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.

Enhanced Cooperation and its Impact on the European Internal Market—Art 326 of the TFEU

2021 ◽  
pp. 151-406
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Trade Liberalisation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
Member States ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter explores how the enhanced cooperation procedure interacts with the European internal market. The chapter is divided into three parts: Part I (Fundamental Freedoms) discusses the relationship between the fundamental freedoms and the differentiation established between the Member States. This part of the book focuses particularly on the question of whether or not participating Member States are allowed to protect their harmonised values by way of protective obstacles against non-participating Member States. In the case of trade liberalisation or trade-strengthening enhanced cooperation, we will explore whether the principle of reciprocity can be used to align trade-hampering effects of enhanced cooperation laws with the fundamental freedoms. Part II addresses state aid law issues. The plain wording of the EU Treaties on the prohibition of state aid may give the impression that any form of secondary EU law does not fall within its scope. Since enhanced cooperation law does not bind all Member States, state aid law has to be applied to protect competition between participating and non-participating Member States. Part III explores the compliance of enhanced cooperation law with the European acquis. A particular focus is placed on potential conflict between ordinary secondary EU law and enhanced cooperation laws.

DRŽAVNA POMOĆ ZA ISTRAŽIVANjE I RAZVOJ I INOVACIJE KOJA SE MORA PRIJAVITI

2021 ◽  
pp. 397-409
Author(s):  
Stefan Šokinjov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
Incentive Effect ◽  
Council Regulation

According to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 th July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid the Commission may declare state aid for research&development and innovation compatible with the internal market and are not subject to the notification requirement of Article 108(3) TFEU. Authorized by mentioned Regulation, Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty and stipulated conditions under which state aid for research&development and innovation is exempted from the notification requirement. It does not mean that state aid which does not fulfill prescribed conditions is forbidden. State aid which does not fulfill envisaged conditions can be considered compatible with the internal market if after notification to the Commission it assessing it separately establishes that it satisfies each of the following criteria: contribution to a well-defined objective of common interest; need for State intervention; appropriateness of the aid measure; incentive effect; proportionality of the aid (aid limited to the minimum); avoidance of undue negative effects on competition and trade between Member States and transparency of aid

Experience with Enhanced Cooperation—Success and Failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Unified Framework ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Successes And Failures

This chapter explores the successes and failures of enhanced cooperation. A comparison between the legislative initiatives which were successfully pursued under the enhanced cooperation procedure and those which failed (because the Member States either did not issue the necessary request to the European Commission or did not reach the necessary consensus to enact secondary EU legislation) identifies the areas which are likely to be regulated by enhanced cooperation law. These areas are particularly defined by three concerns: incapability, fear, and simplification. Incapability refers to policy areas where a single Member State is unable to address a particular issue properly and thus may be willing participate in enhanced cooperation. Fear may determine a common legislative action of some Member States if the law imposes negative effects upon the Member States, such as dislocation effects. Simplification is, thus far, the only real concern which has bound some Member States together and has led to the use of the enhanced cooperation procedure. Simplification is achieved by a unified framework which is built on mutual recognition.

Article 104 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Kellerbauer
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Member States ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Law

Article 84 EC Until the entry into force of the provisions adopted in pursuance of Article 103, the authorities in Member States shall rule on the admissibility of agreements, decisions and concerted practices and on abuse of a dominant position in the internal market in accordance with the law of their country and with the provisions of Article 101, in particular paragraph 3, and of Article 102.

Functionalism

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-32
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Institutional Rules ◽  
Contractual Relationship ◽  
The Law

Functionalism is conventionally considered the mainstream paradigm of the law of international organizations: organizations are agents of their member states by the means of a contractual relationship; the law created by international organizations is purely international law; the institutional veil is characterized by a crystallin transparency; the autonomy of the organization is minimal and only granted by a rigid conferral of competences and few implied powers; the conduct of member states acting in the institutional forum is relevant as a matter of international law. This chapter introduces the historical roots of this conceptualization and elaborates why under this perspective the rules of the organizations are purely international law. It describes the flaws of this theory, discussing the breach of institutional rules by the organization and the adoption of countermeasures against a wrongful act committed by a member state.

11. Free movement of goods

2020 ◽  
pp. 294-322
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Specific Volume ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter explores the free movement of goods, which lies at the very heart of the internal market. The idea of the free movement of goods was the starting point that the EEC Treaty aimed for, and remains one of the greatest achievements of the EU to date. However, as with everything in EU law, there are a lot of legal rules underpinning a fairly straightforward concept. The Treaty contains two separate sets of provisions that address matters of taxation when it comes to trade in products. The first relates to border taxation, while the second relates to internal taxation. With regard to non-taxation issues, the primary issue is quantitative restrictions: situations where a Member State either blocks a specific volume of products from entering its market, or outlaws/bans a product altogether. The chapter then considers the exceptions to free movement of goods, and assesses how Brexit may impact on the free movement of goods between the UK and the EU.

Article 347 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Kellerbauer
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
International Security ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
Member States

Article 297 EC Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.

Identifying the (dis)placement of ‘new’ Member State social interests in the posting of workers: the case of Latvia

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-153
Author(s):  
Zane Rasnača
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Market Structure ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Social Standards ◽  
Social Interests ◽  
The Eu

Social and economic interests of ‘new’ and ‘old’ Member States along centre and periphery axis – Judicial and legislative developments concerning the posting of workers – Continuous deepening of the divide between centre and periphery – Lack of placement of new Member States’ social interests at the EU level – The need to place social interests firmly in the EU (internal market) structure – Developing meaningful common social standards to mitigate the centre/periphery divide

Internal Market Preventive Controls of National Technical Standards and eir Impact on Environmental Measures

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-272
Author(s):  
Nicolas de Sadeleer
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Technical ◽  
Environmental Measures ◽  
National Environmental ◽  
Technical Rules ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWith a view to overcoming the shortcomings of “negative harmonisation”, the EU lawmaker has been adopting different directives requiring the Member States to notify to the Commission their draft regulations setting technical standards before their enactment. The aim of this article is to shed the light on two internal market preventive procedures: Directive 98/34 on the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulation and Regulation 764/2008/EC relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State. In particular, the paper assesses the manner in which the directive and the regulation are likely to impinge on the enactment of national environmental measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document