scholarly journals Conditions of the Single Market of Digital Services in the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
Wacław Michał Szymanowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Single Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Digital Services

Nowe podejście do harmonizacji technicznej w Unii Europejskiej a swoboda przepływu towarów

2016 ◽  
pp. 70-86
Author(s):  
Iwona Miedzińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Single Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Primary Method ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This article is about the new approach directives and their impact on ensuring the free movement of goods in the single market. The author analysed the relevant legislation of the European Union adopted in the field of technical harmonisation: regulations and directives. The primary method of research used in this article is the legal and institutional analysis. Neofunctionalism and rational choice theory were also helpful to explain the processes of integration in this area. The analysis shows that the new approach directives affect the streamlining of procedures for the movement of goods in the single market. However, despite the simplification of procedures for the movement of goods, an adequate level of safety and consumer protection is ensured. The member states and the European Commission have effective response mechanisms when a product endangers life, health or safety of consumers.

ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE OF THE EUROPEAN DIGITAL TAX IN COMPARISON WITH THE CURRENT VAT SYSTEM AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND MANAGEMENT OF ECONOMIC ENTITIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
S. V. ZAYTSEV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Value Added ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Value Added Tax ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Digital Services ◽  
The Many

In March 2018 the European Commission presented a proposal to adopt a digital services tax (DST) on certain types of revenues of multinational digital Companies. The purpose of the digital services tax is to compensate in the short term for the low level of corporate taxation of these companies in the European Union and thus meet the urgent need of civil society for greater tax fairness. DST is presented as an indirect tax on turnover and is often compared to value-added tax (VAT). In this article, the author seeks to highlight the many differences that exist between the harmonized European Union VAT and the new DST. In addition, the author challenges the idea that the DST will actually be an indirect tax and, most importantly, that it will effectively increase tax justice in the European Union.

scholarly journals Tax Absence in Relation to Taxation of Digital Services

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Tereza Čejková
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Business Units ◽  
Digital Services

In the area of taxation of business corporations operating in several different countries, there is a problem arising with  he identification of the tax residence of the liable entity. With the expansion of the so-called digital business, where  entrepreneurs often do not have a physical headquarters or business units, this problem is becoming more common.  Efforts to introduce a digital tax within the Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union are accompanied by efforts to address this issue through various legislative acts. This article explains how the problem of identifying tax residence arises, why it is undesirable and describes possible  solutions.

scholarly journals Artificial intelligence, Digital Single Market and the proposal of a right to fair and reasonable inferences: a legal issue between ethics and techniques

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-91
Author(s):  
Alexandre Veronese ◽  
Alessandra Silveira ◽  
Amanda Nunes Lopes Espiñeira Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation

The article discusses the ethical and technical consequences of Artificial intelligence (hereinafter, A.I) applications and their usage of the European Union data protection legal framework to enable citizens to defend themselves against them. This goal is under the larger European Union Digital Single Market policy, which has concerns about how this subject correlates with personal data protection. The article has four sections. The first one introduces the main issue by describing the importance of AI applications in the contemporary world scenario. The second one describes some fundamental concepts about AI. The third section has an analysis of the ongoing policies for AI in the European Union and the Council of Europe proposal about ethics applicable to AI in the judicial systems. The fourth section is the conclusion, which debates the current legal mechanisms for citizens protection against fully automated decisions, based on European Union Law and in particular the General Data Protection Regulation. The conclusion will be that European Union Law is still under construction when it comes to providing effective protection to its citizens against automated inferences that are unfair or unreasonable.

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.

Compliance in the single market

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Egan ◽  
Maria Helena Guimarães
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Database ◽  
Industrial Sectors ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
Trade And Growth

This article focuses on the barriers faced by firms due to non-compliance with European law. Although there is an extensive literature on non-compliance in the European Union, there has not been any systematic assessment of the barriers faced by firms in trying to market their products across different national boundaries. We draw on a comprehensive database of over 2000 cases of business complaints about regulatory and administrative barriers encountered in the single market. Our empirical findings survey the range and type of barriers that affect different industrial sectors, the variation in compliance with European law among member states, and the different solutions used to address business complaints about the functioning of the single market. The data shows that firms continue to face considerable challenges in operating the single market, and that there are still trade and growth dividends to be harnessed from addressing the remaining barriers to trade.

