EU-domstolens proportionalitetsbedömning vid gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar
(2014) JURM02 20142Department of Law
- Abstract
- The enhanced cooperation of the EU has resulted in an expansion of the union’s competences. As part of the economic integration of the union, the question has arisen as to the possibility of corporate groups to attain loss compensation for economic activity in different member states. Cross-border loss compensation of this kind stems from right of free establishment for persons in member states. The precise meaning of the right to free establishment is not regulated by neither primary nor secondary EU law but rather, the legal situation is developed by the decisions of the European Court of Justice. When the Court adjudicates whether or not national rules are compatible with the body of EU law, it applies the doctrine of Rule of reason,... (More)
- The enhanced cooperation of the EU has resulted in an expansion of the union’s competences. As part of the economic integration of the union, the question has arisen as to the possibility of corporate groups to attain loss compensation for economic activity in different member states. Cross-border loss compensation of this kind stems from right of free establishment for persons in member states. The precise meaning of the right to free establishment is not regulated by neither primary nor secondary EU law but rather, the legal situation is developed by the decisions of the European Court of Justice. When the Court adjudicates whether or not national rules are compatible with the body of EU law, it applies the doctrine of Rule of reason, the last part of which is the application of the principle of proportionality to decide if the national rule in question is proportional to its aim. The exact character of the Court’s application of the principle of proportionality has never been fully decided, and different varieties are found in the Court’s practice as well as in legal doctrine. In the examined cases, the Court applies different versions of proportionality assessment, which makes the legal situation difficult to predict and understand.
The case of Marks & Spencer marks the first use of the principle of proportionality in regard to cross-border loss compensation between companies in different countries. The version of the proportionality assessment established in Marks & Spencer is not perpetuated; instead the application of the principle varies between different types of cases. It is my opinion that in cases similar to Marks & Spencer, the Court no longer carries out an independent assessment of the proportionality of the measures in question, but has rather created a new line of action for this type of cases, abandoning the in casu-application of the proportionality assessment. The Court’s assessment of proportionality doesn’t necessarily mean that the least restrictive measure for natural and legal person has to be applied by member states. Rather, member states have achieved a degree of discreation as to the compatibility of national law with EU-law.
The reason for the Court’s choice between different versions of the principle of proportionality in different cases has not been elaborated upon in its decisions. The reasons upon which the member states base their movement-impeding rules seem to affect the Court’s choice of which assessment of proportionality to use and thus whether or not cross-border loss compensation can be attained. The right to direct taxation is still mainly within the competences of the member states, which in my opinion may have influenced the Court’s choice of how to assess the principle of proportionality in some cases. The Court may in certain instances have construed the assessment of proportionality in such a way as to maintain a clear distinction between the competences of the Union and the member states. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Det fördjupade samarbetet inom EU har medfört en expansion av EU:s befogenheter. Som ett led i unionens ekonomiska integration har frågan uppstått om möjligheten för företagsgrupper att kunna utjämna resultat mellan olika medlemsstater. Gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar av detta slag bygger på rätten till fri etablering för personer i medlemsstaterna och den närmare innebörden av rätten till fri etablering regleras inte av EU:s primär- eller sekundärrätt utan rättsläget har utvecklats av EU-domstolens avgöranden. När EU-domstolen avgör nationella normers förenlighet med EU-rätten tillämpar EU-domstolen Rule of reason-doktrinen, vars sista steg är en proportionalitetsbedömning för att avgöra om den nationella normen är proportionell... (More)
- Det fördjupade samarbetet inom EU har medfört en expansion av EU:s befogenheter. Som ett led i unionens ekonomiska integration har frågan uppstått om möjligheten för företagsgrupper att kunna utjämna resultat mellan olika medlemsstater. Gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar av detta slag bygger på rätten till fri etablering för personer i medlemsstaterna och den närmare innebörden av rätten till fri etablering regleras inte av EU:s primär- eller sekundärrätt utan rättsläget har utvecklats av EU-domstolens avgöranden. När EU-domstolen avgör nationella normers förenlighet med EU-rätten tillämpar EU-domstolen Rule of reason-doktrinen, vars sista steg är en proportionalitetsbedömning för att avgöra om den nationella normen är proportionell till sitt syfte. Karaktären av EU-domstolens proportionalitetsbedömning har aldrig avgjorts och olika varianter finns i doktrin och praxis. I de undersökta målen tillämpar EU-domstolen olika varianter av proportionalitetsbedömningen vilket gör rättsläget svårt att förutse och förstå.
