Besteuerungsprinzipien und effektive Unternehmenssteuerbelastungen in der Europäischen Union: Regelt sich die EU-weite Steuerharmonisierung von selbst?

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Elschner ◽  
Jost H. Heckemeyer ◽  
Christoph Spengel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Tax Regimes ◽  
Country Specific ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEU law demands that the allocation of factors and goods within the European Union shall not be distorted by taxes. Efforts to formally harmonize corporate tax regimes in Europe have, however, stalled in recent years. What is more, the source principle has prevailed over residence based taxation which is seen to be more in line with EU law. Tax induced distortions of cross-border investment decisions are supposed to be the consequence. Based on country-specific effective average tax rates from 1998 to 2009, this article shows that there is, however, non-coordinated convergence of tax burdens within the EU. Thus, distortions of cross-border investment decisions are limited and decreasing even without formal harmonization.

scholarly journals Covid-19 Using Border Controls to Fight a Pandemic? Reflections From the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
The Eu

When Covid-19 was acknowledged to have arrived in Europe in February-March 2020, politicians and public health authorities scrabbled to find appropriate and effective responses to the challenges. The EU obligation contained in Article 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requiring the EU (including the Member States to achieve a common protection on human health, however, seems to have been missing from the responses.) Instead, borders and their control became a site of substantial political debate across Europe as a possible venue for effective measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. While the most invasive Covid-19 measures have been within EU states, lockdown, closure of businesses etc., the cross-border aspects (limitations on cross border movement) have been important. In the European Union this had important consequences for EU law on border controls, in particular free movement of persons and the absence of controls among Schengen states. It also implicated border controls with third countries, including European Free Trade Area (EFTA and Switzerland) all states neighboring the EU, the UK (having left the EU on 1 January 2020) the Western Balkans and Turkey. While EU law distinguishes between Schengen borders where no control takes place on persons, non-Schengen EU borders, where controls take place but are limited to identity checks and border controls with third countries and external borders with third countries (non-EFTA or Swiss) the responses of many Member States and the EU institutions abandoned many aspects of these distinctions. Indeed, the difference between border controls between states (inside Schengen, the EU, EFTA, or outside) and internal restrictions on movement became increasingly blurred. Two approaches—public health and public policy—were applied simultaneously and not always in ways which were mutually coherent, or in any way consistent with the Article 9 TFEU commitment. While the public health approach to movement of persons is based on ensuring identification of those in need of treatment or possibly carrying the disease, providing treatment as quickly as possible or quarantine, the public policy approach is based on refusing entry to persons who are a risk irrespective of what that may mean in terms of propagating the pandemic in neighboring states or states of origin. I will examine here the ways in which the two approaches were applied in the EU from the perspective of EU law on border controls.

scholarly journals Corporate Tax in European Union and the Theory of Corporate Finance

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolanta Iwin-Garzyńska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Corporate Finance ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Tax Base ◽  
Fiscal Law ◽  
The Competitiveness Of Enterprises ◽  
The Eu

Abstract One of the main objectives to be accomplished by the European Union law is to eliminate barriers to the functioning of domestic market and in particular improve the competitiveness of enterprises. After several years of efforts, the European Commission approved a proposal for the directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base which is to remove obstacles to the functioning of internal market and increase tax harmonization. The article is aimed at presenting the essence of CCCTB in the theory of corporate finance and its importance for enterprises, based on the survey of Polish and EU companies. The paper addresses issues relating to tax in corporate finance. Canons of taxation will be discussed and special emphasis will be placed on principles behind formulating fiscal law provisions (including the EU law). Furthermore, the article presents the results of surveys into the importance of taxation cannons for Polish and EU companies.

scholarly journals Countering the corporate tax avoidance in the Court of Justice of the European Union practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-194
Author(s):  
К. A. Tasalov ◽  
S. G. Sokolova ◽  
D. M. Osina
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Abuse Of Law ◽  
The Eu

