to provide a commonly-accepted procedure for such operations, to secure protection for vulnerable constituencies of a company, to prevent abusive practices and to regulate cooperation between the states which are involved in cross-border conversions.

18. Free movement of payments and capital

2020 ◽  
pp. 417-435
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Union ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

This chapter examines the rules concerning free movement of payment and capital within the European Union provided in Articles 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains the scope of and derogations to the free movement of capital. The chapter also considers restrictions on free movement of capital between Member States and third countries. It highlights the willingness of the Court of Justice (CJ) to borrow principles (i.e. rule of reason) from the other freedoms. This chapter also considers briefly the provisions relating to monetary and economic union and the developments in the light of the financial crisis.

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.

The Google Ireland Case and the Legal Battle over Digital Taxes in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Battle ◽  
The Way

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

Goods, Persons, Services and Capital in the European Union: Jurisprudential Routes to Free Movement

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Connor
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Equivalent Effect ◽  
National Rule ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
National Measure

This Paper considers the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in relation to the free movement provisions of European Community law in relation to goods, persons, services and capital within the European Union. It examines the bases used by the Court in its application of Community free movement provisions to national measures that may seek to hinder the exercise of such rights. From limited enquiry originally founded on considerations of non discrimination based on nationality, to one most recently focussed on the ‘restriction’ to the free movement right, the Paper examines the methods employed by the Court of Justice in its scrutiny of the national measure appearing to conflict with Treaty free movement rights.The examination of the applicable free movement jurisprudence attempts to demonstrate the want of a thematically consistent underpinning within free movement case law. The Paper draws attention to the complexities and even the confusions that appear to be inherent within free movement jurisprudence and arguably evidenced within the Court's journey from ‘discrimination’ to ‘restriction’ as the basis of the enquiry with regard to the application of Treaty free movement rights. In its consideration of Case C-110/05Commission v Italy, Case C-142/05Åklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson v. Joakim Roos, recent jurisprudence with respect to the free movement of goods, the Paper notes that in the context of the ‘measure having equivalent effect’, the emphasis in the assessment of the national rule has shifted to an examination of the effect on market access, rather than a distinction based on the type of rule.

scholarly journals The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Subject

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document