Dreptul comunitar al afacerilor. blog

CSDE: Conferinta «Libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor şi serviciilor. Repere privind cadrul juridic comunitar al recunoaşterii reciproce a diplomelor», 29.09.2009

Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de 29 septembrie 2009, ora 14, la sediul său din Calea 13 Septembrie, nr. 13

Conferinţa

«Libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor şi serviciilor. Repere privind cadrul juridic comunitar al recunoaşterii reciproce a diplomelor»

Pentru exercitarea de către resortisanţii comunitari – persoane fizice, a libertăţilor fundamentale, o importanţă fundamentală o deţine sistemul recunoaşterii reciproce a calificărilor profesionale. În funcţie de tipul de activitate pe care o persoană fizică o poate desfăşura într-un stat membru, altul decât cel în care a obţinut calificarea („stat gazdă”), se distinge între, pe de o parte, libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor (pentru o activitate salariată), iar pe de altă parte, libera circulaţie a serviciilor şi libertatea de stabilire (pentru o activitate independentă, nesalariată, inclusiv o profesie liberă). De aceea, recunoaşterea calificărilor profesionale de către statul gazdă permite respectivei persoane dobândirea accesului la aceeaşi profesie precum cea în care s-a calificat în statul de origine, în aceleaşi condiţii precum cetăţenii statului gazdă.

Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere atât din perspectiva teoreticienilor, cât şi practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi), pornind de la aspecte cheie evidenţiate în jurisprudenţa Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene şi în dreptul derivat comunitar.

Lucrările vor fi onorate de prezenţa unor cunoscuţi practiceni şi vor fi moderate de către Nicolae Turcu, Presedintele Sectiei de Drept Privat – Consiliul Legislativ din Romania si Mihai Şandru.

Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 28 septembrie 2009. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.

Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate într-un volum care va apărea la o editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.

Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la colocviu vor fi disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com.

Este încurajată particularea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate, anterior dar şi referitoare la orice alte chestiuni conexe ce ar putea fi de interes. În acest sens, doritorii pot adresa o solicitare de înscriere pe lista vorbitorilor, trimiţând şi un scurt rezumat al principalelor puncte ce ar urma să fie atinse, la adresa de e-mail mihai.sandru@csde.ro.

CSDE vă mulţumeşte pentru retransmiterea acestei invitaţii către toate persoanele interesate.

Program (update):

Moderator: Prof. Nicolae Turcu, Preşedintele Secţiei de Drept Privat, Consiliul Legislativ din România

Prof. univ. dr. Cornel Munteanu, Director, Adrian Iordache, Centrul Naţional de Recunoaştere şi Echivalare a Diplomelor

Prof. univ. dr. Nicoleta Diaconu, Cadrul juridic privind realizarea liberei circulaţii a serviciilor şi lucrătorilor în Uniunea Europeană

 Drd. Alina-Ştefania Gorghiu, Recunoaşterea diplomelor şi a calificărilor profesionale

 Drd. Bogdan Olteanu, Directiva 2005/36/CE a Parlamentului European şi a Consiliului din 7 septembrie 2005 privind recunoaşterea calificărilor profesionale

Conf. univ. dr. Anca Ileana Duşcă, Lect. univ. dr. Robert Bischin, Linii directoare ale dreptului comunitar şi ale jurisprudenţei în materia recunoaşterii calificărilor profesionale

 Judecător Mihăiţă Florin, Reglementarea şi jurisprudenţa comunitară în materia liberei circulaţii a serviciilor prestate de avocaţi

 Avocat Cleopatra Marin, Mobilitatea în UE a resortisanţilor din statele terţe

 Judecător Dragoş Călin, Repere jurisprudenţiale ale dreptului francez în domeniul recunoaşterii diplomelor

 Conf. univ. dr. Mihai Şandru, Evoluţia politicii comunitare de formare profesională. Semnificaţia momentului Gravier (cauza 293/83)

Partener media principal: www.juridice.ro

Parteneri:

Editura Wolters Kluwer, Editura Hamangiu, Editura Universitară, Editura C.H.Beck, Editura Universul Juridic.

SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice, Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.

Anuntul a fost publicat de: juridice si infolegal.


CJCE. Monopol al loteriei nationale & jocuri online

HOTĂRÂREA CURTII (Marea Cameră) din 8 septembrie 2009
cauza C‑42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol & Bwin International Ltd/Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

Cerere de pronuntare a unei hotărâri preliminare – Articolul 49 CE – Restrictie privind libera prestare a serviciilor – Exploatarea jocurilor de noroc prin internet

RO


CJCE. Hotararea in cauza C-326/07, Comisia/Italia

Art. 43 CE & 56 CE si actiunea nominativa de control.

RO.

Dispozitivul suna astfel:

Prin adoptarea dispozitiilor de la articolul 1 alineatul 2 din Decretul Presedintelui Consiliului de Ministri pentru definirea criteriilor referitoare la exercitarea prerogativelor speciale prevăzute la articolul 2 din Decretul lege nr. 332 din 31 mai 1994 transformat, cu modificări, prin Legea nr. 474 din 30 iulie 1994 (decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, definizione dei criteri di esercizio dei poteri speciali, di cui all’art. 2 del decreto‑legge 31 maggio 1994, n. 332, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 30 luglio 1994, n. 474) din 10 iunie 2004, Republica Italiană nu si‑a îndeplinit obligatiile care îi revin:

–        în temeiul articolelor 43 CE si 56 CE, în măsura în care dispozitiile mentionate se aplică prerogativelor speciale prevăzute la articolul 2 alineatul 1 literele a) si b) din acest decret‑lege, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Legea nr. 350 privind formarea bugetului anual si plurianual al statului (Legea finantelor pentru anul 2004) [legge n. 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004)] din 24 decembrie 2003 si

–        în temeiul articolului 43 CE, în măsura în care dispozitiile mentionate se aplică prerogativei speciale prevăzute la articolul 2 alineatul 1 litera c) din acelasi decret‑lege.


Despre Centros, sucursale si costuri. In ciuda CJCE… Altfel spus: costurile libertatii de stabilire

Marco Becht, Luca Enriques, Veronika Korom, Centros and the Cost of Branching, Journal of Corporate Law Studies, Volume 9, Number 1, April 2009. [*]

Following the Centros, Überseering and Inspire Art decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), a thriving market for incorporations has developed in the European Union. Round-trip incorporation is competing with domestic incorporation. Entrepreneurs can set up a shell company in any EU jurisdiction and branch back to their home country to operate a business. The UK Limited Company (UK Limited) is a popular choice in many countries because it is rapidly and cheaply available online with minimum formalities. We have developed a taxonomy for measuring the cost of Limited round-trip incorporation. The cost of setting up a UK Limited is directly observable in the market while the cost of branching is not. We have run field experiments to measure the cost of branching. Our analysis reveals that despite the ECJ rulings, branching remains costly or impractical in many cases. Incorporation agents play an essential role in overcoming the limitations to branching.

Articolul este si un capitol dintr-o carte, Michel Tison, Hans De Wulf, Christoph Van der Elst, Reinhard Steennot (ed.), Perspectives in Company Law and Financial Regulation, Cambridge University Press, 2009 {*}.


Recunoasterea diplomelor nu are aceeasi putere legala cu “omologarea” (C-311/06)

CJCE, C-311/06, Consiglio Nayionale degli Ingegneri, hotărâre din 29 ianuarie 2009. [cauza integral]

Directiva privind sistemul de recunoastere a diplomelor conferă oricărui solicitant care este titular al unei „diplome” ce îi permite să exercite o profesie reglementată într-un stat membrudreptul de a exercita aceeasi profesie în oricare alt stat membru.

