Articles for category: Europa

Investment Screening in the Defence Industry – News from the Bermuda Triangle of EU Law

The national investment screening mechanisms for the defence and security sector are the Doyen of the existing screening mechanisms, and their bases in EU secondary and primary law are not so hidden. The discrimination of investors on grounds of nationality have some specific bases in topical EU Regulations or Directives, but most importantly in the EU-Treaties themselves: Article 346 TFEU allows Member States to prevent foreign investments on grounds of national security considerations, and that, interestingly, irrespective of a takeover attempt from a company from inside the European Union, or from a third country. Before taking a closer look at ... continue reading

7. Februar 2019

, , ,

Rebuilding the Berlin Wall?

On 19 December 2018, the German government has passed amendments to the German Foreign Trade and Payments Act (»AWG”) and to the German Foreign Trade and Payment Ordinance (»AWV”) whose compatibility with European law is highly questionable. The structure and scope of investment review provided for under the AWG in conjunction with the AWV is that the Federal Ministry of Economics, the competent German authority, possesses an extensive ex-post examination competence regarding the acquisition of shares of German companies by third-country nationals. Of particular importance for foreign direct investments (FDI) is the screening of sector specific and cross-sectoral investments by ... continue reading

6. Februar 2019

, , , ,

Avenues in European Company Law to Screen Foreign Direct Investment

Screening of foreign direct investments could take place through European company law. The harmonization of company law in the European Union as well as the CJEU’s case law offer mechanisms which could be used for the screening of foreign direct investments. Although their primary objective is »the protection of the interests of members and others«, they could also contribute significantly to an effective screening of foreign direct investments. There are five main avenues in European company law that could be used to screen foreign direct investment: the Takeover Bids Directive in the context of listed companies, the lawful golden shares ... continue reading

5. Februar 2019

, ,

Debate: A Common European Law on Investment Screening?

Volvo Personvagnar AB, Kuka, Aixtron, OSRAM Licht, Daimler, Saxo Bank, the harbour terminal in Zeebrugge, Spain’s Noatum Port, Italy’s Vado Ligure Port or the Port of Piraeus – the list of discussed controversial company takeovers and acquisitions of major stakes in Europe is getting longer and longer. The political will in the European Union (EU) and its Member States is growing to more actively screen, control, or even prevent investments flowing into Europe. Third country investments stirring controversies archetypically share three common characteristics. The target companies typically operate in »politically sensitive areas«, the owner structure of the immediate buyer is ... continue reading

4. Februar 2019

, ,

Collateral Damage? Der Brexit und das Europaparlament

Sollen die EU 27 dem Vereinigten Königreich eine Fristverlängerung für den Brexit zugestehen? Das würde die Europawahlen im Mai gefährden, und damit die Verfassung der EU. Der Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs am 29. März 2019, mit oder ohne Austrittsabkommen, ist als Ende mit Schrecken einem Schrecken ohne klares Ende vorzuziehen. Damit die EU nicht auch noch Schaden nimmt.

3. Februar 2019

,

The EU Regulation on Terrorist Content: An Emperor without Clothes

The draft EU Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online constitutes a grave threat to freedom of expression. It could be applied in respect of journalists, non-governmental organisations, political parties, trade unions, indigenous peoples, scholars of history or social sciences, novelists, cartoonists, photographers and filmmakers. Its cross-border application makes it a dreadful tool in the hands of authoritarian regimes or rogue officials.

30. Januar 2019

,

A Citizenship Maze: How to Cure a Chronic Disease?

European Union (EU) citizenship is in crisis. If the Eurozenship debate, composed of experts on EU citizenship, is analogized to a doctor’s diagnosis, the outcome is more extensively polarized than initially thought—a chronic disease, not just a temporary disorder. As I follow the debate, it is no longer clear what the problem is—there seem to be too many, real and imaginary—or how to heal it. Some issues seem to be “genetic,” part of the EU’s DNA, yet others resemble a concrete illness that may be cured, so the argument goes, by a “doctor's prescription,” which in law means a legal design.

30. Januar 2019

, ,

Member State and EU Citizenships Should be Strengthened Rather than Disentangled

While perhaps appealing as a gesture towards addressing problems such the anticipated deprivation of rights following Brexit, statelessness, or wide variation in Member State naturalization and denaturalization policies, these proposals are impracticable in the absence of international recognition of EU citizenship (which would normally require recognizing the EU as a state, which in turn should normally mean that the Member States cede competence over citizenship), challenge deeply rooted national stories of peoplehood with an emerging story of European peoplehood, and risk undermining fragile public support for EU rights.

29. Januar 2019

, ,

EU Citizenship as an Autonomous Status of Constituent Power

I would argue, however, that Kostakopolou’s argument for a “co-determined Eurozenship” would not go far enough in realising the potential of the status. This post develops this argument first by grounding the normative appeal of autonomous EU citizenship in the context of Member State withdrawal. Next, it is suggested that the co-determination of the status by Member States and the EU institutions would be incompatible with the current legitimacy foundation of the EU. The post concludes by considering the more radical alternative of EU citizenship being made autonomous so that individuals can exercise constituent power to re-establish these foundations of the European Union constitutional order.

28. Januar 2019

, ,

More Suffocating Bonds?! Conceptual and Legal Flaws of the Unnecessary Proposal

In this brief contribution I turn to Kostakopoulou’s text and briefly show that her proposal: 1) ignores the core aspects of EU citizenship’s added value; 2) is entirely unnecessary; 3) is not legally neat; and 4) is dangerous for the very nature of EU citizenship today as it essentially pleads for the recreation of the ‘suffocating bonds’ the EU was created to ease, only at a scale much more scary than Greece, Ireland or France, when taken one by one. Besides, it ignores every single outstanding problem actually posed by EU citizenship law as it stands.

28. Januar 2019

, ,