La confianza legítima en la recuperación de ayudas de Estado en el caso de las «vacaciones fiscales vascas»

2014 ◽  
pp. 2761-2795
Author(s):  
Susana SERRANO GAZTELUURRUTIA
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Capacity ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Tax Holidays ◽  
Over Time

LABURPENA: Lanak zergen arloko foru pizgarriak jorratzen ditu, «opor fiskalak» izenez (oker) izendatzen ditugunak, alegia. Zergen arloko gaitasun arautzailea erabiliz, Arabako, Bizkaiko eta Gipuzkoako lurralde historikoek hainbat neurri fiskal hartu izan dituzte lurraldeetan enpresen sarea babesteko. Baina arazo bat eragin zuten, Estatuak «baimendu ditzakeen» diru-laguntzen kategorian sartzen direlako (Europar Batasunaren Funtzionamendu Tratatuaren 107.3 artikulua, Europako Erkidegoa Eratzeko Tratatuaren 87.3 artikuluaren arabera), hau da, Kontseiluak baimendu ditzake Batzordeak proposatuta. Baimena eskatu ez zenez, automatikoki legez kontrako laguntzatzat jo ziren (baimenik ez zegoelako; hau da, arazo formal batengatik, ez funtsaren arazo batengatik. Izan ere, Batzordeak emanak zituen baimenak antzeko neurrietarako). Horrenbestez, Estatuaren eta/edo Batzordearen errekurtsoa duten zerga arloko foruarauak, foru-arau horien aurkako Batzordearen erabakiak eta Batzordearen erabaki horiek bete ez direla egiaztatzen duten Europako epaiak izan ditugu denboran zehar, antzeko erreklamazio eta argudioekin. Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren 2014ko maiatzaren 13ko epaiak ad extra erabaki zuen gaiaz, eta EAEko administrazioak zigortu zituen, araua ez betetzeagatik. Auzitegi Gorenaren 2014ko ekainaren 20ko epaiak gaia ad intra ebatzi zuen, eta zalantzan jarritako neurrien onuradunek lortutako onurak itzultzea onartu zuen. RESUMEN: El tema en cuestión se sitúa en el ámbito de los incentivos forales en materia fiscal, las (mal) llamadas «vacaciones fiscales vascas». Haciendo uso de su capacidad normativa en materia tributaria, los Territorios Históricos de Álava, Bizkaia y Gipuzkoa han ido adoptando a los largo del tiempo una serie de medidas fiscales para apoyar el entramado empresarial en sus respectivos Territorios. La cuestión de fondo es que entraban en la categoría de ayudas de Estado «autorizable» (art. 107.3 TFUE, ex. 87.3 TCE), podían ser autorizadas por el Consejo a propuesta de la Comisión. Y no se solicitó esa autorización, por lo que automáticamente pasaron a ser consideradas ayudas ilegales (por falta de autorización, una cuestión meramente formal, no de fondo. De hecho, medidas aparecidas estaban siendo autorizadas por la Comisión). Por tanto, en el tiempo se han venido cruzando normas forales fiscales recurridas por el propio Estado y/o por la Comisión, Decisiones de la Comisión contra esas normas forales y sentencias europeas constatando el incumplimiento de lo señalado en esas Decisiones de la Comisión, con similares reclamaciones y argumentos. La STJUE de 13 de mayo de 2014 zanjaba la cuestión ad extra, condenando a las administraciones vascas por el incumplimiento. Y la STS de 20 de junio de 2014 parece que cierra también la cuestión ad intra, haciendo que los beneficiados con las medidas cuestionadas devuelvan los beneficios obtenidos. ABSTRACT: The subject matter is placed on the field of the foral incentives in fiscal matters, the so (badly) called “basque tax holidays”. Using their regulatory capacity in taxation, Historical Territories of Álava, Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa adopted tax measures over time in order to support the entrepreneurial fabric of their respective Territories. The substantive issue is that they were considered under the category of “allowable” aids of State (Art. 107.3 TFEU, ex 87.3 TEC), they could have been allowed by the Council on a proposal of the Commision. That authorization was not applied so they were automatically considered illegal aids (because of lacking of authorisation, a merely formal question, not substantive). Indeed, similar measures were being taken by the Commission). Thus, tax foral norms contested by the State and/or the Commission, Decisions of the Commission against those foral norms and european judgments stating the failure to comply with what was stated in those Decisions of the Commission, with similar claims and reasons have intertwined over time,. The judgment of the European Court of Justice form May 13th of 2014 settled the ad extra matter, condemning Basque administrations for the breach. And the judgment of the Supreme Court of 20th June of 2014 seems to close the ad intra issue making the beneficiaries with contested measures to return the obtained benefits.

