走向法院强制统一国家税收规则案552/15,欧盟委员会诉爱尔兰

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Yannis Schlüter
{"title":"走向法院强制统一国家税收规则案552/15,欧盟委员会诉爱尔兰","authors":"Yannis Schlüter","doi":"10.54648/leie2018024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The CJEU’s judgment in Commission v. Ireland is not just another case concerning a national system of vehicle registration taxes. It is true that the object of the dispute was Ireland’s system of vehicle registration taxes and the way it was applied to vehicles leased in another Member State. The Court confirmed its earlier case law and considered the Irish system contrary to EU law because of a lack of proportionality. The court however went further, and expressly stated how the tax system should have been designed to be proportionate. This approach touches upon the exclusive competence of EU Member States in the designing of their national tax systems. Indeed, it raises the question whether the Court is simply protecting free movement rights or whether it is in fact harmonizing national tax systems through the application of its proportionality test.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a Court Mandated Harmonization of National Tax Rules Case 552/15, Commission v. Ireland\",\"authors\":\"Yannis Schlüter\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/leie2018024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The CJEU’s judgment in Commission v. Ireland is not just another case concerning a national system of vehicle registration taxes. It is true that the object of the dispute was Ireland’s system of vehicle registration taxes and the way it was applied to vehicles leased in another Member State. The Court confirmed its earlier case law and considered the Irish system contrary to EU law because of a lack of proportionality. The court however went further, and expressly stated how the tax system should have been designed to be proportionate. This approach touches upon the exclusive competence of EU Member States in the designing of their national tax systems. Indeed, it raises the question whether the Court is simply protecting free movement rights or whether it is in fact harmonizing national tax systems through the application of its proportionality test.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Issues of Economic Integration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Issues of Economic Integration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲法院对欧盟委员会诉爱尔兰案的判决不仅仅是另一个涉及国家车辆登记税制度的案件。确实,争端的对象是爱尔兰的车辆登记税制度及其适用于在另一个会员国租用的车辆的方式。法院确认了其早先的判例法,并认为爱尔兰的制度违反了欧盟法律,因为缺乏相称性。然而,法院更进一步,明确说明了税收制度应该如何设计成比例。这种方法涉及欧盟成员国在设计其国家税收制度方面的专属权限。事实上,它提出了一个问题,即法院是否只是在保护自由流动的权利,还是实际上通过适用其比例性检验来协调各国的税收制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards a Court Mandated Harmonization of National Tax Rules Case 552/15, Commission v. Ireland
The CJEU’s judgment in Commission v. Ireland is not just another case concerning a national system of vehicle registration taxes. It is true that the object of the dispute was Ireland’s system of vehicle registration taxes and the way it was applied to vehicles leased in another Member State. The Court confirmed its earlier case law and considered the Irish system contrary to EU law because of a lack of proportionality. The court however went further, and expressly stated how the tax system should have been designed to be proportionate. This approach touches upon the exclusive competence of EU Member States in the designing of their national tax systems. Indeed, it raises the question whether the Court is simply protecting free movement rights or whether it is in fact harmonizing national tax systems through the application of its proportionality test.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信