From Hegemony to Transatlantic Tax Battle?

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-148
Author(s):  
Lukas Hakelberg
Keyword(s):  
Good Governance ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Common Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
Tax Base ◽  
Member States ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Common ◽  
Financial Secrecy

This chapter discusses the most recent developments in transatlantic bargaining over countermeasures to financial secrecy and corporate profit-shifting, and sketches several future scenarios based on the theory developed in Chapter 2. It shows that dissatisfaction with nonreciprocal automatic exchange of information (AEI) and the BEPS project's failure to limit tax avoidance in the common market has motivated the European Commission and several member states to push for a common reaction. The European Union has since produced an integrated blacklist of third countries not complying with its tax good governance standards and ordered several member states to claw back taxes lost to sweetheart deals granting selective advantages to individual firms. Moreover, finance ministers debate the introduction of a digital services tax and a common consolidated corporate tax base to curb profit-shifting in the common market. Finally, the chapter presents some overall conclusions drawn from the research presented in this volume.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

Law on Churches and Religion in the European Legal Area – Through German Glasses

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 563-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Michael Heinig
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
German Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Common Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Antidiscrimination Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Critique Of Ideology

Approximately ten to fifteen years ago the “danger of Europeanization” of the German law on churches and religion was hotly debated. The churches in Germany feared that the influence of the European Union would dramatically change their legal framework. But also academic writers worried about the influence of the common market law or European antidiscrimination law on the legal situation of the churches in the member states – sometimes in rather shrill tone. One almost got the impression that Brussels replaced the Marxist Ideologiekritik (critique of ideology) as the main enemy of Christianity in Europe.

The Transition to a New EU Plant Protection Regime – Legal Problems in the Regulatory Field

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-414
Author(s):  
Gérardine Garçon
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Common Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Past ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
The Common

The plant protection law within the European Union has been continuously developed over the past two decades. Whereas harmonized provisions for the placing of plant protection products on the common market were introduced by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 (hereinafter the “Directive”), almost two decades later, a revision of the Directive has been passed which takes, in order to ensure consistency throughout the Member States and to provide for simplification, the form of a regulation. Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter the “Regulation”) was adopted on 21 October 2009.

“Unity in Diversity” Reloaded: The European Court of Human Rights’ Turn to Subsidiarity and its Consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-123
Author(s):  
Mikael Rask Madsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Unity In Diversity ◽  
The Common ◽  
Individual Justice

Abstract The European Convention of Human Rights system was originally created to sound the alarm if democracy was threatened in the member states. Yet, it eventually developed into a very different system with a focus on providing individual justice in an ever growing number of member states. This transformation has raised fundamental questions as to the level of difference and diversity allowed within the common European human rights space. Was the system to rest on minimum standards with room for domestic differences, or was it to create uniform standards? These questions have come up as increasingly contentious issues over the past years and have triggered a number of reforms seeking to introduce more subsidiarity in the system, striking a different balance between the European and national oversight of human rights. The article analyses this turn to subsidiarity by exploring whether the reform process has introduced new forms of difference and diversity within the common space of European human rights. Covering the period from 2000 to the end of 2019 and using a dataset of all judgments of the period, the article provides a structural analysis of developments in reference to the margin of appreciation which is the European Court of Human Rights’ long-standing tool for balancing the common standards, yet leaving space for individual member states to find local solutions to implementing those standards. It concludes that recent developments have contributed to a more federal-style construction of European human rights with more space for differences within the common general standards.

scholarly journals Competition Law and State Aid for Failing Banks in the EU and its Specific Implications for CEE Member States

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 145-157
Author(s):  
Virág Blazsek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Competition Authority ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Bank Bailouts ◽  
The Eu

The bank bailouts following the global financial crisis of 2008 have been subject to prior approval of the European Commission (EC), the competition authority of the European Union. The EC was reluctant to reject rescue efforts directed at failing banks and so it consistently approved all such requests submitted by Member States. Out of the top twenty European banks, the EC authorized State aid to at least twelve entities. In this context, the paper outlines the gradually changing interpretation of EU State aid rules, the “temporary and extraordinary rules” introduced starting from late 2008, and the extension of the “no-State aid” category. The above shifts show that the EC itself deflected from relevant EU laws in order to systemically rescue important banks in Europe and restore their financial stability. The paper argues that bank bailouts and bank rescue packages by the State have led to different effects on market structures and consumer welfare in the Eurozone and non-Eurozone areas, mostly the Eastern segments of the European Union. As such, it is argued that they are inconsistent with the European common market. Although the EC tried to minimize the distortion of competition created as a result of the aforementioned case law primarily through the application of the principle of exceptionality and different compensation measures, these efforts have been at least partially unsuccessful. Massive State aid packages, the preferential treatment of the largest, or systemically important, banks through EU State aid mechanisms – almost none of which are Central and Eastern European (CEE) – may have led to the distortion of competition on the common market. That is so mainly because of the prioritization of the stability of the financial sector and the Euro. The paper argues that State aid for failing banks may have had important positive effects in the short run, such as the promotion of the stability of the banking system and the Euro. In the longrun however, it has contributed to the unprecedented sovereign indebtedness in Europe, and contributed to an increased economic and political instability of the EU, particularly in its most vulnerable CEE segment.