Curtea declară că, potrivit chiar definitiei cuprinse în directivă, o „diplomă” nu include un titlu eliberat de un stat membru care nu atestă nicio formare din cadrul sistemului de învătământ al acestui stat membru si nu are la bază nici un examen, nici o experientă profesională dobândită înacest stat membru. Într-adevăr, aplicarea directivei într-o astfel de situatie ar avea ca efect să se permită cuiva care nu a obtinut în statul membru în care si-a efectuat studiile decât un titlu care,în sine, nu conferă accesul la profesia reglementată să acceadă la aceasta, fără ca titlul deomologare obtinut în alt stat să dovedească în vreun fel dobândirea unei calificări suplimentare sau a unei experiente profesionale. Această situatie ar fi contrară principiului consacrat prin directivă, potrivit căruia statele membre îsi rezervă dreptul de a stabili nivelul minim de calificare necesară cu scopul de a garanta calitatea muncii depuse pe teritoriul lor.

 


Wolf-Georg Ringe: Abuzul de drept in materia dreptului societar european

Wolf-Georg RingeSparking Regulatory Competition in European Company Law – The Impact of the Centros Line of Case-Law and its Concept of ‘Abuse of Law’. PROHIBITION OF ABUSE LAW – A NEW GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EU LAW, R. de la Feria & S. Vogenauer, eds., Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2009 ; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2/2009. Available at SSRN

 

This paper analyzes the ECJ’s approach towards abusive behavior in company law and assesses the impact that the leading cases since 1999 have had both on business behavior in the EU and on the national law-makers who have responded to the opening of the markets. It is shown that the Court has provoked a sizable entrepreneurial migration from various EU countries towards the UK. This in turn has led to regulatory competition, in that other Member States in continental Europe have been forced to adapt their company law to make it more attractive for businesses. It is argued that at least so far, the (limited) competition between Member States has been beneficial and has reduced both registration time and costs. Questions remain as to the relevance of any comparison with the United States and the future developments for corporate re-incorporations.


Hotărârea Cartesio, C-210/06 – publicată, soluţia definitivă se amână

Hotararea Cartesio, C-210/06 [RO, EN, FR] nu a fost publicata in “Culegere” ci doar pe site, aceasta insemnand ca instanta s-a pronunatat. Totusi, fara a se oferi o solitie problemei de fond.

UN STAT MEMBRU POATE INTERZICE UNEI SOCIETĂTI CONSTITUITE ÎN TEMEIUL DREPTULUI SĂU SĂ ÎSI TRANSFERE SEDIUL ÎN ALT STAT AL UNIUNII

În schimb, libertatea de stabilire permite unei societăti să se deplaseze către alt stat membru, transformându se într o formă de societate reglementată de dreptul acestui stat, fără ca dizolvarea si lichidarea acesteia să fie necesare în timpul transformării, dacă dreptul statului membru gazdă permite acest lucru.

 Comentarii:

Conflict of Laws.net Blog

Corporate Law and Governance. blog

Worker-participation.eu

           “Since Cartesio deals with the transfer of the de facto head office and not of the registered office, it is astonishing that the EC Commission refers to Cartesio as justification for halting all work on the 14th Company law directive (Directive on the transfer of the registered office of limited liability companies). A decision concerning the transfer of a company’s registered seat would be possible only as an obiter dictum, which is not likely, as the Sevic decision has shown.”


Rutgers: Free Movements and Contract Law

Jacobien W. Rutgers, Free Movements and Contract Law, (July, 29 2008).
Available at SSRN.

Abstract:
In this paper the interplay between the free movements of goods, services, capital and persons and contract law is discussed. They are closely linked, since contract law provides the legal infrastructure of the free movements. However, the relevance of contract law for the internal market is not reflected in the number of ECJ rulings. Two instances in which the free movements affect contract law and contract are dealt with. First, national rules of contract law may be contrary to the free movements; specific attention is given to the role of conflict rules in this respect. Secondly, the contract which the parties concluded, is contrary to a rule of national public law, which is a barrier to trade and must be set aside. This will influence the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. In this respect a distinction between control ex post and ex ante is made. Finally, the conclusion is drawn that although the ECJ case law is not that numerous, the free movements affect contract law and contract increasingly.


A. Merkel & Volswagen sau punctul de vedere german ramane neschimbat

Interesanta evolutie. In EUObserver.


