Suchergebnisse

Time is a crucial dimension in the application of any law. In tax law, however, where an environment characterized by rapid change on the national, European, and international levels complicates the provision of accurate legal advice, timing is particularly sensitive. This book is the first to analyse the relationship between time and three key areas of tax: treaties, EU law, and constitutional law issues, such as legal certainty and individual rights. The issues arising from the interplay of these various areas are analysed from a both academic and practical angle, providing important insights independent of the concrete national framework within which tax rules are applied.

This book offers a comprehensive international law analysis of the European Union's maritime safety legislation. Acts of EU law since 1993 have been dealt with a variety of subjects, such as port State control, classification societies, vessel traffic management, ship construction, environmental protection and pollution sanctions. This legislation is analysed from the point of international law, notably the law of the sea and the international maritime conventions. The relationship between EU law and international law within the internal EU legal system is also analysed from the specific perspective of maritime safety law.

Abstract: In the absence of harmonization, Member States' conflict rules to determine the law applicable to companies and particularly the continuing cleft between the incorporation method and siege-réel approach cause difficulties for the internal market for companies by, sometimes, frustrating cross-border establishments. The right of establishment cannot be invoked to oppose the consequence of the real seat approach according to which a company cannot transfer its real seat to another Member State (outbound obstacles). The Cartesio decision of 16 December 2008 learns that in that respect the Daily Mail judgment of 1988 is still good law. However, according to Cartesio such a transfer of a company seat without change of the law applicable to the company must be distinguished from a cross-border conversion (Umwandlung), the company in that case being converted into a company law form of the host Member State. This article discusses reasons for this distinction and the conditions that could possibly still be imposed by the Member State of departure and the host Member State. However, inbound obstacles created by a Member State applying the real seat approach to an incoming company incorporated under the law of another Member State have, to a large extent, been removed as a consequence of the ECJ's case law. The consequences of this case law for pseudo-foreign companies and for Member States' freedom to apply local company rules to foreign companies are being discussed. In practice, cross-border movements of companies appear to have steadily increased triggering regulatory competition in the company law field between Member States. Finally, some comments are made on possible consequences of those developments for future EU harmonization of company law.

This article examines the impact of EU law in international commercial arbitration. EU law has become increasingly relevant in the world of commercial arbitration and while this may not at first seem to be a problem, this article argues that EU law has a distinctive nature which makes it fundamentally incompatible with the arbitral legal order. In effect, the EU legal order has developed on the basis of a direct trilateral relationship between disputes involving EU law, national courts and the European Court. When we are concerned with ordinary judicial proceedings, this relationship is classically supported by the 'principle of effectiveness' identified in the case-law of the European Court, which requires national procedures to enable individuals to bring claims based on EU law. Crucially, however, the procedural demands that could be made by the EU legal order are limited by the twin 'principle of national procedural autonomy', meaning the Court refrains from directly prescribing modalities for access to national courts and leaves discretion for States to set procedures. Contrasting with this analytical framework, it is here argued that once claims based on EU law fall within the sphere of arbitration, the principle of national procedural autonomy is inoperative and the EU legal order can dictate the terms of review. It is submitted that the effectiveness of EU law is assured not by the standard principle of effectiveness but by the principle of effective judicial protection, thus securing the procedural primacy of EU law in the arbitral legal order.