Platform Liability Under Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, Automated Filtering and Fundamental Rights: An Impossible Match

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Geiger ◽  
Bernd Justin Jütte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Specific Class ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Online Content ◽  
Content Sharing ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) introduced a change of paradigm with regard to the liability of some platforms in the European Union. Under the safe harbour rules of the Directive on electronic commerce (E-Commerce Directive), intermediaries in the EU were shielded from liability for acts of their users committed through their services, provided they had no knowledge of it. Although platform operators could be required to help enforce copyright infringements online by taking down infringing content, the E-commerce Directive also drew a very clear line that intermediaries could not be obliged to monitor all communications of their users and install general filtering mechanisms for this purpose. The Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed this in a series of cases, amongst other reasons because filtering would restrict the fundamental rights of platform operators and users of intermediary services. Twenty years later, the regime for online intermediaries in the EU has fundamentally shifted with the adoption of Art. 17 CDSM Directive, the most controversial and hotly debated provision of this piece of legislation. For a specific class of online intermediaries known as ‘online content-sharing providers’ (OCSSPs), uploads of infringing works by their users now result in direct liability and they are required undertake ‘best efforts’ to obtain authorization for such uploads. With this new responsibility come further obligations which oblige OCSSPs to make best efforts to ensure that works for which they have not obtained authorization are not available on their services. How exactly OCSSPs can comply with this obligation is still unclear. However, it seems unavoidable that compliance will require them to install measures such as automated filtering (so-called ‘upload filters’) using algorithms to prevent users from uploading unlawful content. Given the scale of the obligation, there is a real danger that measures taken by OCSSPs in fulfilment of their obligation will amount to expressly prohibited general monitoring. What seems certain, however, is that the automated filtering, whether general or specific in nature, cannot distinguish appropriately between illegitimate and legitimate use of content (e.g. because it would be covered by a copyright limitation). Hence, there is a serious risk of overblocking certain uses that benefit from strong fundamental rights justifications such as the freedom of expression and information or freedom of artistic creativity. This article first outlines the relevant fundamental rights as guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights that are affected by an obligation to monitor and filter for copyright infringing content. Second, it examines the impact on fundamental rights of the obligations OCSSPs incur under Art. 17, which are analysed and tested also with regard to their compatibility with general principles of EU law such as proportionality and legal certainty. These are, on the one hand, obligations to prevent the upload of works for which they have not obtained authorization and, on the other, an obligation to remove infringing content upon notification and prevent the renewed upload in relation to these works and protected subject matter (so-called ‘stay-down’ obligations). Third, the article assesses the mechanisms to safeguard the right of users of online content-sharing services under Art. 17. The analysis demonstrates that the balance between the different fundamental rights in the normative framework of Art. 17 CDSM Directive is a very difficult one to strike and that overly strict and broad enforcement mechanisms will most likely constitute an unjustified and disproportionate infringement of the fundamental rights of platform operators as well as of users of such platforms. Moreover, Art. 17 is the result of hard-fought compromises during the elaboration of the Directive, which led to the adoption of a long provision with complicated wording and full of internal contradictions. As a consequence, it does not determine with sufficient precision the balance between the multiple fundamental rights affected, nor does it provide for effective harmonization. These conclusions are of crucial importance for the development of the regulatory framework for the liability of platforms in the EU since the CJEU will have to rule on the compatibility of Art. 17 with fundamental rights in the near future, as a result of an action for annulment filed by the Polish government. In fact, if certain features of the article are considered incompatible with the constitutional framework of the EU, this should lead to the erasing of certain paragraphs and, possibly, even of the entire provision from the text of the CDSM Directive.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document