Regulatory competition in European company law

States have customarily tended to compete with one another. Not always, however, is this tendency, or the underlying methods put to use, obvious. That states (provincial divisions in the US) were competing to attract incorporations by relaxing their regulatory standards, couldn’t be seriously observed and highlighted until mid-1970s. Today, a few would doubt the existence of regulatory competition in corporate law in the US. In this paper, the author examines the issue whether the EU is (likely to be) engaged in regulatory competition in the area of company law. Answering the question in affirmative, the author proceeds to examine the strength of the race to the bottom and the race to the top theories, as developed and argued in the US, for the European setting. Since the legal systems of Member States of the EU have certain very disparate “core values” along which those systems have historically developed, relaxation of standards in the EU would take place against different variables. Because of the multitude of variables, comparable variables are unlikely to yield comparable results; either of the race theories is unlikely to satisfactorily predict the regulatory behaviour of EU Member States. Instead, since “laxation” in respect of one variable would be met by “optimisation” in respect of the other, there is likely to be simultaneous races to the top and to the bottom among the EU Member States.     

Staring into the abyss: A crisis of the rule of law in the EU

Acceptance of the meaning, operation and enforcement of the rule of law in the EU by its Member States is critical to the Union's legitimacy. Any perceived or real crisis in the rule of law thus merits careful consideration. This article focuses on how a crisis in the rule of law occurred within the EU and how the intended ambiguity of the rule of law has entrenched this crisis. This article argues that the primary cause of the crisis has been the EU's development of a unique ideation of the rule of law ‐ as a constitutional norm, policy instrument and value ‐ that 'hollowed out' the rule of law from a constitutional principle to an expedient policy tool. The EU institutions have entrenched the crisis in the rule of law and then tried to manage the chasm between what it deems as respect for the rule of law and certain Member States' conduct.     

Trading rule of law for recovery? The new EU strategy in the post-Covid era

The ambition of this article is twofold. First, it argues that, in order to enhance respect for the rule of law by its Member States, the EU has launched a new strategy albeit essentially based on mechanisms which were not specifically designed to protect the rule of law. Second, the article aims to clarify the notion of rule of law resulting from this strategy and to subsequently analyse its consequences. In doing so, this article will thereby demonstrate that the instruments used by the new strategy promote a notion of the EU rule of law which implies a constant arbitrage between the rule of law and the economic objectives pursued by the EU. The risk may be, however, that it would subjugate fundamental values (as defined in Article 2 TEU) to the logic of European economic integration, thus inverting the hierarchy between protection for the rule of law and economic values.     

努力推进依法治国基本方略的实施

依法治国是党领导人民治理国家的基本方略.在新形势下,推进依法治国基本方略的实施,应当从制度上、程序上保障坚持党的领导、人民当家作主和依法治国的有机统一,弘扬法治精神、宣传社会主义法治理念,切实确立宪法和法律至上的法治原则,尊重和保障人权,有效监督制约公权力,进一步加强社会主义法制建设,努力提高法治整体水平,全面推进依法执政.     

Occupational Accidents from an EU Perspective: Is There a Place for the Principle of Freedom of Choice?

Abstract:  It is evident that one of the most crucial issues concerning the future of European integration is that between social rights and market freedoms. This article is aimed at investigating whether, within a EU law perspective, there exists a legal basis on which the introduction of the freedom of choice as a ruling principle could be founded within the highly sensitive sector of social protection and occupational accidents. In order to answer this question, this article will focus on two aspects of the subject matter. The first concerns the 'reality and myth' of the potential of EU competition law to interfere with Member States' competence in organising their social security systems, particularly as it relates to occupational accidents. The second, the question of health and safety, which at present appears to be an EU Commission priority, may provide a useful starting point in order to avoid a partisan answer to our question. The conclusion is that the potential of EU competition law to interfere is a reality, and not a myth, and the health and safety issue appears to be a crucial element in excluding a pure market model based on the freedom of choice.     