Germania & sistemul de veto pentru investitiile straine

Scriam si anterior despre disputa in jurul Volkswagen, intreprindere preluata de Porsche. Apoi se cunoaste tensiunea dintre “nationalismul economic” si piata interna. Un articol recent din Financial Times pe aceeasi tema, tot despre Germania. Titlul ar putea fi “Vetoul german & libera circulatie a capitalurilor”. Tema este, oricum, de urmarit.

 

Germany’s plan to shield its corporate sector from foreign investors would fall foul of European Union legislation if adopted in its current form, lawyers warned on Monday.

The warning suggests the bill, which would set up a government vetting mechanism for foreign investments inspired by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, could be struck down by the European Court of Justice as soon as it is enacted.

“The draft is both in breach of EU law and in contradiction of ECJ rulings in similar matters,” Benedikt Wolfers, partner at law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, told the Financial Times.

Mr Wolfers’ assessment of the bill, commissioned by the BDI industry federation, which opposes it, concludes that the government’s draft conflicts with the EU’s strict guidelines on the free movement of capital.

Mr Wolfers said the bill, which would give the economics ministry the power to ban any foreign investment in Germany on grounds of national security and public order, could suffer the same fate as a comparable French plan quashed by the ECJ in 2000.

Interest groups and business lobbies had until Monday to comment on the bill, which will come before Angela Merkel’s cabinet at the end of the month.

“We are very much aware of the EU dimension,” Steffen Moritz, spokesman for Michael Glos, economics minister, told the FT. “We will look carefully at the [BDI’s] arguments but you can assume we have been doing our homework as far as EU conformity is ­concerned.”

Mr Moritz pointed to a recent modification of the draft that limits the vetting to investors from outside the EU, as opposed to all non-German investors as originally envisaged.

The need to abide by the EU’s legislation on the free movement of capital has been the government’s main concern since it started work on setting up a German Cfius two years ago.


Regimul olandez al pariurilor online spre CJCE

Din Financial Times.

Ladbrokes claimed a significant moment in betting companies’ long battle to open up restrictive European markets when the Dutch Supreme Court referred its appeal against a ban on taking online bets from Dutch citizens to the European Court of Justice.

The UK’s biggest bookmaker claimed victory in a six-year case that ended on Friday when the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the country’s gaming laws but asked for guidance in the context of European law. Ladbrokes’s shares rose 8p, closing at 291¾p.

Dutch gaming law prevents Ladbrokes and others from taking sports bets online from any resident, even though Ladbrokes has no Dutch-facing website and does not advertise in the country. De Lotto is the only permitted operator of sports betting in the country and three years ago asked a lower court to stop Ladbrokes from taking bets from Dutch citizens.

The ruling comes ahead of a critical decision due in the next two weeks from the European Commission on whether to issue proceedings at the ECJ against countries it believes are unfairly restricting their gambling markets to competition. The Netherlands is one of 10 the EC may take action against.

John O’Reilly, head of Ladbrokes e-gaming division, said: “We have fought for six years against Dutch protectionism and finally we have won the referral to the ECJ. At last the Dutch courts have recognised that its laws on betting must be viewed in the context of European law.

“Under the Treaty of Rome we should be able to provide our services across borders in competition with the Dutch monopoly, but at the moment we are unfairly prevented from doing so.”

The ECJ is unlikely to rule on the Ladbrokes case for at least a year but some gaming operators hope the referral will strengthen the EC’s case against member states and put pressure on them to liberalise their laws.


CJCE & jurisprudenta in materia actiunii nominative de control (“golden share”)

 Larry Catá Backer – “The Private Law of Public Law: Public Authorities as Shareholders, Golden Shares, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and the Public Law Element in Private Choice of Law” . Tulane Law Review, Vol. 82, 2008 (*)

