Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Did the ECJ show common sense in upholding Daily Mail?

  • Article
  • Published:
China-EU Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Daily Mail remains a very controversial ruling. Subsequent case law on the freedom of establishment has not always logically followed the rationale established in this case. The most contentious area is the definition of the connecting factors. Nevertheless, the legal reasoning adopted in subsequent case law could to some extent to be reconciled with Daily Mail by adopting the distinction between primary and secondary establishment. Certain clarification in this respect was provided in Cartesio. Apart from deficiencies in legal reasoning, the results achieved by the ECJ by upholding Daily Mail are not entirely satisfactory. The total home State regime is not desirable from a regulatory point of view as it can lead to discriminatory results and can distort competition. On the other hand, as aptly noticed by Weatherill, the bland overturning of Daily Mail would not necessarily produce more satisfactory results as a more sophisticated solution is needed. Furthermore, the ECJ when considering AG Maduro’s recommendation to overrule Daily Mail had to consider many political issues. The ECJ moved on from its activist role in ‘regulatory competition’ and its new role is centred primarily on signalising the need for legislative action for the legislature. This new role has been met and the ECJ clearly raised such justifications in Cartesio. Therefore, the decision to uphold Daily Mail and the clarification of case law shows that the ECJ did adopt a common sense approach. This was clearly demonstrated in Cartesio where the ECJ masterfully struck “a difficult balance between a political decision which is not competent to take and a previous ruling which is too bold and unimaginative to work as a precedent.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case C-81/81 R v HM Treasury and Commission of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust PLC [1988] ECR 5484.

  2. Case C-210/06 Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt [2009] ECR I-0000.

  3. Elazar 1993, p. 191.

  4. Deakin 2000, p. 15.

  5. Ebke 2002, p. 2015.

  6. Ibid, p. 2016.

  7. Deakin 2006, p. 16.

  8. Ibid, p. 12.

  9. Deakin 2000, p. 12.

  10. Ibid, p. 22.

  11. Case C-81/81 R v HM Treasury and Commission of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust PLC [1988] ECR 5484, to be found online at http://www.worker-participation.eu/Company-Law-and-CG/ECJ-Case-Law/Daily-Mail (last accessed on 12/04/2013).

  12. Gerner-Beuerle and Schillig 2009, p. 304.

  13. Ibid, p. 2.

  14. Case C-212/97 Centors Ltd v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH [2002] ECR I-9919.

  15. Ibid, p. 808.

  16. Drury 1999, p. 359.

  17. Case C-212/97 Centors Ltd v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH [2002] ECR I-9919, para 28.

  18. Ibid, para 20.

  19. Freitag 1999, pp. 427–428.

  20. Siems 2002, p. 52.

  21. Novotna 2009.

  22. Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC), [2002] ECR-I -9919.

  23. Ibid, para. 66.

  24. Borg-Barthet 2009, p. 1025.

  25. Case C-167/01 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabriken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd., [2003] ECR, I-10155.

  26. Ibid, para. 95.

  27. Gerner-Beuerle and Schillig 2009, p. 304.

  28. C-411/03, Sevic Systems, [2005] ECR I-10805.

  29. Borg-Barthet 2009, p. 1023.

  30. Andanas 2008, p. 13.

  31. Siems 2002, p. 47.

  32. Gerner-Beuerle and Schillig 2009, p. 304.

  33. Novotna 2009.

  34. Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Madura, delivered on 22 May 2008, para 28, [cited in:] Borg-Barthet 2009, p. 1024.

  35. Borg-Barthet 2009, p. 1024.

  36. Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Madura, delivered on 22 May 2008, para 31.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Ibid, para 32.

  39. Borg-Barthet 2009, p. 1024.

  40. Case C-210/06 Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt [2009] ECR I-0000, para 109.

  41. Ibid, para 110.

  42. Ibid, para 111.

  43. Ibid, para. 112 and 113.

  44. Borg-Barthet 2009, p 1027.

  45. Szydlo 2009.

  46. Borg-Barthet 2009, p 1025, Case C-210/06 Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt [2009] ECR I-0000, para. 106.