欧盟商标法律制度的协调机制及其对我国的启示

在欧盟,既有各成员国国内的商标法律制度,又有欧盟的跨国商标法律制度即共同体商标条例,并设有将这两种商标法律制度协调运行的机制。该机制的核心主要有三个方面：一是优先注册权制度,即在一成员国有效的商标,或者同时又是共同体商标,权利人可以享有将同一商标在相同商品或服务上优先注册共同体商标的权利,或者优先注册其他成员国国内商标的权利;二是转换申请制度,即共同体商标的申请人或所有人在其申请失败或其商标失效时请求将该申请或商标转换成国内商标申请的情况;三是共同体商标特有的诉讼管辖和法律适用制度。欧盟所建立的这种复式商标法律制度及其协调机制,对于“一国两制”下的中国大陆、香港、澳门和台湾四法域商标法律制度的协调具有重要的借鉴作用。     

EU Citizenship without Duties

Many believe that duties should be at the essence of citizenship. This paper dismisses this view, using EU law as the main context of analysis, by making five interrelated claims. (1) There are no empirically observable duties of EU citizenship; (2) such duties would lack any legal‐theoretical foundation, if the contrary were true; (3) legal‐theoretical foundations of the duties of citizenship are lacking also at the Member State level; (4) EU law plays an important role in undermining the ability of the Member States where residual duties remain to enforce them; (5) this development is part of a greater EU input into the strengthening of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the Member States and reflects a general trend of de‐dutification of citizenship around the democratic world. If these conclusions are correct, it is time to stop categorising EU citizenship duties among the desiderata of EU law.     

An optional European contract law code: Advantages and disadvantages

Should the EU introduce an Optional European Contract Law Code and what should it look like? By applying economic theories of federalism and regulatory competition (legal federalism), it is shown why an Optional Code would be a very suitable legal instrument within a two-level European System of Contract Laws. By allowing private parties’ choice of law to a certain extent, it can combine the most important advantages of centralisation and decentralisation of competences for legal rules. Through differentiated analyses of three kinds of contract law rules (mandatory substantive rules, mandatory information rules and facilitative law), important conclusions can be reached: which kinds of contract law rules are most suitable to be applied on an optional basis (e.g. facilitative law) and which might be less so (e.g. a core of information regulations). Furthermore a number of additional general conclusions about the design and scope of an Optional EU Code and some conclusions in regard to sales law are derived.     

论中国和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用

A peaceful and harmonious world is an important social basis for China’s peaceful development, and international law lays a legal foundation and guarantee for building such a world. In the “village of globe” with co-existence and economic globalization, international law provides China a peaceful development with legal certainty in external environment of peace and security, fair and equal international competitive order, and international cooperation; and on the other hand, it puts on an increasing legal restraint on the internal and external strategies of China’s peaceful development. At the same time, the peaceful development of China deems to make a great contribution to the world, which are the main subject of international law in peace and development, as well as to human rights, rule of law and democracy, which are the universal values pursued by international law. Zeng Lingliang, Ph.D of law, is presently a dean and professor in the Faculty of Law in University of Macau. He is an awardee of the Cheung Kong Scholars Award Program and Jean Monnet Chair of European Union Law in Wuhan University, and one of the first three individuals nominated by the China government on the list of panelists in the WTO. He has published many articles on WTO issues, EU law and international law, and his influenced monographs are European Communities and Modern International Law (1992) and its revised edition—European Union and Modern International Law (1994), Law of World Trade Organization (1996), International Law and China in the Early 21 ^st Century (2005) and the Essentials of EU Law—in the New Perspective of the Treaty on the Constitution for Europe (2007).     

War as a pretext to wave the rule of law goodbye? The case for an EU constitutional awakening

The war in Ukraine triggered significant changes at the European Union level. The speed at which the EU has achieved progress on sanctions, migration and defense is particularly impressive. But the Russian aggression against Ukraine has also served as a pretext for putting aside internal discussions about the rule of law, and provided additional political rationales for inaction against Member State governments responsible for the violation of European values, as well as triggered the deepening of double standards in several fields. Against this background, the paper argues that using this crisis as a justification for further inaction in the context of EU values is not a sustainable course of action. The Union must not delay further the need to act to halt the insidious erosion of democracy and the rule of law within its own borders both at the national and supranational level.     

In courts we trust,or should we? Judicial independence as the precondition for the effectiveness of EU law

The present article argues that the EU possesses an arsenal of tools to address dissuasively rule of law problems in the Member States. This shows the double nature of the EU's separation of powers problem. Whereas some states suffer from rule of law decline and a lack of limitation of governmental powers, there is a risk of the crumbling of separation of powers at the EU level, too, where institutions fail to adequately address rule of law violations. Against the EU institutions' lack of forceful action towards rule of law backsliding, domestic courts try to protect judicial independence increasingly via preliminary references. Also, they attempt preventing the proliferation of the consequences of rule of law decline via judicial cooperation in the mutual trust/mutual recognition domain. This article explores to what extent preliminary rulings can make up for the failure to use adequate EU tools of rule of law enforcement.     

Energy Security and the Division of Competences between the European Community and its Member States

Abstract: Securing energy supply for Europe has been for decades at the forefront of the energy policies of individual European Community member countries. However, dealing with energy issues in general and securing energy supply in particular is a new phenomenon within the EU's regulatory framework. One important issue which has not yet been discussed by legal scholars and which has been questioned repeatedly by energy experts, is the question who is actually responsible to guarantee security of energy supply in Europe? Is it the European Community alone? Is it the Member States alone? Or is it both? This question cannot be answered without a detailed legal analysis of the EU law in general, and EU law on division of competences between the Community and the Member States in particular. This article seeks to highlight the complications of this area of law within the EU and expand it to cover the energy sector in order to determine who and under what circumstances is responsible for guaranteeing security of energy supply for the consumers within the EU borders.     

Free Movement of Goods and Property Law

Although usually considered a national competence, there is an effect of internal market law on property law. When a property right is validly created in one Member State and the object on which it rests is moved to another Member State, an internal market dimension arises. Such has been the case in the ECJ's Krantz decision 25 years ago, dealing with the question on whether the rules allowing a seizure of goods owned by someone else in another Member State and leading to a potential loss of right is in conformity with EU law. More than 25 years have passed and our thinking about the internal market as well as the free movement case‐law has changed significantly. A re‐examination of this decision leads to a different conclusion: the refusal to recognise property rights validly created in another Member State violates the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU.     

The Temporal Paradox of Regions in the EU Seeking Independence: Contraction and Fragmentation versus Widening and Deepening?

This article investigates the possibility of regional entities within EU Member States to become EU Member States in their own right following their secession from their mother state. International law does not automatically allow such regions to remain EU Member States since it refers this issue back to the constituent instruments of international organisations and a reading of both the EU Treaties and the ECJ's jurisprudence seems to preclude such a ‘continued membership’. The article then further explores the legal issues which could arise during the accession process of the newly independent state. After suggesting solutions to bridge the gap between its secession and its own EU membership, it is argued that the key challenge for such a region would be to ensure a smooth transition, without the loss of prerogatives under EU law, from being an EU region to an EU Member State proper.     