Constitutional Courts, Preliminary Rulings and the “New Form of Law”: The Adjudication of the European Stability Mechanism

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1771-1790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
European Stability Mechanism ◽  
New Form

In 2012 and 2013, we observed how the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was adjudicated by “EU courts, plural”: a number of high courts of the Member States (among them “Kelsenian” constitutional courts as well as representatives of a more hybrid model of judicial review of constitutionality) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU) were seized by challenges to the mechanism. What attracted attention was the fact that only one court, the Supreme Court of Ireland, decided to submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU, while the other courts, as would appear from their judgments, did not even consider the option. This was a suboptimal example of judicial dialogue in the case of ESM adjudication.

European Court of Justice Jurisprudence in the Field of Avoidance Actions with International Elements for Filling the Insolvency Estate

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210
Author(s):  
Yordanka Noneva-Zlatkova
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Border Effect ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

AbstractWith the development of the internal market, the need to establish rules ensuring the protection of creditors in insolvency proceedings with a cross-border effect is increasing. Mechanisms at national level are difficult to provide the desired protection for foreign creditors. Since 26.06.2017 EU has a new Regulation 848/2015 which repeals the current Regulation 1346/2000. Despite the radical changes, it is attempting to implement this legislative act, the main objective of insolvency proceedings remains unchanged, namely, to achieve fair satisfaction of creditors. One of the mechanisms for the realisation of this objective are avoidance actions with international element for filling the insolvency estate. In view of the specifics of the procedure, the standard civil law mechanisms such as the Actio Pauliana are not impossible but are extremely inadequate and difficult to prove. In the practice of the Member States, many issues arise concerning the determination of jurisdiction and applicable law, creation of preconditions for the abuse in searching the most favourable legal system (forum shopping), there are differences in the so-called ‘suspicious periods’ and transactions concluded with affiliates. On this basis a fundamental jurisprudence of the CJEU has been enacted, the achievement of which will be the subject of this paper.

scholarly journals Vidaus pirkimai kaip viešojo pirkimo sutarties išimtis

Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Deividas Soloveičikas
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Substantive Law

Ši publikacija skiriama pozityviosios viešųjų pirkimų teisės nereguliuojamai temai – vidaus sandorių iš­imčiai. Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti vidaus sandorių išimties koncepcijos analizę, Europos Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudenciją šioje srityje, taip pat ištirti, kokios yra praktinės vidaus sandorių sudarymo Lietu­voje ir Europos Sąjungoje galimybės ir prielaidos. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the subject that is not regulated by the substantive law – in-house procurement. The author seeks to examine the whole concept of the in-house procurement as well as the case-law of the European Court of Justice related to the mentioned field. Besides, it is the aim of this publication to investigate the pragmatic possibilities of the in-house procurement in Lithuanian jurisdiction as well as within the European Community dimension.

3. Subject matter

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Dramatic Works ◽  
The Third ◽  
European Court ◽  
Musical Works ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Exhaustive List

This chapter is concerned with the subject matter, or types of creation, protected by copyright law as stipulated by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Eight categories of work are examined: literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and published editions (or typographical works). The chapter considers the definitions of these categories of work in the case law and through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. It also discusses three important issues. First, that legal categories do not necessarily correspond to the objects usually associated with copyright law. Second, that all types of subject matter that are protected by copyright are referred to as ‘works’. The third issue, and the most problematic, is whether the list of works must be treated as an exhaustive list.

scholarly journals Subject Matter Specialization of European Union Jurisdiction in the Preliminary Rulings Procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1214-1231
Author(s):  
Matthias Jacobs ◽  
Matthias Münder ◽  
Barbara Richter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

AbstractOver the years, judgments by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) have been—sometimes heavily—criticized. While the recent reforms to the EU’s judicial system have addressed the high caseload of the General Court of the European Union (“GC”), the perceived lack of quality of the ECJ’s judgments in preliminary rulings procedures remains an issue. This Article will outline in what way these judgments are criticized and try to examine the root causes of the criticism. It goes on to argue that subject matter specialization is an adequate answer to this criticism and examines how subject matter specialization can be introduced into the European Union (“EU”) judicial system.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice: An Opencast Constitutional Lab

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1529-1542
Author(s):  
Alessia Fusco
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
High Water ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Similar Remark

At the start of his paperKeeping Their Heads Above Water? European Law in the House of Lords, Anthony Arnull reports a judgment delivered by Lord Denning in 1979, in the early days of the process of the United Kingdom's European integration. It stated as follows:[The] flowing tide of the Community law is coming in fast. It has not stopped at high-water mark. It has broken the dykes and the banks. It has submerged the surrounding land. So much that we have to learn to become amphibious if we wish to keep our heads above water.Lord Denning made a similar remark in his judgment in Bulmer v. Bollinger, which was a pivotal case in the dialogue between the United Kingdom (UK) and European systems.

Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13th of September 2016)

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anneli Soo
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Case File ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In Directive 2013/48/eu the standard for remedies applicable in cases the right of access to a lawyer has been violated was built on the European Court of Human Right’s judgment Salduz v. Turkey (27 November 2008). Shortly before the deadline to implement Directive 2013/48/eu, the Strasbourg Court handed down its judgment on Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13 September 2016) significantly lowering this standard. In its ruling on 4 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Estonia interpreted the right of access to a case file upon arrest in conjunction with the Strasbourg case law, without considering that eu law might raise the standard. This article argues that the question whether to follow the Salduz- or Ibrahim-standard serves as a perfect opportunity for the European Court of Justice to clearly articulate that Strasbourg standards on defence rights form just a part of the foundation that eu standards consist of.

scholarly journals Quo vadis European true and fair view? The integration of Continental European and Anglo-Saxon stakeholder protection interests

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 276-283
Author(s):  
Mario Henry Meuthen
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Financial Accounting ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
The Future ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
Over Time

The European Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU stipulates the “true and fair view” as an essential principle of financial accounting. Since the original European implementation of the true and fair view principle, there was a controversial discussion on what exactly a true and fair view means in special cases, as well as how and where to meet this principle. Continental European countries, such as Germany, engaged in a fundamental discussion of the true and fair view as an Anglo-Saxon principle due to its conflict with the principle of prudence. Therefore, this paper outlines the different stakeholder protection interests of the true and fair view principle and the principle of prudence by means of agency theory. Over time this conflicting discussion enriched by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), emerging an autonomous European true and fair view principle. The contributions of the ECJ’s case law to a common and conclusive European true and fair view principle will be pointed out. However, it is the paper’s objective to show the development of the European true and fair view principle with its conflicts and the current interpretation of the principle by the new European Accounting Directive. Further, the paper outlines conceptual suggestions on the European true and fair view principle in the interest of predicting how this principle may transform in the future. Hereby the IAS/IFRS-orientation plays a major role in influencing the future development of the true and fair view principle. As a result the paper presents the European solution of solving the conflict between the principle of prudence and the true and fair view principle in respect of both, shareholder and creditor protection interests.

The Rise of Deference

2020 ◽  
pp. 41-66
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Institutional Changes ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
State Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Level Analysis ◽  
Over Time

This chapter presents a macro-level analysis of the phenomenon of judicial deference in free movement law. It focuses on two questions: how frequently does the European Court of Justice defer to national authorities? Has its intensity of review of Member State action changed over time? A systematic analysis of free movement jurisprudence reveals that deference to domestic institutions has increased since the 1970s, a development which challenges some common beliefs about the Court of Justice and free movement law. The chapter looks at possible reasons for this evolution, arguing that it is connected to broader legal, political, and institutional changes that have taken place in the EU.

scholarly journals Brussels I: Recent Developments in the Interpretation of Special Jurisdiction Provisions for Internet Torts.

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Šrámek
Keyword(s):  
Focal Point ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Internet ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Harmful Event

The paper deals with recent rulings of the European Court of Justice regarding the international jurisdiction of European courts in connection with infringements over the Internet. The aim of the paper is to illustrate a shift in the judicature of the Court and the need for a recast of the special jurisdiction provisions in the Brussels I Regulation.The main focal point is the ruling in the case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, which contains two surprising conclusions. Firstly, the intentions of the alleged infringer to target a certain jurisdiction are not to be taken into consideration. The decisive connecting factor is solely the fact that the harmful event may occur within the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, the actions of anindependent third party can now establish the jurisdiction for a suit against the alleged infringer. This has been the subject of two other recent cases C-387/12 Hi Hotel HCF Sparl v Uwe Spoering and C-360/12 Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV. In both of these cases the sole actions of the alleged infringer would not suffice to establish the jurisdiction of the court in question. The paper tries to evaluate these rulings in light of procedural fairness and the traditional interpretation od special jurisdiction provisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document