scholarly journals Does Financial Integration Exist in ECOWAS?

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-27
Author(s):  
Matthew Oladapo Gidigbi ◽  
Benedict Akanegbu
Keyword(s):  
Financial Integration ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Member States ◽  
Monetary Unification ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital ◽  
Over Time

Free movement of goods, capital, and persons have been the long-term strategic goals of the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) since its establishment. Notwithstanding, financial integration has become more important in deepening political integration in the region than ever. Assessing how far the Regional Economic Community (REC) has achieved her objective of free movement of capital among the member states. Therefore, this study investigated the existence of financial integration in ECOWAS by employing savings-investment equality, popularly known as Feldstein-Horioka Criterion; a panel data for all the 15 member states was fitted into the specified model. The study found that there is the existence of financial integration in the REC, and that language inhibits financial integration and that the coefficient of language dummy stands at -4.8 percent. However, it found that language inhibition of the financial integration in the REC will gradually disappear over time, as the interactive coefficient of language and time stands at -0.12 percent. This study concludes that a level of financial integration is in existence in the REC. Therefore, the REC is prepared for monetary unification assuming that there will be more substantial trade among the member states.

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 Macroeconomic Coordination in the Eurasian Economic Union: Strategic Aspects

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Shokhin ◽  
Ekaterina Kudryashova
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Planning ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
Coordination Process ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Economic Union ◽  
Macroeconomic Coordination ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

Coordinated macroeconomic policy is a special element within the integration process in addition to the four freedoms usual for economic integration: free movement of goods, free movement of services, free movement of labor, and free movement of capital. Macroeconomic coordination was, from the very beginning, a key idea behind each stage of the process of Eurasian economic integration. The politico-ideological foundation of the Eurasian idea is the facilitation of growth for Eurasian countries on the basis of economic pragmatism. The macroeconomic coordination process within the Eurasian Economic Union is based on the coordination of strategic planning systems in each Member State. Strategic planning plays an important role in macroeconomic coordination. Strategic planning documents have a sound legal basis in the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Union. At the same time Eurasian integration provides a platform for best practice exchanges and coordination of strategic planning between the Member States.

Part A Regulatory Matters, 2 EU Banking Law

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Proctor Charles
Keyword(s):  
Banking Regulation ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Banking Services ◽  
Home State ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses EU banking law, which has significantly influenced banking regulation in the UK. It covers the background to the EU Directives in the field of banking law; deposit-taking prohibition; the authorization process; the relevance of the freedoms created by the EU Treaties; the right to establish a branch in other Member States; the right to provide services in other Member States; the provision of banking services from within an institution's home State; the free movement of capital and banking services; and a Commission Interpretative Communication on territoriality questions arising in the field of EU banking law.

Chapter 3 Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions between Member States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Klamert ◽  
Maria Moustakali ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Equivalent Effect ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

Chapter 3 of the Title on the free movement of goods is devoted to the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect. The provisions prohibiting quantitative restrictions initially appeared under Articles 30 to 37 EEC. They were renumbered as Articles 28 to 31 EC by the ToA and now appear under Articles 34 to 37 of the TFEU. The substance of the provisions has remained unchanged since their first appearance in the EEC Treaty.

The Customs Union in its EU Context

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Lyons QC
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Customs Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Title 1 ◽  
Member States ◽  
Equivalent Effect ◽  
The Common ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Treaty Of Amsterdam

Until the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, the EC Treaty, as it then was, had dealt with the customs union in Articles 9 to 29 which constituted Chapter 1 of Title 1 and was devoted to free movement of goods. Many of the provisions dealt with the staged reduction of duties on imports between Member States and with the procedure by which a common customs tariff was to be established. As the customs union was created on 1 July 1968, by 1997 rationalization of the customs duty provisions in the EC Treaty was clearly long overdue. It was achieved by the Treaty of Amsterdam which ensured that the EC Treaty dealt with the main elements of the customs union in just five articles, Articles 23 to 27. These now appear in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in Articles 28 to 32. Articles 30 to 32 constitute Chapter 1 of Title II on the free movement of goods. Article 30 provides that customs duties on imports and exports, and charges having equivalent effect, are prohibited between Member States together with customs duties of a fiscal nature. Article 31 states that the common customs

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 Does the European Single Market Exist in the Era of a Coronavirus Pandemic? The Case of Intra and Extra-EU Trade in COVID-19-related Products

