scholarly journals Recovering Unlawful Advantages in the Context of EU State Aid Tax Ruling Investigations

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-48
Author(s):  
Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

The European Commission has recently begun focus increasingly on the compatibility of Member States’ tax ruling procedures with EU State aid law. In that respect, it has ordered the recovery of unlawfully granted advantages through those procedures. This article examines to what extent the application of EU law principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty are to take stock in State aid recovery proceedings of this particular legal certainty-enhancing and legitimate expectations creating tax ruling context. It additionally questions whether recovery in this particular context should be tailored to the specific national ruling framework having resulted in the advantage granted in violation of Article 107 TFEU.

Legal Certainty and Legitimate Expectations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig
Keyword(s):  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

The connected concepts of legal certainty and legitimate expectations are to be found in many legal systems, although their precise legal content may vary. These concepts are used in a number of different ways and it is important to distinguish them in order to avoid confusion. Legal certainty and legitimate expectations are general principles of EU law and hence are binding not only on EU institutions, but also on Member States when they act in the scope of EU law.

Enhanced Cooperation and European Tax Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Entire Group ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Cooperation Mechanism ◽  
The Law

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.

21. Mergers (2): EU law

2021 ◽  
pp. 871-958
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Merger Control ◽  
Merger Regulation ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Control Section ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines EU merger control. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of EU merger control. Section 3 discusses the jurisdictional rules which determine whether a particular merger should be investigated by the European Commission in Brussels or by the national competition authorities (‘the NCAs’) of the Member States. Section 4 deals with the procedural considerations such as the mandatory pre-notification to the Commission of mergers that have a Union dimension and the timetable within which the Commission must operate. Section 5 discusses the substantive analysis of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), and section 6 explains the procedure whereby the Commission may authorise a merger on the basis of commitments, often referred to as remedies, offered by the parties to address its competition concerns. The subsequent sections describe the Commission’s powers of investigation and enforcement, judicial review of Commission decisions by the EU Courts and cooperation between the Commission and other competition authorities, both within and outside the EU. The chapter concludes with an examination of how the EUMR merger control provisions work in practice.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Ágoston Korom
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Land Policy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Direct Discrimination ◽  
Quality Of Living

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.

scholarly journals Identifying Victims of Human Trafficking at Hotspots by Focusing on People Smuggled to Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matilde Ventrella
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Human Trafficking ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Temporary Protection ◽  
Migrant Smuggling ◽  
Police Forces

Research has shown that smuggling of migrants is associated with human trafficking. Hence, victims of human trafficking amongst smuggled migrants should be identified by EU Member States at hotspots established by the European Commission, to overcome the migrant and refugee crisis. Identified victims should be given a visa and a programme of protection to escape their traffickers. In order to achieve these objectives, research suggests that EU law on migrant smuggling should be amended and the Temporary Protection Directive should be applied to smuggled persons when there is an indication that they may be victims of human trafficking. This approach should be adopted by the EASO in cooperation with police forces investigating smuggling and trafficking at hotspots.

scholarly journals Technology-Neutral Auctions for Renewable Energy: EU Law vs. Member State Reality

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 386-406
Author(s):  
Lars Jerrentrup ◽  
Bastian Lotz ◽  
Silvana Tiedemann ◽  
Lion Hirth
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Energy State ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Electricity Sector ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Governments ◽  
Union Competition

European Union competition law, intended to thwart subsidies paid out by national governments, plays an important role in shaping EU Member States’ support schemes for renewable energy. The Environmental and Energy State Aid Guidelines 2014–2020, which formalize the European Commission’s take on subsidies in the electricity sector, prescribe technology-neutral auctions as the standard mechanism to determine support levels. In this study, we have assessed the formal decisions of the Commission with respect to technology-neutrality between July 2014 and May 2018. It turns out that 16 out of 18 schemes are not technology-neutral and figure high degrees of technology-differentiation. We have also studied the exemption clauses invoked to justify technology-discrimination, finding that the most ambiguous clause is used most frequently, and that the application and level of scrutiny varies strongly from case to case. The State Aid Guidelines are meant to increase transparency and legal certainty. We find that with respect to technology-neutral auctions for renewable energy, the Guidelines fail to deliver on their purpose.