  47. Andanas 2008, p. 15.

  48. Szydlo 2009.

  49. Novotna 2009.

  50. Szydlo 2009.

  51. Ibid.

  52. Gerner-Beuerle and Schillig 2009.

  53. [N.N.] 2009b, pp. 105–106.

  54. [N.N.] 2009a, p. 19.

  55. Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Madura, delivered on 22 May 2008, para 28.

  56. Ringe 2005, p. 628.

  57. Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, delivered on 4 December 2001, Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC), [2002] ECR I-9919, para 37.

  58. Andanas 2008, p. 14.

  59. Weatherill 2002, p. 54; Barnard 2007, pp. 342–343.

  60. Becht, Mayer and Wagner (2006); McCahery and Vermeulen 2007, p. 10.

  61. Deakin 2002, p. 204.

  62. Drury 2005, pp. 727–739.

  63. Weatherill 2002, p. 55.

  64. Gerner-Beuerle and Schillig 2009.

  65. Dougan 2002, pp. 153–154.

  66. Ibid, p. 157.

  67. Ibid, p. 164.

  68. Ibid, p. 164.

  69. Komo and Villiers 2009, p. 193, Peters, 2009, p. 217.

  70. Bratton, McCahery and Vermeulen 2009.

  71. Borg-Barthet 2009, p. 1026.

  72. Kersting 2002, p. 74.

  73. Cheffins 1997, p. 922.

  74. Deakin 2000, p. 23.

  75. Szydlo 2009.

  76. Deakin 2002, p. 202.

  77. Dyrberg 2003, p. 537.

  78. Public Procurement Directives 89/665/EEC [1989] OJ L395/33 and 92/13/EEC [1992] OJ L76/14; Return of Cultural Objectives Directive 93/7/EEC [1993] OJ L74/76; Protection of Financial Interests Regulation 2988/95 [1995] OJ L312/1; Burden of Proof Directive 97/80/EC [1998] OJ L14/6; Consumer Injunctions Directive 98/27/EC [1998] OJ L166/51; Sale of Consumer Goods Directive 99/44/EC [1999] OJ L171/12. Cf. Art. 65 EC; [citied in:] Dougan 2002, p. 177.

  79. McCahery and Vermeulen 2007, p. 32.

  80. Deakin 2002, p. 199.

  81. Wymeersch 2007, p. 169.

  82. Roth 2003, Villiers 2009.

  83. Andreadakis 2008, p. 56, McCahery and Vermeulen 2007, p. 17.

  84. Deakin 2002, p. 213.

  85. McCreevy 2007 [citied in:] Lennarts (2008), p. 2; European Commission 2007, p. 25.

  86. Johnson and Syrpis 2009, p. 382; Johnson 2009.

  87. Weatherill 2002, p. 55.

  88. Bengoetxea 1993, p. 111.

References

  • Andanas M (2008) EU Company Law and the Company Laws of Europe. Int Comp Corp Law J 6(2):7–13

  • Andreadakis S (2008) Regulatory competition versus harmonisation: is there a third way? Int Comp Corp Law J 6(2):41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2007) The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Becht M, Mayer C and Wagner HF (2008) Where do firms incorporate? Deregulation and the cost of entry. J Corp Finance 14:241–256; available at http://didattica.unibocconi.it/mypage/upload/54459_20081031_023155_BECHTMAYERWAGNER_2008_JCF.PDF (last accessed on 24/05/2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengoetxea J (1993) The legal reasoning of the European court of justice: towards a European jurisprudence. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg-Barthet J (2009) European private international law of companies after Cartesio. Int Comp Law Q 58(4):1020–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton WW, McCahery JA and Vermeulen EPM (2009) How does corporate mobility affect lawmaking? A comparative analysis. Am J Comp Law 57(2):501–549, Available online at http://www.hertig.ethz.ch/LF_Fall_2008_files/Papers/McCahery_Mobility.pdf, (last accessed on 25/052013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheffins BR (1997) Company law: theory, structure and operation. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, de Burca G (2008) EU Law: text, cases and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin S (2000) Regulatory competition versus harmonization in European company law. Working Paper Series, WP 163

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin S (2002) Regulatory competition versus harmonization in European company law. In: Esty D, Geradin D (eds) Regulatory competition and economic integration: comparative perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin S (2006) Legal diversity and regulatory competition: which model for Europe? Working Paper Series, WP 323