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-83
Author(s):  
Adam A. Ambroziak ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
European Single Market ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Eu

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an extraordinary event for the EU Member States and a period wherein EU legislation and the efficiency of EU institutions have been put to the test. The crisis triggered by the decisions made by governments in Europe (which were motivated by their wishes to protect the health and lives of their peoples and to satisfy the rapid demand for drugs, personal protective equipment, and medical devices) disrupted market forces. Although most of these measures were based on both domestic and EU legislation, they seriously hindered the smooth functioning of the EU Single Market, including the free movement of goods. This paper aims to find out whether EU legislation succeeded in coping with the challenges triggered by COVID-19 in the field of international trade and whether measures taken by the European Commission with a view to complying with the rules of the EU Single Market adequately took care of the needs stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak and whether it properly tackled protectionist instruments adopted by the Member States. We have focused on international trade and the free movement of goods within the EU as they both constitute the cornerstone of EU economic integration. We found that although EU legislation was not tailored specifically for the times of a COVID-19 pandemic, in the area of international trade (including intra-EU trade), as well as in the field of placing goods on the market, it provided extraordinary solutions. Apparently, the explanations and guidelines provided by the Commission have limited the scope of individual protectionist and interventionist actions of the Member States.

scholarly journals KONFLIK YURISDIKSI DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL DALAM RANGKA PASAR TUNGGAL

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
Rahmi Jened
Keyword(s):  
Economic Integration ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Fair Competition ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Asean Economic Community

AbstractIt is invisioned that ASEAN Single Market is to realize in 2015.ASEAN Single Market is what expected from the formation of ASEAN Economic community ( AEC). The basic principle of AEC is free movement of goods, services, personnel and capital. This is inherent with the objective of economic integration that is a fair competition. In relation to single market, there are trans boundary activities. It is highly possibility that international disputes over IP arise. Disputes that involve different countries with law of each their own and the need determination of choice of law /choice of forum or jurisdiction. This paper aims to discuss IP related conflict jurisdiction in the era of economic integration specifcally single market ASEANIntisariPada akhir 2015 diharapkan terwujud pasar tunggal ASEAN sebagai esensi perwujudan Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN (ASEAN Economic Community). Prinsip utama dalam rangka Economic Community adalah free movement of goods, services, skilled labours and capital. Prinsip ini inheren dengan tujuan utama integrasi ekonomi yakni persaingan sehat (fair competition). Persoalan HKI tidak hanya terbatas dalam suatu wilayah negara tertentu. Untuk itu perlu dianalisis masalah jurisdiksi pengadilan. Artikel ini akan membahas masalah konflik yurisdiksi dan penegakan HKI dalam rangka integrasi ekonomi dan pasar tunggal ASEAN.

scholarly journals Beneficiario efectivo de los intereses, abuso de derecho y libre circulación de capitales: a propósito de la STJUE de 26 de febrero de 2019 = Beneficial owner of interests, abuse of rights and free movement of capitals: by purpose of The Judgment Of The Court 26 February 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 550
Author(s):  
Carlos María López Espadafor ◽  
David García Guerrero
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
A Company ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

Resumen: La STJUE de 26 de febrero de 2019 puede aportar herramientas útiles a las Administraciones tributarias de los Estados miembros para interpretar y aplicar el Derecho de la Unión Europea en materia de exención en origen de los intereses que se satisfacen por una entidad a otra al amparo de la Directiva 2003/49. El punto clave es determinar si una sociedad es beneficiario efectivo de los intereses. Esta Sentencia delimita escenarios en los que existe abuso de derecho frente a los supuestos en que simplemente no se da la condición de beneficiario efectivo. Se subrayan ciertas situaciones en las que se ha violado la libre circulación de capitales.Palabras clave: beneficiario efectivo, abuso de derecho, principio general de prohibición de prácticas abusivas, libre circulación de capitales.Abstract: The Judgment Of The Court (Grand Chamber) 26 February 2019 can contribute useful tools to the Tax Administrations of the Member States when interpreting and applying European Union law in respect of exemption of interest and royalty payments which are satisfied by one entity to another one according to the Directive 2003/49. The key point is to determine if a company is a beneficial owner of the interests. This Judgment provides arrangements in which there is abuse of rights against the cases where the beneficial owner condition simply does not exist. It highlights certain situations in which the free movement of capital has been violated.Keywords: beneficial owner, abuse of rights, general principle prohibiting abuse, free movement of capital.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document