scholarly journals On the content and scope of national and European solidarity under free movement rules: the case of golden shares and sovereign investments

2018 ◽  
pp. 191-218
Author(s):  
Daniele Gallo
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Golden Shares ◽  
Movement Rules

16. Exceptions to the free movement rules

2020 ◽  
pp. 510-543
Author(s):  
Niamh Nic Shuibhne
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Movement Rules

This chapter examines when Member States can lawfully displace the obligations placed on them by free movement law. Free movement rights can be restricted under EU law in two ways. For discriminatory or distinctly applicable restrictive measures, a derogation ground expressly provided for in the TFEU must be engaged. For indirectly or non-discriminatory measures, that is, indistinctly applicable restrictive measures, if an overriding requirement relating to the public interest can be demonstrated the measure will be lawful. In both cases, the restriction also has to satisfy a proportionality test, that is, it is both appropriate and necessary for achieving the relevant public interest objective.

Harmony and Dissonance in Free Movement

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 315-341
Author(s):  
Miguel Poiares Maduro
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

There is a generalised perception that the European Court of Justice has adopted different approaches to the different free movement rules included in the Treaties. In particular, the free movement of goods has ‘benefited’, until 1993, from a wider scope of application. Contrary to what has for long constituted the standard approach to the free movement of persons, the free movement of goods was constructed as requiring more than national treatment and non-discrimination in regard to goods from other Member States. Even non-discriminatory restrictions on trade in goods could constitute a violation of Community rules if not justified as necessary and proportional to the pursuit of a legitimate public interest. The freedom to provide services has somewhat occupied a middle ground between the interpretation given to the goods and persons provisions. Following the Court’s decision in Keck & Mithouard in 1993, a reversal of fortune appears to have taken place regarding the Court’s approach to the different free movement provisions, with the free movement of persons and the freedom to provide services now benefiting from a more ‘aggressive’ interpretation in comparison with the free movement of goods.

The Boundaries of Sovereignty: The ECJ’s Controversial Role Applying Internal Market Law to Direct Tax Measures

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 287-311
Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
Direct Tax

It is safe to say that any description of tax as ‘exciting’ tends to be greeted with at least mild scepticism by non-tax specialists. Yet the ECJ’s role applying the Treaty free movement rules in the direct tax sphere is one of the most exciting, controversial and seemingly intractable areas of ECJ competence at present. This paper seeks to demonstrate why no Community lawyer should miss out on the drama unfolding in Luxembourg.

London may favour liberal post-Brexit migration policy

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Skill Levels ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Clear Vision ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Movement Rules

Significance While the UK government has recognised that a 'standstill' transition period after Brexit will require continued acceptance of the EU's free movement rules, it has not yet formulated a clear vision for a long-term immigration policy. Impacts Changes to immigration will affect EEA migrants, and hence employers, at all skill levels. Geographically, London will be affected the most by a fall in immigration. There will be a substantial increase in regulatory burdens on employers.

The Rationale of State Aid Control: A Return to Orthodoxy

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 35-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Biondi
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Subtle Difference ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
State Aid Control ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
Regulatory Restriction ◽  
Prevailing View ◽  
Regulatory Measure

AbstractThe prevailing view on the rationale for State aid control is that it should be the same as, or very similar to, the rationale for competition control. It is certainly true that State aid distorts competition, as the economic definition presupposes. However, there is a subtle difference between the two, and we should return to orthodoxy in our analysis of these two concepts. The rational for State aid control is in fact to be found in the logic of the internal market principles. The tools to be used in analysing it are not identical to those used in the antitrust context. Rather, the free movement perspective should be adopted, and most problems in the arena of State aid can be better understood when approached from that perspective. It is also true that State aid procedures can be used to monitor compliance with free movement rules, and so the functional identity between the two sets of provisions is confirmed. State aid is a regulatory restriction on freedom of movement, and State aid control is an essential part of the functioning of the internal market, and so it makes sense to treat it in the same way as any other regulatory measure which has such an effect.

Political Arrogance and National Belonging

2020 ◽  
pp. 235-268
Author(s):  
Luis Cabrera
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Belonging ◽  
Strong Emphasis ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Movement Rules

This chapter considers arrogance claims lodged by members of the UK Independence Party, against the backdrop of Britain’s “Brexit” referendum to leave the European Union (EU). Many UKIP respondents see EU institutions as inappropriately treating national communities as not authorized to set policy in line with their own distinctive national priorities. And, they argue that EU free movement rules inappropriately impose a more cosmopolitan vision of membership on national communities—especially when prospective members such as Turkey are a “poor fit” with the British nation. Some Turkish respondents challenge such poor fit claims. Further challenges are raised to democratic theory arguments that give strong emphasis to national belonging. Overall, it is shown, claims for the moral and empirical distinctiveness of nations are difficult to sustain, and thus so are nationalist objections to democracy beyond the nation-state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document