Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Free Movement of Capital and Freedom of Establishment

  • Article
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The free movement of capital (Art. 63, para. 1 TFEU) and the freedom of establishment (Art. 49 TFEU) represent cornerstones of the internal market in the area of cross-border investment and cross-border entrepreneurship. Yet the overlap between these two freedoms remains unclear, an issue which particularly plays a role in regard to third-country situations as the scope of Art. 63, para. 1 TFEU reaches beyond the territory of the European Union, while Art. 49 TFEU only applies in internal situations. Building on recent jurisprudence of the CJEU, this article puts forward a new approach to solve this intricate problem, focusing on the goals of Member States’ legislation rather than on the substantive scope of the freedoms in the abstract.

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. ECJ, Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR, p. I-1663 et seqq.

  2. ECJ, Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR, p. I-4165 et seqq.

  3. Roth (1997).

  4. Schön (1997).

  5. Oliver and Roth (2004), at pp. 411 et seqq., 439 et seqq.

  6. ECJ, Case C-35/11 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II [2012].

  7. ECJ, Case C-47/12 Kronos [2014].

  8. See also Roth (2009), at p. 261 et seqq.

  9. ECJ, Case C-2/74 Reyners [1974] ECR, p. 631 et seqq., at p. 649 et seqq., paras. 3-32; ECJ, Case C-107/83 Klopp [1984] ECR, p. 2971 et seqq., paras. 8–10; ECJ, Case C-197/84 Steinhauser [1985] ECR, p. 1823 et seqq., paras. 14–16; ECJ, Case C-270/83 Commission v. France [1986] ECR, p. 273 et seqq., para. 13; ECJ, Case C-292/86 Gullung [1988] ECR, p. 111 et seqq., para. 12; ECJ, Case C-81/87 Daily Mail [1988] ECR, p. 5483 et seqq., para. 15; ECJ, Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR, p. I-2357 et seqq., para. 13; ECJ, Case C-1/93 Halliburton [1994] ECR, p. I-1137 et seqq., para. 16.

  10. ECJ, Case C-203/80 Casati [1981] ECR 1981, p. 2597 et seqq., at p. 2611 et seqq., paras. 8–13; ECJ, Case C-222/95 Parodi [1997] ECR, p. I-3899 et seqq., para. 11; for more detail, Frenz (2012), paras. 3563 et seqq., 3624 et seqq.

  11. ECJ, Case C-182/83 Fearon [1984] ECR, p. 3677 et seqq., paras. 4-11 (compulsory acquisition); Steinhauser, supra n. 9, at para. 16 (leasing); ECJ, Case C-63/86 Commission v. Italy paras. 12–20 (acquisition of housing and property); ECJ, Case C-221/89 Factortame II [1991] ECR, p. I-3905 et seqq., paras. 20–22 (ship); Halliburton, supra n. 9, at para. 19 et seq. (bring property into a corporation); ECJ, Case C-334/94 Commission v. France [1996] ECR, p. I-1307 et seqq., paras. 13–17; ECJ, Case C-299/02 Commission v. Holland [2004] ECR, p. I-9761 et seqq.

  12. EEC Council: First Directive for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (11.5.1960), OJ 43 (12.7.1960), p. 921 et seqq.; Second Council 63/21/EEC Directive of 18 December 1962 adding to and amending the First Directive for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty, OJ 9 (22.1.1963), p. 62 et seqq.; ECJ, Case C-157/85 Brugnoni and Ruffinengo [1986] ECR, p. 2013 et seqq., paras. 21–25; ECJ, Case C-143/86 Margetts and Addenbroke ECR [1988], p. 625 et seqq., paras. 7–16; ECJ, Case C-267/86 van Eycke [1988] ECR, p. 4769 et seqq., paras. 21-24.

  13. Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Art. 67 of the Treaty, OJ L 178, p. 5 et seq.