The article contains the analysis of extensive CJEU practice regarding the issues of countering corporate tax avoidance, and legal framework, mostly the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Directives.The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive research of the issues of countering the corporate tax avoidance in the CJEU practice. For this reason the authors set the following tasks: (1) to consider the concept of abuse of law, developed by the CJEU practice, with respect to corporate tax avoidance; (2) to identify the interaction between national anti-avoidance rules and fundamental freedoms of the internal market as established by the CJEU practice; (3) to study the CJEU practice concerning the implementation of tax directives and the application of anti-avoidance measures; (4) to identify the main features of the Directives "Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive" (ATAD) in terms of their potential impact on the development of the CJEU practice.The research methodology includes the application of both general methods of formal logic (including analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction) and special legal methodology (formal legal and comparative legal methods).The main results of the study. The CJEU has repeatedly considered the problem of conflict of national anti-avoidance rules with the fundamental freedoms of the EU internal market. The conflict between these rules is resolved in different ways depending on the type of antiavoidance rules: (1) national rules aimed at countering the abuse of law, and (2) national rules developed to counter tax avoidance, which are strictly applied according to formal criteria, without any requirement to prove abuse of law in a particular situation. The application of national anti-avoidance rules may provide for the exemptions from the regime of fundamental freedoms of the internal market. Where national anti-avoidance rules are not aimed at combating wholly artificial arrangements, but are applied mechanically, due to formal criteria, such rules should apply subject to the legal regime of fundamental freedoms. The CJEU held that the concept of beneficial owner should be applied not only to interest and royalties, but also to the distribution of profits, despite the fact that the provisions of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive do not contain such a concept. EU law prohibits the granting of state aid. National anti-avoidance rules and law enforcement practice may be subject to such a prohibition in cases where they create positive discrimination.Conclusions. When implementing the provisions of the ATAD 1-2, the EU Member States committed numerous breaches of the EU law. It therefore can be expected that the CJEU practice regarding the proper implementation of the Directives may appear in the near future. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply, even in cases where the EU Member State has not implemented the anti-avoidance mechanisms of tax directives into its national law. The general prohibition of abuse of EU law shall apply despite the principle of legal certainty, which precludes directives from being able by themselves to create obligations for individuals, so the directives cannot be relied upon per se by the Member State as against individuals. Sections 1−2 were contributed by S.G. Sokolova, 3−4.1 by D.M. Osina (section 4.1 in collaboration with K.A. Tasalov), 4.1−7 by K.A. Tasalov (section 4.1 in collaboration with D.M. Osina).

TERRITORIAL COHESION POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF EU REGIONAL SECURITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (Vol 18, No 4 (2019)) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Ihor LISHCHYNSKYY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Territorial Cohesion ◽  
Interregional Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the implementation of territorial cohesion policy in the European Union in order to achieve a secure regional coexistence. In particular, the regulatory and institutional origins of territorial cohesion policy in the EU are considered. The evolution of ontological models of cohesion policy has been outlined. Specifically, the emphasis is placed on the key objective of political geography – effectively combining the need for "territorialization" and the growing importance of networking. The role of urbanization processes in the context of cohesion policy is highlighted. Cross-border dimensions of cohesion policy in the context of interregional cooperation are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the features of integrated sustainable development strategies.