I målet Marks & Spencer tillämpas för första gången en proportionalitetsbedömning i fråga om gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar mellan olika företag i olika länder. Varianten av proportionalitetsbedömningen av typen etablerad i Marks & Spencer fortsätter inte att tillämpas, utan tillämpningen varierar mellan olika måltyper. Enligt min uppfattning tillämpas i fråga om mål liknande Marks & Spencer numera inte en självständig proportionalitetsbedömning, utan EU-domstolen har skapat en ny doktrin för dessa mål och övergett en in casu-proportionalitetsbedömning i dessa fall. Proportionalitetsbedömningen betyder inte längre nödvändigtvis att den för fysiska och juridiska personer minst långtgående åtgärden skall vidtas av medlemsstaten, utan medlemsstater har i vissa fall fått ett visst skönsutrymme i fråga om reglers förenlighet med EU-rätten.
Anledningen till EU-domstolens val mellan olika varianter av proportionalitetsbedömningen i olika fall har inte uttalats i dess domar. De anledningar som medlemsstater uppger som skäl för att anta rörlighetshämmande regler synes påverka EU-domstolens val av proportionalitetsbedömning och även huruvida gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar slutligen tillåts. Den direkta beskattningsrättens position inom EU:s kompetensområden såsom fortfarande huvudsakligen hemmahörande inom medlemsstaternas kompetens kan, enligt min mening, också i viss mån ha påverkat EU-domstolens val av proportionalitetsbedömning i vissa fall. EU-domstolen kan eventuellt i vissa fall ha utformat tillämpningen av proportionalitetsbedömningen för att upprätthålla en klar skiljelinje mellan medlemsstaternas och unionens kompetens och intressen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4925062
- author
- Gradén, Tobias LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The European Court of Justice's Proportionality Assessment of Cross-border Loss Transactions
- course
- JURM02 20142
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Cross-border Loss Transactions, Gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar, Proportionality Principle, Proportionalitetsprincipen, Taxation Law, skatterätt, EU Law, EU-rätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4925062
- date added to LUP
- 2015-04-21 14:40:18
- date last changed
- 2015-04-21 14:40:18
@misc{4925062,
abstract = {{The enhanced cooperation of the EU has resulted in an expansion of the union’s competences. As part of the economic integration of the union, the question has arisen as to the possibility of corporate groups to attain loss compensation for economic activity in different member states. Cross-border loss compensation of this kind stems from right of free establishment for persons in member states. The precise meaning of the right to free establishment is not regulated by neither primary nor secondary EU law but rather, the legal situation is developed by the decisions of the European Court of Justice. When the Court adjudicates whether or not national rules are compatible with the body of EU law, it applies the doctrine of Rule of reason, the last part of which is the application of the principle of proportionality to decide if the national rule in question is proportional to its aim. The exact character of the Court’s application of the principle of proportionality has never been fully decided, and different varieties are found in the Court’s practice as well as in legal doctrine. In the examined cases, the Court applies different versions of proportionality assessment, which makes the legal situation difficult to predict and understand.
The case of Marks & Spencer marks the first use of the principle of proportionality in regard to cross-border loss compensation between companies in different countries. The version of the proportionality assessment established in Marks & Spencer is not perpetuated; instead the application of the principle varies between different types of cases. It is my opinion that in cases similar to Marks & Spencer, the Court no longer carries out an independent assessment of the proportionality of the measures in question, but has rather created a new line of action for this type of cases, abandoning the in casu-application of the proportionality assessment. The Court’s assessment of proportionality doesn’t necessarily mean that the least restrictive measure for natural and legal person has to be applied by member states. Rather, member states have achieved a degree of discreation as to the compatibility of national law with EU-law.
The reason for the Court’s choice between different versions of the principle of proportionality in different cases has not been elaborated upon in its decisions. The reasons upon which the member states base their movement-impeding rules seem to affect the Court’s choice of which assessment of proportionality to use and thus whether or not cross-border loss compensation can be attained. The right to direct taxation is still mainly within the competences of the member states, which in my opinion may have influenced the Court’s choice of how to assess the principle of proportionality in some cases. The Court may in certain instances have construed the assessment of proportionality in such a way as to maintain a clear distinction between the competences of the Union and the member states.}},
author = {{Gradén, Tobias}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU-domstolens proportionalitetsbedömning vid gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar}},
year = {{2014}},
}