For Better or Worse? The Europeanisation of the Conflict of Laws

From its very beginnings the European Union(EU) has taken an interest in that area of legal activity known as the conflict of laws or private international law. The purpose of the conflict of laws is to determine how a national court should behave when confronted with a legal dispute that involves a foreign element. A state's conflict rules will provide the answer to three basic questions: in what circumstances their courts may assume jurisdiction over cases involving a foreign element, what system of municipal law to apply (their own or that of some foreign legal system) and which foreign judgments are capable of recognition and enforcement within their national system. The very fact that the EU exists in order to bring states together to form a single internal market would seem likely to provoke conflict of laws situations. It, therefore, appears unremarkable that the EU has agreed a variety of measures with a bearing on the conflict of laws. The purpose of this article, however, is not to give a detailed account of the EU's interventions on this topic. Instead the intention is to offer some thoughts upon and to raise some questions regarding the implications of the EU's engagement with the conflict of laws. In particular this article aims to provide an overview of the direction in which the EU is taking the conflict of laws and how this has affected the focus and character of the subject in one Member State, namely the United Kingdom. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

论法治的政治生态文明功能

政治生态文明是政治文明的重要构成要素,是指一个国家政治运行的内外部环境的和谐状态。政治生态文明有一个综合评价指标体系,法治可以作用于每一个指标而体现其功能。总的来说,法治的政治生态文明功能具体表现在政治和平功能、政治发展功能、政治稳定功能、权利保障功能、权力制约功能等五个方面。     

Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?

The number of international law obligations that have binding force on the Union and/or its Member States is sharply increasing. This paper argues that in this light the well‐functioning of the European Union ultimately depends on the protection of the principle of supremacy from law originating outside of the EU legal order. The supremacy of EU law is essential to ensuring that Member States cannot use national rules to justify derogation from EU law. As a matter of principle, international treaties concluded by the Member States rank at the level of ordinary national law within the European legal order and below all forms of European law (both primary and secondary). Article 351 TFEU exceptionally allows Member States to derogate from primary EU law in order to comply with obligations under anterior international agreements. It does not however allow a departure from the principle of supremacy that underlies the European legal order. In Kadi I, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Article 351 TFEU, while it permits derogation from primary law, may under no circumstances permit circumvention of the “very foundations” of the EU legal order. This introduces an additional condition that all acts within the sphere of EU law need to comply with a form of “super‐supreme law”. It also strengthened the principle of supremacy and gave the Court of Justice the role of the guardian of the Union's “foundations”. The Court of Justice acted on the necessity of defending the Union as a distinct legal order, retaining the autonomous interpretation of its own law, and ultimately ensuring that the Union can act as an independent actor on the international plane.     

新闻自治的法治思考——从新闻规范的角度

新闻规范表征着新闻传播的自由状态。前法治社会里的新闻规范是政治规范、经济规范、文化规范、法律规范等构成的总和,它是新闻自治和新闻法治的规范事实。在法治社会里,新闻自治是法治的子系统,是一项具体法治。以法治精神构建新闻法律规范统摄下的新闻规范体系,新闻自治才能真正实现。     

Double Nationality in the EU: An Argument for Tolerance

Currently the Member States' nationalities, short of being abolished in the legal sense, mostly serve as access points to the status of EU citizenship. Besides, they provide their owners with a limited number of specific rights in deviation from the general principle of non‐discrimination on the basis of nationality, and—what is probably more important for the majority of their owners—trigger legalised discrimination in the wholly internal situations. Viewed in this light, the requirement to have only one Member State's nationality enforced in national law by 10 Member States seems totally outdated and misplaced. This paper focuses on the legal analysis of this controversial requirement.     

Foreign Investors in the EU—Which ‘Best Treatment’? Interactions Between Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law

Abstract: This article discusses the main interactions between bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and EU law. The European Commission identified a number of incompatibilities in BITs signed by eight recent Member States with the USA, proposing solutions for their adjustment in conformity with EU law, but was this step sufficient? The risk of disputes remains, as long as the proposed adjustments do not achieve legal force and as long as other BITs still need to be harmonised with EU law. Moreover, provisions in BITs that are not in conflict with EU law could still be challenged if the application of certain EU requirements by Member States interferes with foreign investors' rights. To avoid such risks, coherence between different commitments and practices of the Member States is needed and coordination at the EU level is highly desirable.