This Article examines the development of a European framework for considering the law applicable to state private interventions in the market, both their own and those of other states through direct investment or through sovereign wealth funds. For this purpose, it closely analyzes the so-called golden share decisions of the European Court of Justice delivered between 2002 and 2007, through which the ECJ sought to apply the free movement of capital provisions of the European Treaties to vestigial issues of the construction of a post-socialist political economy in Europe. The Article then applies those insights in three distinct cases of sovereign participation in private market activity: the purchase of shares of a domestic company by a state; the purchase of shares of a foreign corporation by a state; and the purchase of shares by a multi-state sovereign wealth fund. It suggests the importance of the state aids jurisprudence of European Competition Law, a different result under American law, and the tensions inherent in the rising European jurisprudence with the parallel development of principles of foreign sovereign immunity.The central point of the Article is this: Traditional choice of law analysis is grounded in a stubborn belief in the separability of public and private law, and positing issues of conflicts (and choice) of law as a central problem of private law for transactions among several jurisdictions. This grounding misses an important new development in conflicts (and choice) of law as well as the substantive consequences of those choices. That development, in turn, is founded on the growth of a new phenomenon, the increasing tendency of states to behave like private actors (participating in markets) rather than as sovereigns (regulating markets).

The general framework of the analysis has been choice of law related, but not in the traditional sense. Traditionally, the activities of sovereigns, either as regulators or participants did not raise issues of either choice or conflict of laws. But all that is changing. Modern globalization has effectively introduced a global advance toward free movement of capital and to greater protection of private activity from regulation. At the same time, states have sought to act more energetically as private as well as public actors. In a global legal order in which the value of state sovereignty has diminished and the cross border element of transactions has increased, states can extend their authority as private actors to an extent difficult when they seek to regulate as sovereigns. States privatize their traditional activities or seek to regulate indirectly by acting in markets.

It is in this emerging jurisprudential milieu that issues of choice of law arise – when states seek to participate in markets, does private or public law apply?; and whose law applies in any case? The essay offers no answers to these questions. It suggests that the European Court of Justice’s golden share cases provides an excellent window on a difficult issue of choice of law, and a revolutionary one. The transnationalization of corporate law norms provides an opportunity not only to examine the changing landscape of choice of law in private law, but also the creation of a new set of vertical choice of law questions, and the substantive consequences of their adoption.

 


Germania. Legea Volkswagen ramane (modificata) cam la fel. Comisia avertizeaza, iar Porsche sesizeaza “trebonalu”

Stirea aici. In esenta, autoritatile Landului Saxonia inferioara pastreaza un veto (de facto) asupra deciziilor adoptate de organele societatii in cauza (ori “companiei” sau “corporatiei”).

Si o actualizare cu referire la pozitia Comisiei Europene:

“If the current situation is formalized, the European Commission has to start a procedure for non-respect of a court ruling on this matter,” Oliver Drewes, a spokesman for EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, told reporters at a regular briefing.

Si aici.

O alta actualizare se refera la sesizarea instantei de catre Porsche, cel mai important actionar al societatii germane:

Frankfurt, Germany (AHN) – Luxury sports car maker Porsche, the biggest shareholder of Volkswagen, on Tuesday filed a court petition challenging the vote of a VW general assembly to reject proposed amendments to its bylaws.

The lawsuit is Porsche’s latest tactic to secure control of Europe’s largest carmaker.

Porsche says the blocking power of Germany’s Lower Saxony, Volkswagen’s home state, is no longer valid after a European Court of Justice ruling last October. However, the state and the German government argue that the court ruling does not affect the state’s minority blocking level of 20 percent.

Agence France-Presse says this percentage gives Lower Saxony veto rights over key VW decisions such as plant relocations or closures.

“The action is aimed at clarifying the legal situation,” Porsche said in a statement carried by AFP, adding, “A partial application (of the European court ruling) … as called for by Lower Saxony during the VW general assembly, does not help clarify matters but increases confusion.”

(…)

Purcedem la o alta actualizare: pozitia ministrului federal al Justitiei:

Germany’s justice minister on Thursday defended plans to salvage part of a law governing Volkswagen AG that was ruled illegal by a European court, telling company employees that the European Commission would be “ill-advised” to take new legal action.

The commission has said Germany should scrap plans to keep the rule, which gives the automaker’s second-largest shareholder — its home state of Lower Saxony — the ability to block major decisions. The commission has said it may go to court again.

However, the German Cabinet on Tuesday approved a draft law that includes that provision.

Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries told an assembly of some 10,000 workers at VW’s Wolfsburg headquarters that she is confident the plan complies with last year’s ruling from the European Court of Justice.

“The Commission would be ill-advised to go down the judicial path again — that would be very thin ice,” she said. Zypries added that Germany would not be “put off by individual opinions from Brussels.”

Zypries said she would inform competition authorities in Brussels that the planned legislation is “a good, correct and important law for the form of economies that we want to have in Europe.”


Irlanda. Despre consecintele netraducerii contractelor de munca ale lucratorilor straini

Equality ruling favours foreign workers“. Stirea suna astfel:

COMPANIES who employ foreign workers face the prospect of substantial compensation claims after one employer was ordered by the Equality Tribunal to pay €290,000 to 58 staff because it did not translate work contracts.

Dublin-based Goode Concrete said it will challenge the tribunal’s ruling in favour of its staff, which was published yesterday.

Each of the workers was granted €5,000 on the grounds their contracts and safety documents were not produced in their own language or translated by an independent party.

This award came to €290,000 with a further €37,000 for three employees the tribunal said had suffered from stress and discriminatory treatment.

Orla Goode, the company’s human resources officer, said it would challenge the ruling in the Labour Court. She claimed, if allowed stand, the decision would allow any worker whose contract is not in their home language to make a legitimate discrimination claim.

“On the basis that there are 330,000 foreign nationals working in Ireland whose contracts are more than likely printed in English, this could cost employers €1.6 billion.

“And it is not just the cost of any claims, but also the future cost of translators. Russian would be the main language in our company, but we have staff who are able to translate without bringing in somebody specially at a cost,” she said.

Last night, a spokesman for the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) said it was aware of the case. “We are studying the matter, but we are not making any further comment at this stage,” it said.

In its ruling, the tribunal said the firm breached equality legislation by not providing the 58 staff members with documents they could understand.

“Their terms and conditions of employment and safety documentation were not set out in a language which was understandable to each of them or where there is no evidence that these terms and conditions of employment were explained to each of them by a person speaking a language they understood who was appointed by Goode Concrete Limited for this specific purpose,” it said.

Separately, the tribunal rejected 32 claims of harassment and 8 claims of unfair dismissal by the workers after the case was made on their behalf by PC Moore solicitors. The workers had argued they faced summary dismissal if they appeared drunk in work.

In the case of two men, Vladimirs Petrovs and Arvydas Valusis, the tribunal said they had been fired on the basis of their nationality and they were awarded €10,000 and €25,000 respectively.

Goode Concrete was also told to pay Aleksanders Petrovs €2,000 for not telling him the implications of extending his Christmas holidays.

The National Employment Rights Authority said it does not comment on individual cases. However, it said the legislation relating to terms of employment requires bosses to provide written work conditions, but this act makes no specific reference to the language of such documents.

Actualizand, trebuie sa stiti ca decizia respectiva se poate citi de aici.


(Franta) Consiliul de Stat. Actiune preliminara la CJCE privind regimul juridic al pariurilor hipice

CJCE a fost sesizata prin decizia N° 287503, SOCIETE ZETURF LIMITED.

Intrebarile adresate CJCE suna astfel:

1°) Les articles 49 et 50 du traité instituant la communauté européenne doivent-ils être interprétés comme s’opposant à une réglementation nationale qui consacre un régime d’exclusivité des paris hippiques hors hippodromes en faveur d’un opérateur unique sans but lucratif laquelle, si elle semble propre à garantir l’objectif de lutte contre la criminalité et ainsi de protection de l’ordre public d’une manière plus efficace que ne le feraient des mesures moins restrictives, s’accompagne pour neutraliser le risque d’émergence de circuits de jeu non autorisés et canaliser les joueurs vers l’offre légale, d’une politique commerciale dynamique de l’opérateur qui n’atteint pas en conséquence complètement l’objectif de réduire les occasions de jeux ?

2°) Convient-il, pour apprécier si une réglementation nationale telle que celle en vigueur en France, qui consacre un régime d’exclusivité de gestion du pari mutuel hors hippodromes en faveur d’un opérateur unique sans but lucratif, contrevient aux articles 49 et 50 du traité instituant la Communauté européenne, d’apprécier l’atteinte à la libre prestations de services du seul point de vue des restrictions apportées à l’offre de paris hippiques en ligne ou de prendre en considération l’ensemble du secteur des paris hippiques quelle que soit la forme sous laquelle ceux ci sont proposés et accessibles aux joueurs ?

Decizia in intregime aici.

Desigur, aici ar fi de discutat. Cu alte detalii altcandva.


CJCE & campania pentru referendumul asupra Tratatului de la Lisabona in Irlanda

Urmare a celor trei hotarari ce au “zdruncinat” (ca e la moda cuvantul acesta) sau nu (aici ar fi necesara o discutie intreaga) modelul social european, [evident este vorba despre Viking, Laval, Rueffert, despre care am mai scris aici, pe blog, si probabil despre care vom mai scrie...], s-au revoltat sindicatele din Irlanda.

Stirea, din EUObserver, suna asa:

The Irish government’s official campaign in favour of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty has been dealt a blow following the decision by a major union to speak out against the document.

The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union on Monday (5 May) urged its 45,000 members to vote against the treaty in the referendum next month.

General secretary of the TEEU Eamon Devoy took the stance on the back of recent judgements by the EU’s highest court which he said had shown that the pendulum had “swung against workers’ rights and in favour of big business.

“In the circumstances, it would be foolish to provide the institutions of the European Union with more power,” he added, according to the Irish Independent.

Si se continua aici (*). De asemenea, se poate citi cu folos un comentariu intitulat “Giving a free hand to the market?” (*).

Actualizand informatiile, e de mentionat si pozitia Sinn Féin: “Yes vote threatens public services“, care critica sa-i spunem “agenda neo-liberala” a actorilor comunitari.


Germania. Din nou despre Legea “Volkswagen”

Germany not fully complying on ‘Volkswagen law’: EU

(BRUSSELS) – Planned German changes to a law protecting automaker

Volkswagen from takeover bids are insufficient, a spokeswoman for the

European Commission said on Thursday.

“We have written to Germany about the ‘Volkswagen law’,” the

spokeswoman to EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy

said.

The VW law was introduced in 1960 as Volkswagen, founded by the Nazi

regime before World War II, was being privatised, and was designed to

shield the group from foreign takeover attempts.

The crux of the law is that regardless of the amount of capital it owns, a

shareholder cannot hold more than 20 percent of the voting rights in a

company.

Last year Europe’s top court ruled against the VW law.

“They haven’t fully complied with the court judgment, the commission

spokeswoman Catherine Bunyan said.

“The draft amendment under consideration doesn’t take into account

the whole remarks of the court,” in particular on the 20 percent voting

threshold, she said.

German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries aims to retain a clause in the

Volkswagen law that requires 80 percent of shareholders to approve

decisions, compared with the 75 percent most common among other

companies.

That clause gives the German state of Lower Saxony, holding 20.3

percent of voting rights, a de-facto blocking minority.

The EU commission spokeswoman said that an “ordinary letter” had

been sent to the German justice ministry and was not the start of a

formal infringement procedure, adding that there was no fixed deadline

for Germany to respond.

The European Court of Justice had ruled that certain clauses of the socalled

Volkswagen Law violated EU laws on free movement of capital.

Zypries reacted promptly to the letter with one of her own to express

Germany’s point of view.

The text said Germany saw in the October court ruling “no sufficiently

explicit declaration” that supported the EU’s position.

Zypries argued that the minority blocking stake did “not limit the free

movement of capital.”

A ministry spokesman told AFP: “We are now awaiting the Commission’s

reaction. We hope we have convinced them.”

Porsche, which currently owns 31 percent of VW shares and plans to

raise its stake to more than 50 percent at an unspecified date, has

urged the German government to scrap the VW law altogether, after

officials said they were working on a new draft that would pass EU

muster.

 

Sursa Alta relatare (x)


Pagina Următoare »

    Domnia cantitatii & semnele vremurilor

    • 111,634 uitaturi pe blog