The European citizens’ initiative: Lost in admissibility?

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-270
Author(s):  
Natassa Athanasiadou
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Participatory Democracy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Theoretical Underpinning ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

The present article aims to examine the admissibility requirements of the European Citizens’ Initiative in the light of primary law provisions and general principles, in particular the principles of conferral, participatory democracy, legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and good administration, as reflected in the recent case law of the General Court. More specifically, it is examined how these principles and the primary law features of the instrument provide a clear theoretical underpinning for determining its material scope and serve as guidance for the legislator when regulating the admissibility mechanism and for the European Commission when applying the relevant rules. The recent Commission proposal on a new Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative is also assessed against this backdrop.

scholarly journals Efforts to Ban the Routine Tail Docking of Pigs and to Give Pigs Enrichment Materials via EU Law: Where do We Stand a Quarter of a Century on?

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Nalon ◽  
Nancy De Briyne
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Future Scenarios ◽  
Action Plans ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Corrective Measure ◽  
Current State ◽  
Tail Docking ◽  
The Eu

In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the European Commission must ensure that Member States enforce EU law within their territories. If adequate enforcement is found to be wanting, the Commission also has the power to take infringement procedures as a corrective measure. The case of Directive 120/2008/EC on the protection of pigs is problematic, as only a few Member States are respecting the ban on routine tail docking, whilst not all pigs are given (adequate) enrichment materials. Twenty-five years after the first EU-wide legal ban on routine tail docking came into force, we are faced with an unprecedented situation that may lead to infringement procedures against more than 20 Member States. This paper describes the various steps that led to the development of the EU law designed specifically to safeguard the welfare of pigs. It lists the numerous efforts (research studies, study visits, recommendations, audits, reports, factsheets, action plans, etc.), undertaken by European decision makers to assist Member States in their efforts to better implement and enforce the relevant rules. Finally, the paper further analyses the current state of play and presents a reflection on possible future scenarios.

The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v Romania and Beyond

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 942-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanno Wehland
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The European Commission and a number of EU Member States have long disputed the compatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law. As illustrated by the Micula v Romania proceedings, where an investor seeks to enforce an intra-EU BIT award, which is seen as being in conflict with EU law, this can raise questions as to the extent to which an enforcing court should take this kind of conflict into account. The present contribution systematically analyses this issue with regard to both ICSID and non-ICSID awards, differentiating between enforcement proceedings within and outside of the EU. It concludes that within the EU even the enforcement of ICSID awards cannot be entirely taken for granted where such enforcement would lead to the violation of a fundamental provision of EU law.

scholarly journals La transposición de la Directiva de Procedimientos de Asilo y la efectividad coercitiva de las decisiones de infracción de la Comisión Europea

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Borja Fernández Burgueño
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Made In

En este trabajo se estudia el nivel de transposición de la Directiva de Procedimientos de Asilo, centrándose en el papel de la Comisión Europea como órgano supervisor de la implantación del Derecho de la Unión Europea (UE) en los Estados Miembros. En concreto, se analizará el estado de tramitación de los procedimientos de infracción a los Estados miembros incoados por la Comisión Europea por incumplir con sus obligaciones de transposición, llegando a las siguientes conclusiones: (i) los progresos en los procedimientos de infracción han sido mínimos y muchos de ellos han quedado congelados en fases intermedias; (ii) la inactividad de la Comisión Europea equivale de facto a un consentimiento implícito para que los Estados infractores continúen con sus prácticas contrarias al derecho de la UE; y (iii) resulta necesario un papel más activo de la Comisión Europea. This paper studies the record on transposition of the Asylum Procedures Directive, focusing on the role of the European Commission as the monitoring body of the implementation of the European Union (EU) Law among Member States. In particular, it will be analysed the current status of the infringement proceedings brought by the Commission to State Members for failing to comply with their transposition obligations, finding that: (i) the progress made in the infringement proceedings has been marginal and many proceedings have been put on ice at intermediate stages; (ii) the Commission’s inactivity amount to an implied consent for the infringing Member States to continue with their practices contrary to Community law; and (iii) a more active role of the European Commission is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document