  14. ECJ, Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 Bordessa and Others [1995] ECR, p. I-361 et seqq., paras. 32-35; ECJ, Case C-484/93 Svensson and Gustavsson [1995] ECR, p. I-3955 et seqq., para. 6 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR, p. I-4071 et seqq., paras. 25-30; ECJ Case C-364/01 Erben Barbier [2003] ECR, p. I-15013 et seqq., paras. 57-60; Lang (2011), p. 209, at p. 210 et seqq.

  15. ECJ, Case C-452/01 Ospelt [2003] ECR, p. I-9743 et seqq., paras. 23-32; ECJ, Case C-540/07 Commission v. Italy [2009] ECR, p. I-10983 et seqq., para. 65 et seqq.; ECJ, Case C-476/10 projektart [2011] ECR, p. I-5617 et seqq., paras. 26-32; ECJ, Case C-387/11 Commission v. Belgium, para. 88.

  16. ECJ, Case C-61/89 Bouchoucha [1990] ECR, p. I-3551 et seqq., para. 13; ECJ, Case C-147/91 Ferrer Lader [1992] ECR, p. I-4097 et seqq., paras. 7-9; ECJ, Case C-369/90 Micheletti [1992] ECR, p. I-4239 et seqq., paras. 9–12; ECJ, Case C-107/94 Asscher [1996] ECR, p. I-3089 et seqq., paras. 31–34; Oppermann et al., at para. 11.

  17. ECJ, Case C-384/09 Prunus [2011] ECR, p. I-3319 et seqq., para. 23 (legal persons with management outside the EU); Frenz (2012), at paras. 230, 299 et seq.

  18. Kronos, supra n. 7, at paras. 42–52.

  19. In this respect the same barriers must apply to citizens of other countries as those applying to issues relevant to the territory of another country (see 5.3).

  20. Ress and Ukrow (2015), at para. 304; Schön (2005).

  21. Roth (2009), at p. 262.

  22. ECJ, Joined Cases C-439/07 and C-499/07 KBC [2009] ECR, p. I-4409 et seqq., paras. 65–67.

  23. In detail, Advocate General Cruz Villalon, Opinion of 9.12.2010 in Prunus, supra n. 17, at paras. 20–22.

  24. See 2.5 below.

  25. Ibid.

  26. Supra n. 3.

  27. By way of example: ECJ, Case C-439/97 Sandoz GmbH [1999] ECR, p. I-7041 et seqq., paras. 17–38.

  28. On free trade in goods following Keck, see Roth (1999); Roth (2013).

  29. ECJ, Case C-171/08 Commission v. Portugal [2010] ECR, p. I-6817 et seqq., paras. 63-67; ECJ, Case C-89/09 Commission v. France [2010] ECR, p. I-12941 et seqq., para. 45; Schürmann (2013), para. 24 et seq.

  30. Roth (1997), at para. 88; Oppermann et al. (2014), at para. 34; Müller-Graff (2012), para. 62; Habersack and Verse (2011), § 3 para. 5 et seqq.

  31. Art. 52 TFEU: ‘The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’.

  32. Art. 65, para. 1 TFEU: ‘The provisions of Article 63 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States: (a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested; (b) to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security.”

  33. Oliver and Roth (2004), at p. 434 et seqq.

  34. Kraus, supra n. 1, at para. 32; Gebhard, supra n. 2, at para. 37; ECJ, Case C-54/99 Eglise de Scientologie [2000] ECR, p. I-1335 et seqq., para. 17 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-478/98 Commission v. Belgium [2000] ECR, p. I-7587 et seqq., para. 41.

  35. Verkooijen, supra n. 14, at paras. 38-45; ECJ, Case C-315/02 Lenz [2004] ECR, p. I-7063 et seqq., paras. 26-27; ECJ, Case C-319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR, p. I-7498 et seqq., para. 28 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-512/03 Blanckaert [2005] ECR, p. I-7685 et seqq., para. 42; ECJ, Case C-386/04 Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer [2006] ECR, p. I-8203 et seqq., para. 30 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-443/06 Hollmann [2007] ECR, p. I-8494 et seqq., para. 42; ECJ, Case C-194/06 Orange European Smallcap Fund [2008] ECR, p. I-3747 et seqq., paras. 57–59; ECJ, Case C-562/07 Commission v. Spain [2009] ECR 2009, p. I-9553 et seqq., para. 42; Commission v. Italy, supra n. 15, at para. 48 et seq.; ECJ, Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-437/08 Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines [2011] ECR, p. I-305 et seqq., paras. 55–58; ECJ, Case C-284/09 Commission v. Germany [2011] ECR, p. I-9879 et seqq., para. 74; ECJ, Joined Cases C-338/11 to C-347/11 Santander, paras. 21-23; Commission v. Belgium, supra n. 15, at paras. 42-45 and 74-76; ECJ, Case C-322/11 K, paras. 33-36; ECJ, Case C-211/13 Commission v. Germany, paras. 45–47; ECJ, Case C-190/12 Emerging Markets, paras. 54–47; Schürmann (2013), at paras. 3-6; Frenz (2012), at para. 3746 et seq.

  36. ECJ, Case C-334/02 Commission v. France [2004] ECR, p. I-2229 et seqq., paras. 26-33; ECJ, Case C-531/06 Commission v. Italy [2009] ECR, p. I-4103 et seqq., paras. 49-88; ECJ, Joined Cases C-155/08 and C-157/08 X and Passenheim-van Schoot [2009] ECR, p. I-5093 et seqq., paras. 41–76; ECJ, Case C-81/09 Idryma Typou [2010] ECR, p. I-10161 et seqq., paras. 62–68; ECJ, Case C-310/09 Accor [2011] ECR, p. I-8115 et seqq., paras. 64–68; Commission v. Belgium, supra n. 15, at paras. 84–87; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at paras. 55-65; ECJ, Case C-375/12 Bouanich II, paras. 61-87; Fleischer (2003), at p. 497 et seq.

  37. Fundamental: ECJ, Case C-101/05 (A) Skatteverket [2007] ECR, p. I-11531 et seqq., paras. 18–67; critical: Schön (2005), at p. 513 et seqq.; Cordewener et al. (2007a), at p. 114 et seqq.

  38. Joined Cases Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35, at para. 127 et seq.

  39. Skatteverket, supra n. 37, at paras. 37, 54–67; KBC, supra n. 22, at para. 73; Joined Cases Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35, at paras. 119–120; for an optimistic interpretation of this case law, see Lang (2011), at p. 218 et seqq.

  40. Orange European Smallcap Fund, supra n. 35, at paras. 84, 93–96; Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35, at para. 126; critical: Cordewener et al. (2007a), at p. 1167 et seq.; Schön (2005), at p. 515 et seq.; Von Brocke (2009), at p. 1680 et seq.

  41. Skatteverket, supra n. 37, at para. 36; Orange European Smallcap Fund, supra n. 35, at para. 89; KBC, supra n. 22, at para. 7.

  42. Roth (2009), at p. 262 et seq.

  43. Opinion of 12.9.2006, para. 72 in: ECJ, Case C-231/05 Oy AA; see also Advocate General Geelhoed, Opinion of 23.6.2006 in: ECJ, Case C-374/04 Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation [2006] ECR, p. I-11673 et seqq., para. 34.

  44. See 4.3 below.

  45. See 5 below.

  46. Svensson and Gustavsson, supra n. 14, at paras. 4–13; Parodi, supra n. 10, at paras. 8–10; Commission v. France, supra n. 36, at para. 23 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-452/04 Fidium Finanz [2006] ECR, p. I-9521 et seqq., paras. 30, 36–43; Joined Cases X and Passenheim-van Schoot, supra n. 36, at paras. 32–40; ECJ, Case C-233/09 Dijkman [2010] ECR, p. I-6649 et seqq., paras. 22–30; ECJ, Case C-20/09 Commission v. Portugal [2011] ECR, p. I-2637 et seqq., para. 54.

  47. ECJ, Case C-118/96 Safir [1998] ECR, p. I-1919 et seqq., para. 19.

  48. Advocate General Alber, Opinion of 14.10.1999, para. 13 in: ECJ, Case C-251/98 Baars [2000] ECR, p. I-2787 et seqq.; Advocate General Kokott, Opinion of 14.7.2005, para. 71 in: ECJ, Case C-265/04 Bouanich I [2006] ECR, p. I-923 et seqq.; Roth (1997), at para. 12; Fischer (2013), para. 5; Schlag (2012), para. 11; Lübke (2006), at p. 230.

  49. Schön (2005), at p. 500 et seq.

  50. ECJ, Case C-79/85 Segers [1986] ECR, p. 2375 et seqq., para. 12; Asscher, supra n. 16, at para. 26; ECJ, Case C-105/07 Lammers & van Cleeff [2008] ECR, p. I-173 et seqq., paras. 16–18.

  51. ECJ, Case C-53/95 Kemmler [1996] ECR, p. I-703 et seqq., para. 8; ECJ, Case C-493/99 Commission v. Germany [2001] ECR, p. I-8163 et seqq., para. 18 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-279/00 Commission v. Italy [2002] ECR, p. I-1425 et seqq., para. 17 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-439/00 Commission v. Italy [2002] ECR, p. I-305 et seqq., para. 21 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes [2006] ECR, p. I-7995 et seqq., para. 53 et seq.; Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer, supra n. 35, at para. 18.

  52. ECJ, Joined Cases C-286/82 and C-26/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR, p. 377 et seqq.

  53. ECJ, Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer [1999] ECR, p. I-1661 et seqq., para. 21; ECJ, Case C-423/98 Albore [2000] ECR, p. I-5965 et seqq., para. 14; Blanckaert, supra n. 35, at para. 35; ECJ, Case C-213/04 Burtscher [2005] ECR, p. I-10309 et seqq., para. 39 et seq.; Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer, supra n. 35, at paras. 21-24; ECJ, Case C-370/05 Festersen [2007] ECR, p. I-1144 et seqq., para. 23; ECJ, Case C-451/05 Elisa [2007] ECR, p. I-8287 et seqq., para. 59; ECJ, Case C-567/07 Woningstichting Sint Servatius [2009] ECR, p. I-9021 et seqq., para. 20; ECJ, Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11 Libert; K, supra n. 35, at paras. 20–22; ECJ, Case C-489/13 Verest and Gerards, para. 21.

  54. See 4.3 below.

  55. ECJ, Joined Cases C-578/10 to 580/10 Van Putten and Others [2012], p. I-246 et seqq., paras. 27–36 (car leasing as capital movement).

  56. Eglise de Scientologie, supra n. 34, para. 14; Commission v. Belgium, supra n. 34, at para. 18; ECJ, Case C-367/98 Commission v. Portugal [2002] ECR, p. 4731 et seqq., para. 37 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-483/99 Commission v. France [2002] ECR, p. 4781 et seqq., para. 36 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-503/99 Commission v. Belgium [2002] ECR, p. I-4809 et seqq., para. 37 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-98/01 Commission v. Spain [2003] ECR, p. I-4581 et seqq., paras. 52-53; ECJ, Case C-98/01 Commission v. United Kingdom [2003] ECR, p. I-4641 et seqq., para. 39 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-174/04 Commission v. Italy [2005] ECR, p. I-4933 et seqq., para. 27 et seq.; Oppermann et al. (2014), at para. 7; Schlag (2012), at para. 11; Schürmann (2013), at para. 11; Hindelang (2009), at p. 81 et seqq.; Ress and Ukrow (2015), para. 312.

  57. ECJ, Case C-513/03 van Hilten [2006] ECR, p. I-1957 et seqq., paras. 38-40; ECJ, Case C-256/06 Jaeger [2008] ECR, p. I-123 et seqq., para. 24 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-11/07 Eckelkamp [2008] ECR, p. I-6845 et seqq., para. 38 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-67/08 Block [2009] ECR, p. I-885 et seqq., para. 19 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-35/08 Busley and Cibrian [2009] ECR, p. I-9807 et seqq., paras. 17–1; ECJ, Case C-25/10 Missionswerk Heukelbach [2011] ECR, p. I-497 et seqq., para. 15 et seq.; Commission v. Germany, supra n. 35, at para. 41 et seq.

  58. Commission v. Italy, supra n. 36, at paras. 43–47.

  59. Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer, supra n. 35, at para. 18; Hollmann, supra n. 35, at paras. 23-32.

  60. ECJ, Case C-307/97 Saint-Gobain [1999] ECR, p. I-6161 et seqq., paras. 34-43; ECJ, Case C-414/06 Lidl Belgium [2008] ECR, p. I-3601 et seqq., para. 15; ECJ, Case C-415/06 SEW [2007] ECR p. I-151, para. 15.

  61. Roth (1997), at para. 12; Frenz (2012), at para. 3658 et seq.; Haslehner (2008), p. 565, at p. 568 et seq.; Rickford (2010), p. 1187, at p. 1188; Schön (1997), at p. 749 et seq.

  62. ECJ, Case C-302/97 Konle [1999] ECR, p. I-3099 et seqq., para. 22; Festersen, supra n. 53, at para. 22; Elisa, supra n. 53, at para. 58.

  63. General Programme dated 15.1.1962, Official Gazette 1962, pp. 36 et seqq. and 167 et seqq., Title III A, para. 3d–f.

  64. Rickford (2010), at pp. 1192, 1195.

  65. In this regard, see 5 below.

  66. Lenz, supra n. 35, at paras. 16-22; ECJ, Case C-242/03 Weidert and Paulus [2004] ECR, p. I-7377 et seqq. paras. 13–15; Manninen, supra n. 35, at paras. 20–23; ECJ, Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-283/04 Commission v. Netherlands [2006] ECR, p. I-9141 et seqq., para. 19; ECJ, Case C-377/07 STEKO [2009] ECR, p. I-299 et seqq., para. 24; ECJ, Case C-487/08 Commission v. Spain [2010] ECR, p. I-4843 et seqq., paras. 37–43; Idryma Typou, supra n. 36, at para. 47 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-543/08 Commission v. Portugal [2010] ECR, p. I-11241 et seqq., para. 42; ECJ, Case C-212/09 Commission v. Portugal [2011] ECR, p. I-10889 et seqq., para. 43.

  67. ECJ, Case C-436/00 X und Y [2002] ECR, p. I-10829 et seq. paras. 66–70.

  68. Advocate General Kokott, Opinion on Bouanich I, supra n. 48, para 60; Roth (1997), at para. 12; Müller-Graff (2012), para. 15; Lübke (2006), at p. 215 et seqq.; Lutter et al. (2011), § 15, para. 4.

  69. ECJ, Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 Metallgesellschaft and Others [2001] ECR, p. I-1727 et seqq., paras. 41-44; ECJ, Case C-324/00 Lankhorst-Hohorst [2002] ECR, p. I-11779 et seqq., para. 31 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR, p. I-10837 et seqq., paras. 30, 33.

  70. Baars, supra n. 48, at para. 22; see also the Opinion of Advocate General Alber in the proceedings of 14.10.1999; X und Y, supra n. 67, at para. 37.

  71. ECJ, Case C-470/04N [2006] ECR, p. I-7409 et seqq., paras. 26–28; Cadbury Schweppes, supra n. 51, at para. 31; Joined Cases Commission v. Netherlands, supra n. 66, at para. 42; Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, supra n. 43, at para. 39; ECJ, Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation I [2006] ECR, p. I-11753 et seqq., para. 37; ECJ, Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz [2007] ECR, p. I-2647 et seqq., para. 22; Commission v. Italy, supra n. 36, at para. 40 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-182/08 Glaxo Wellcome [2009] ECR, pp. I-45–47.

  72. Advocate General Kokott, Opinion of 10.9.2009, para. 29, in ECJ, Case C-311/08 Société de Gestion Industrielle [2010] ECR, p. I-487 et seqq.

  73. ECJ, Case C-48/11 A Oy [2012] ECR, p. I-485 et seqq., para. 19.

  74. ECJ, Case C-298/05 Columbus Container Services [2007] ECR, p. I-10451 et seqq., para. 31; Advocate General Kokott, Opinion on Bouanich I, supra n. 48, para. 72.