scholarly journals Industrial Integration of the EAEU Countries

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-30
Author(s):  
M. Krivogouz ◽  
D. Fesenko
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Member States ◽  
Industrial Cooperation ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
The Common ◽  
Economic Union

The authors analyze current situation in the common market and the data on foreign trade of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. Also, the EAEU decisions in the sphere of establishing common financial space and the measures on boosting the cooperation in industry are being examined. The conclusion is made that further common steps towards higher pace of industrial cooperation are needed.

Part IV Procedures before the Commission, 3 Recovery of Unlawful Aid and the Role of National Courts

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Common Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Common ◽  
State Aids

This chapter examines the recovery of unlawful and incompatible State aids, which is one of the cornerstones of free and undistorted competition in the European Union. The repayment of an aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market is of utmost importance, as it eliminates the distortion of competition caused by the competitive advantage afforded by the contested aid. In other words, by repaying an unlawful aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market and therefore the previously existing situation is restored; it is common ground in this respect that this objective is attained once the aid in question—increased, where appropriate, by default interests—has been repaid by the recipient.

Country-by-Country Reporting and Other Financial Transparency Measures Affecting the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 132-157
Author(s):  
Petr Janský ◽  
Andres Knobel ◽  
Markus Meinzer ◽  
Tereza Palanská ◽  
Miroslav Palanský
Keyword(s):  
Information Exchange ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Virgin Islands ◽  
Cayman Islands ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Automatic Information ◽  
Financial Secrecy ◽  
The Eu

The EU faces large amounts of financial secrecy supplied to it by secrecy jurisdictions. In this chapter, we use the Bilateral Financial Secrecy Index to quantify which jurisdictions supply most secrecy to EU Member States. The chapter assesses the progress of two recent EU policy efforts to tackle financial secrecy: automatic exchange of country-by-country reporting (CbCR) data and black and grey list of non-cooperative jurisdictions. It is found that 34 per cent of the financial secrecy faced by the EU is supplied by other Member States, whose a priori exclusion from the blacklisting exercise reveals its fundamental flaw. Further 13 per cent is supplied by the EU’s dependencies, mainly the UK’s Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and Guernsey. The jurisdictions that supply the most secrecy not covered by automatic information exchange of CbCR data are the British Virgin Islands, United States, and Curacao. Finally the chapter discusses policy recommendations that stem from our analysis.

EU Loyalty

2019 ◽  
pp. 45-80
Author(s):  
Christina Eckes
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
External Relations ◽  
The Common ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty ◽  
International Representation ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 2 discusses the legal consequences and deeper meaning of EU loyalty with particular attention to external relations. It identifies specific active and passive obligations flowing from the principle of sincere cooperation in the context of EU external relations and argues that they are best understood as forming part of a comprehensive duty of loyalty. EU loyalty endows EU membership with a distinctive meaning. It is central to imposing a quasi-federal discipline and making sovereign states ‘Member States of the EU’ by acting as a tool that can at times take specific legal obligations beyond the letter of the law. EU loyalty legally restrains Member States from exercising their rights as independent international actors in a way that finds no parallel beyond the European Union. It may require placing the common Union interest above national interests. The concept of unity of international representation has a particular capacity to deepen and widen the obligations flowing from EU loyalty. It amplifies the effects of EU loyalty on the scope of legal action of the Member States, including in the field of reserved competences. It is also part of the explanation of why loyalty has more stringent consequences externally rather than internally. This in turn means that the duty of loyalty has a particular integrative force in the context of external relations. Chapter 2 also argues that this stringent understanding of EU loyalty is justified by the nature of external relations and that this justification should be (better) explicated by the EU institutions in order to justify EU external actions vis-à-vis EU citizens.

8. EU Expansion and Wider Europe

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Avery
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
European Neighbourhood Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the expansion of the European Union and the widening of Europe. Enlargement is often seen as the EU's most successful foreign policy. It has extended prosperity, stability, and good governance to neighbouring countries by means of its membership criteria. However, enlargement is much more than foreign policy: it is the process whereby the external becomes internal. It is about how non-member countries become members, and shape the development of the EU itself. The chapter first compares widening and deepening before discussing enlargement as soft power. It then explains how the EU has expanded and why countries want to join. It also looks at prospective member states: the Balkan countries, Turkey, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland. Finally, it examines the European Neighbourhood Policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document