Category: Freedom of establishment

Commission v Germany (c-377/17): Do exceptions in tariff regulation matter?

The European Law Blog will be taking a summer recess. We’ll be back end of August with new commentaries, including on key Summer developments. Please do send us on your contributions throughout this period and we will get back to you in due course. Happy Holidays to all our readers!

By Valentin Vandendaele

Lawyers, engineers, architects, and other liberal professions, i.e. ‘occupations requiring special training in the liberal arts or sciences’, tend to be subject to heavy regulation. Such regulation may preserve a high service quality or shield consumers against malpractice (see the European Commission’s Report on Competition in Professional Services (COM(2004) 83 final, paras 1 and 28). In a similar vein, Member States have adopted legislation setting minimum and maximum prices in an attempt to ensure service quality by preventing excessive competition on price or to protect consumers from excessive prices.

One example of such legislation is the German Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure, which was the matter of contention in the Commission v Germany case (C-377/17). This decree fixed minimum and maximum tariffs architects and engineers could charge for their planning services. In its judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court) ruled that these tariffs constituted requirements falling within the scope of Article 15(2)(g) of the Services Directive (2006/123/EC). This was true even though the German measure provided for multiple exceptions allowing the legal minimum and maximum tariffs to be disregarded. Advocate General (AG) Szpunar had more openly suggested that these exceptions were inconsequential under Article 15(2)(g). Finally, the Court held that the German tariff regulation did not satisfy the conditions in Article 15(3) to be compatible with the directive. Continue reading

A Parallel Universe: Advocate General Bot in Opinion 1/17

By Harm Schepel

Introduction

All is clear, then: CETA’s Investment Chapter is perfectly compatible with EU Law. According to Advocate General Bot, the agreement is wholly separate from the normative (as opposed to the factual) universe of EU law, and merely protects readily identifiable ‘foreigners’ investing in the EU in the same way as it protects readily identifiable ‘European’ investors in foreign lands. From what we know of the hearing, the Advocate General provides not much more than a useful summary of the talking points offered by the Council, the Commission and the vast majority of the 12 intervening Member States, remarkably united in a bid to save the EU’s new external trade and investment policy. Clearly, the pressure on the Court to follow suit will be enormous. And yet. It is true, CETA builds strong fences to make good neighbors. But let spring be the mischief in me: CETA cannot wall out what EU Law walls in.[i]

Continue reading

AG Bot in Opinion 1/17. The autonomy of the EU legal order v. the reasons why the CETA ICS might be needed

By Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi

  1. Background

The EU’s exercise of its post-Lisbon competences over foreign direct investment (FDI) has been anything but smooth. In Opinion 2/15 the CJEU clarified the EU and Member State competences over the EU’s new generation free trade and investment agreements, resulting in the splitting of the EU‑Singapore agreement into a separate trade and investment agreement. Then, in Achmea the Court found investor-state arbitration (ITA) clauses under intra-EU BITs to be incompatible with EU law, which will result in the termination of almost 200 intra-EU BITs and the non-enforcement of ITA awards rendered under them within the EU. Now, everyone is anxiously awaiting the outcome of Opinion 1/17 – requested by Belgium under the insistencies of Wallonia – and whether the Investment Court System (ICS) under CETA is compatible with EU law. This opinion will not only affect the entry into force and conclusion of the trade and investment agreements with Canada, Singapore, Vietnam and Mexico, but it will have broader implications for the multilateral ISDS reform process and the EU’s investment policy.

Therefore, Advocate General Bot’s extensive opinion delivered on 29 January 2019 (first commentaries here and here) in which it found the CETA ICS to be compatible with EU law deserves scrutiny. I will only focus on the AG’s arguments concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice over the definitive interpretation of EU Law. In a separate post, Harm Schepel will focus on the AG’s arguments on non‑discrimination. Continue reading

The Commission´s Company Law Package: overview and critical view of the proposal for cross border transactions

By Segismundo Alvarez

The much awaited Company Law Package was finally published by the European Commission on April 25. It aims to establish “simpler and less burdensome rules for companies”  regarding incorporation and cross border transactions and consists of two proposals.

Proposal 2018/0113  intends to promote the use of digital tools and procedures in company law. Member States will need to allow a fully online procedure for the registration of new companies and of branches of other companies, that permits the incorporation without the physical presence of the members before any public authority. To avoid fraud and abuse the proposal “sets safeguards against fraud and abuse such as mandatory identification control, rules on disqualified directors and a possibility for Member States to require the involvement of a person or body in the process, such as notaries or lawyers”. The proposal also establishes the need to offer free access to the most relevant information of companies in the Companies Registers. This proposal will require important changes in national legislations and its implementation will be a technological challenge for the Member States that want to preserve the present level of control in the incorporation of companies. The question of online identification will undoubtedly be of special interest and complexity.

This first proposal certainly deserves more detailed examination. However, to keep this post short, I will concentrate here on the second proposal (2018/0114) regarding cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions. Continue reading