A Union of Peoples

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rival Theory ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
The Eu

This book offers a legal and political theory of the European Union. Many political and legal philosophers compare the EU to a federal union. They believe that its basic laws should be subject to the standards of constitutional law. They thus find it lacking or incomplete. This book offers a rival theory. If one looks more closely at the treaties and the precedents of the European courts, one sees that the substance of EU law is international, not constitutional. Just like international law, it applies primarily to the relations between states. It binds domestic institutions directly only when the local constitutions allow it. The member states have democratically chosen to adapt their constitutional arrangements in order to share legislative and executive powers with their partners. The legal architecture of the European Union is thus best understood under a theory of dualism and not pluralism. According to this internationalist view, EU law is part of the law of nations and its distinction from domestic law is a matter of substance, not form. This arrangement is supported by a cosmopolitan theory of international justice, which we may call progressive internationalism. The EU is a union of democratic peoples, that freely organize their interdependence on the basis of principles of equality and reciprocity. Its central principles are not the principles of a constitution, but cosmopolitan principles of accountability, liberty, and fairness,

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

scholarly journals Polish “Entrepreneur” and EU “Undertaking”: Multilingualism and Differences in Legal Identification

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Maciej Etel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Precise Determination ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Legal Identification ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Union and its member-states’ involvement in the economic sphere, manifesting itself in establishing the rules of entrepreneurs’ functioning – their responsibilities and entitlements – requires a precise determination of the addressees of these standards. Proper identification of an entrepreneur is a condition of proper legislation, interpretation, application, control and execution of the law. In this context it is surprising that understanding the term entrepreneur in Polish law and in EU law is not the same, and divergences and differences in identification are fundamental. This fact formed the objective of this article. It is aimed at pointing at key differences in the identification of an entrepreneur between Polish and EU law, explaining the reasons for different concepts, and also the answer to the question: May Poland, as an EU member-state, identify the entrepreneur in a different way than the EU?

scholarly journals Divergence of romano-germanic and anglo-american legal systems on the example of brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 144-153
Author(s):  
Tetjana Humeniuk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Mutual Transformation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Eu

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze topical issues of divergence of the Romano-Germanic and Anglo-American legal systems on the example of Brexit. Methodology. The methodology involves a comprehensive study of theoretical and practical material on this subject, as well as formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. The following methods of scientific cognition were used in the research process: dialectical, terminological, formal and logical, comparative and legal, system and functional methods. Results. The study found that an important role in resolving conflicts between EU law and UK national law was played by the Court of Justice of the European Union which declared British legislation invalid since it was not in line with EU law. Thanks to the case law of the CJEU and the national courts of the United Kingdom, it has been possible to adjust and harmonize the interaction between EU law and the national law of this country. As European integration is formed on the basis of a supreme legal force created by external (supranational) bodies, the national bodies that form the national rules of British law inevitably give up part of their powers in favor of EU law. Brexit is just the beginning of a long series of problematic issues that will arise in the EU as a result of member states’ more or less serious objections to a radical course to deepen European integration. And under such conditions, there is a widespread understanding that finding clear and effective answers to new challenges requires finding new conceptual (and most importantly, effective) approaches to the future functioning of the EU, as old mechanisms and methods no longer work properly and do not resolve contradictions spreading and becoming more acute. Scientific novelty. The study shows that the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union initiates a large-scale process of mutual transformation of the legal systems of both parties, the effectiveness of which will be determined by the realities of European geopolitical environment as well as domestic political processes within Great Britain itself. Practical importance. Research materials can be used for comparative law studies.

scholarly journals Exploring cross-border cooperation in Eastern Europe: What kind of initiatives have developed in the Romanian-Hungarian border area?

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-43
Author(s):  
Elena Grad-Rusu
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Living Standards ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Border Area ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Cross Border Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

Since the beginning, the European Union has believed and promoted the idea that an increase in cross-border cooperation contributes to enhanced European integration. This means that cross-border cooperation supports sustainable development along the EU’s internal and external borders, helps reduce differences in living standards and addresses common challenges across these borders. The aim of this paper is to examine the cross-border initiatives between Romania and Hungary with a special focus on the INTERREG projects, which have provided new sources of funding for cross-border activities and regional development in the RomanianHungarian border area. In this context, the cooperation has intensified in the last two decades, especially since Romania joined the EU in 2007. The research proves that cross-border projects and initiatives represent an important source of funding for this type of intervention, when no similar funding sources are available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document