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2002) Enforcing the single market: the judicial harmonisation of national remedies and procedural rules. In: Barnard C, Scott J (eds) The law of the single European market: unpacking the premises. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury R (1999) Migrating companies. Eur Law Rev 24:354–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury R (2005) The “Delaware syndrome”: European fears and reactions. J Bus Law 709–744

  • Dyrberg P (2003) Full free movement of companies in the European Community at last. Eur Law Rev 28:528

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebke WF (2002) The “Real Seat” doctrine in the conflict of corporate laws. Int Lawyer 36:2015–2038

    Google Scholar 

  • Elazar DJ (1993) International and comparative federalism. Polit Sci Polit 26:190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007) Impact assessment on the directive on the cross-border transfer of registered office. December 2007 (SEC(2007) 1707), available online at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/shareholders/ia_transfer_122007_part1_en.pdf (last Accessed on 25/05/2013)

  • Freitag R (1999) Der Wettbewerb der Rechtsordnungen im internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 267–270

  • Gerner-Beuerle G, Schillig M (2009) The mysteries of freedom of establishment after Cartesio. Int Comp Law Q 59:303–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson A (2009) EC regulation of corporate governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson A, Syrpis P (2009) Regulatory competition in European company law after Cartesio. Eur Law Rev 34(3):378

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersting C (2002) Corporate choice of law—a comparison of the United States and European systems and a proposal for a European directive. Brooklyn J Int Law 28:1–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Komo D, Villiers C (2009) Are trends in European company law threatening industrial democracy? Eur Law Rev 34(2):175–204

    Google Scholar 

  • McCahery JA, Vermeulen EPM (2007) Understanding corporate mobility in the EU—towards the foundations of a European “Internal Affairs Doctrine”, available online—http://www.ecgi.org/presidency/presentations/2007_berlin_vermeulen_paper.pdf (file damaged)

  • McCreevy C (2007) European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Speech by Commissioner McCreevy at the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, EP Legal Affairs Committee (JURI Ctee), Brussels, 3 October 2007, SPEECH/07/592. Cited in: Lennarts ML (2008) Company mobility within the EU, fifty years on from a non-issue to a hot topic. Utrecht Law Review 4(1). http://www/utrechtlawreview.org. Accessed 10 Dec 2009

  • [N.N.] (2009a) Case comment: home state may prevent move but not a conversion of form. EU Focus 246:19

    Google Scholar 

  • [N.N.] (2009b) Case comment: member state of incorporation can prevent company transferring its seat Co Lawyer 30(4):105

    Google Scholar 

  • Novotna P (2009) Connecting Criteria after Cartesio [cited in:] David R, Neckar J, Sehnalek D (ed) COFOLA 2009: the Conference Proceedings, 1 edn. Brno, available online at http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/cofola2009/files/sbornik/cofola.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013

  • Peters C (2009) “Borderless flexibility”: the Societas Privata Europaea (SPE) from a German company law perspective. Co Lawyer 30(7):214–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringe WG (2005) No freedom of emigration for companies? Eur Bus Law Rev 16:621–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth WH (2003) From Centros to Überseering. Free movement of companies, private international law and community law. Eur Law Rev 27:47

    Google Scholar 

  • Siems M (2002) Convergence, competition, Centros and conflicts of law: European company law in the 21st century. Eur Law Rev 27:47–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Szydlo M (2009) Case C-210/06, Cartesio Oktato es Szolgaltato bt—Case Comment. Common Mark Law Rev 46(2):703–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiers C (2009) Are trends in European company law threatening industrial democracy? Eur Law Rev 34(2):175–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2002) Pre-emption, harmonisation and the distribution to regulate the internal market. In: Barnard C, Scott J (eds) The law of the single European market. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wymeersch E (2007) Is a directive on corporate mobility needed? Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 8:161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester University, Room 139, Flat 17, Dilworth House, Whitworth Park, 316 Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WJ, UK

    Dorota Galeza

Authors
  1. Dorota Galeza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorota Galeza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galeza, D. Did the ECJ show common sense in upholding Daily Mail?. China-EU Law J 2, 95–108 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-013-0023-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-013-0023-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation