Legal Issues of Economic Integration最新文献_第4页

Turnover Taxes, the Fight for the National Tax Base and the EU Court of Justice: An Undeserved Triumph for Member State Direct Tax Autonomy? 流转税，争取国家税基和欧盟法院:成员国直接税自治的不应得的胜利?

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021031

Márton Varju, M. Papp

{"title":"Turnover Taxes, the Fight for the National Tax Base and the EU Court of Justice: An Undeserved Triumph for Member State Direct Tax Autonomy?","authors":"Márton Varju, M. Papp","doi":"10.54648/leie2021031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021031","url":null,"abstract":"The additional taxation of corporate turnover has emerged in the EU Member States and at the EU level as part of efforts to secure the national tax base and presumably to enable a fair and equitable sharing of the tax burden among corporate taxpayers covered by the national tax jurisdiction. Its introduction is usually based on the expectation that such taxation enables the exercise of taxing rights over value generated in the national analogue and digital economy when the traditional taxation of corporate income seems to fail in achieving the same. However, turnover taxes are problematic tax instruments from a legal perspective and their lawfulness is debatable as a matter of both EU and national law. After years of contestation before the European Commission and the courts of the EU based on EU internal market and State aid law, it has been revealed that EU law is not available to challenge some of the fundamental problems with the regulation of turnover taxes. As the law now stands, there is a possibility that in this area of taxation Member States can get away with misrepresenting their intentions and abusing their taxing rights in this way. This latter issue must not be overlooked when addressing the non- or under-taxation of corporate taxpayers in the national and the European economy.\u0000turnover taxation, digital taxes, national tax base, Member State tax policy autonomy, discrimination, abuse of taxing rights","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89126052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

MERCOSUR Citizenship: Failed Transition from Economic to Political Integration? 南方共同市场公民身份:从经济一体化到政治一体化的失败转型?

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021030

Fernando Arlettaz

引用次数: 0

The Political Psychology of Vertical Trust Between the European Union and the Member States 欧盟与成员国纵向信任的政治心理

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021018

L. Lonardo

引用次数: 0

Book Review: Europe’s Passive Virtues: Deference to National Authorities in EU FreeMovement Law (Jan Zglinski). 1st edition. Oxford University Press. 2020 书评:《欧洲的被动美德:欧盟自由流动法中对国家当局的服从》(扬·兹林斯基)。1版。牛津大学出版社，2020

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021022

F. B. Bastos

引用次数: 0

What Does the ‘Suspension’ of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment Initiative Mean for the Credibility and Consistency of the Commission’s ‘Values-Based’ Trade Agenda? 《中欧投资倡议全面协定》的“暂停”对欧盟委员会“基于价值”的贸易议程的可信度和一致性意味着什么?

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021017

L. Ankersmit

引用次数: 0

State Monopolies and the Free Movement of Goods in EU Law: Getting Beyond Obscure Clarity 欧盟法律中的国家垄断和商品自由流动:超越模糊的清晰度

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021020

G. Butler

{"title":"State Monopolies and the Free Movement of Goods in EU Law: Getting Beyond Obscure Clarity","authors":"G. Butler","doi":"10.54648/leie2021020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021020","url":null,"abstract":"The special provision relating to state monopolies of a commercial character within the EU’s internal market is nestled in the Treaties as the final provision regarding the free movement of goods. This special provision of Article 37 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is often overlooked, given it is seen to be of lesser significance than the general provisions on goods concerning quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect contained in Articles 34– 36 TFEU. Whilst the case law on state monopolies in respect of goods is elaborate, it is still far from clear how state monopolies within the meaning of Article 37 TFEU are to be handled, as evident from the case law of the Court of Justice. The article analyses three arising issues. Firstly, it investigates the boundary between the special provision of Article 37 TFEU and the general provisions of Articles 34–36 TFEU; secondly, it critiques the public interest aim that was once read into Article 37 TFEU by the Court of Justice; and thirdly, it questions the discrimination reading of Article 37 TFEU, rather than a more elaborate restrictions reading. Conclusively, the article offers grounds for why the special provision of Article 37 TFEU ought to be repealed, which in turn, would provide for a more concerted and consistent approach by subjecting state monopolies to the general free movement of goods provisions of the EU Treaties.\u0000State monopolies, Free movement of goods, State-owned enterprises, European Union law, Law of the internal market","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81683831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Is It Possible to Use State-Owned Enterprises to Promote Industrial and Technological Development Under Article 17.4 of the CPTPP? CPTPP第17.4条是否有可能利用国有企业促进工业和技术发展?

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021021

Juan Pablo Iglesias M.

{"title":"Is It Possible to Use State-Owned Enterprises to Promote Industrial and Technological Development Under Article 17.4 of the CPTPP?","authors":"Juan Pablo Iglesias M.","doi":"10.54648/leie2021021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021021","url":null,"abstract":"The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) establishes, in its Chapter 17, the most extensive ‘behind the border’ regulation of stateowned enterprises (SOEs) among the bilateral and multilateral treaties. Prima facie, its rationality can be explained by the original purpose of the United States (former drafter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)) to discipline the state capitalism policies employed by some Asian signatories. Considering this context, this article examines the meaning of the key normative concepts contained in Article 17.4 of the treaty (i.e., ‘commercial activities’, ‘non-discrimination’ and especially ‘commercial considerations’) and discusses to what extent such concepts recognize or restrict the freedom of the Parties to create and manage SOEs committed to promote national industrial and technological development, using as benchmark for this assessment Article XVII of the GATT and the interpretations made by the WTO adjudicators. It concludes that the wording of Article 17.4 is compatible both with an interpretation that allows the existence of such types of entities and with an interpretation that does not.\u0000State-owned enterprises, non-discrimination, commercial considerations, differential treatment, industrial development, competition, trade, mission","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89650077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Servicing the Internal Market: The Contribution of Positive Harmonization Through the Services Directive and Its Interaction with Negative Integration 服务内部市场:服务指令对积极协调的贡献及其与消极整合的互动

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021019

I. Maletić

引用次数: 0

Exempting and Justifying Covid-19 Related Export Restrictions Under WTO Law 根据世贸组织法律豁免和证明与Covid-19相关的出口限制

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021016

Chieh Huang

引用次数: 1

Targeted Economic Sanctions and WTO Law: Examining the Adequacy of the National Security Exception 定向经济制裁与WTO法律:国家安全例外的充分性考察

IF 0.6

Legal Issues of Economic Integration Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI: 10.54648/leie2021010

I. Bogdanova

{"title":"Targeted Economic Sanctions and WTO Law: Examining the Adequacy of the National Security Exception","authors":"I. Bogdanova","doi":"10.54648/leie2021010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2021010","url":null,"abstract":"Individual states increasingly rely upon targeted economic sanctions to achieve their foreign policy goals. The legality of such unilateral sanctions remains debatable in public international law. However, their proliferation and possible negative repercussions encourage targeted states to question their legality before international tribunals, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system. Against this backdrop, the article analyses three types of recently enacted unilateral targeted sanctions. In particular, sanctions imposed on human rights grounds (‘Magnitsky-style sanctions’), those targeting perpetrators of cyber-attacks, and sanctions impacting trade in information and communications technology and services (ICTS) (e.g.,Huawei sanctions) are discussed. The subsequent analysis focuses on the possible WTO-inconsistency of these economic restrictions. Following this, the possibility to justify such sanctions under the national security exception of Article XXI(b)(iii) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is explored. The conclusion emphasizes that the national security exception cannot be used to justify all types of unilateral economic sanctions, even if these measures are introduced to address national security concerns. This conclusion not only demonstrates inevitable boundaries of the national security clause but also reinforces the general tendency of questioning the legality of unilateral economic sanctions.\u0000economic sanctions, national security, WTO, Magnitsky-style sanctions, cyber sanctions, information and communications technology and services, Huawei sanctions","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78350018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1