  75. STEKO, supra n. 66, at para. 56; Joined Cases Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35, at para. 36; ECJ, Case C-168/11 Beker, para. 29.

  76. Baars, supra n. 48, at para. 20.

  77. ECJ, Case C-492/04 Lasertec [2007] ECR, p. I-3777 et seqq., para. 21 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-31/11 Scheunemann, paras. 23–30.

  78. Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at para. 58; ECJ, Case C-282/12 Itelcar, para. 22; Kronos, supra n. 7, at para. 34 et seq.; in ECJ, Case C-244/11 Commission v. Greece [2012] ECR, p. I-694 et seqq., para. 23, a 20 % threshold is declared to be sufficient for the simple application of Art. 49 TFEU.

  79. German Federal Tax Court on 29.8.2012, Betriebs-Berater (BB) (2013), p. 37 et seqq.; German Federal Tax Court on 6.3.2013, BB (2013), p. 1175 et seqq.

  80. Société de Gestion Industrielle, supra n. 72, at paras. 27–32.

  81. Zorn (2008), at p. 212 et seq.; Watrin and Eberhardt (2014).

  82. Schön (1997), at p. 750 et seq.; Sydow and Franke (2013); sceptical: Watrin and Eberhardt (2014), at p. 2968 et seq.

  83. Roth (2009), at p. 268 et seq.

  84. Lang (2011), at p. 214; Ress and Ukrow (2015), para. 316 (less than 5 %).

  85. Lang (2011), at p. 214.

  86. Idryma Typou, supra n. 36.

  87. Ibid, at para. 19.

  88. See 5.3.3; similarly: Nettesheim (2008), at p. 740 et seqq., who differentiates between statutory measures for the ‘state of the organisation’, the ‘mobility of businesses’ and the ‘protection of activities’.

  89. Similarly: German Federal Tax Court, supra n. 79; in any case, the German Federal Tax Court sees in the 10 % rule a ‘typecasting’ definition of ‘definite influence’ within the meaning of the ECJ case law; in accordance with the understanding presented here, a typecast threshold size is not critical but rather the assumption about the shareholders’ power to exert control over the company set out in the purpose of the law.

  90. See, e.g., Société de Gestion Industrielle, supra n. 72, at paras. 21–30.

  91. Bröhmer (2011), para. 5, fn. 5.

  92. ECJ, Case C-360/06 Heinrich Bauer Verlag [2008] ECR, p. I-7333 et seqq., paras. 27–30 (Spanish limited partnership); see also the detailed Opinion in these proceedings of Advocate General Trstenjak of 10.1.2008, paras. 48–54.

  93. ECJ, Case C-164/12 DMC, paras. 29-38.

  94. Advocate General Kokott, Opinion of 30.3.2006, paras. 32–57, in: N, supra n. 71.

  95. Elisa, supra n. 53, at paras. 62–66.

  96. Advocate General Cruz Villalon, Opinion of 9.12.2010, para. 44, in Prunus, supra n. 17.

  97. In this vein see also the judgment of the EFTA Court of Justice dated 9.7.2014, Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 (Fred E. Olsen and Others), paras. 80–125 (Liechtenstein trust for Norwegian family assets): decisive is the ‘economic activity’.

  98. See only: Cadbury Schweppes, supra n. 51, at paras. 31-33; Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, supra n. 43, para. 37 et seq.; ECJ, Case C-524/04 Test Claimants in the Group Litigation [2007] ECR, p. I-2107 et seqq., paras. 26–34; Joined Cases Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35, at para. 34; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at para. 90; Kronos, supra n. 7, at para. 30.

  99. See 3.

  100. Lang (2010), at p. 529; Lang (2011), at p. 214 et seq.

  101. Fundamental: Advocate General Geelhoed, Opinion of 23.6.2006, supra n. 43, at paras. 26–30; Geelhoed, Opinion of 6.4.2006, paras. 31–33, in: Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, supra n. 71; Geelhoed, Opinion of 29.6.2006, paras. 33-34 in: Test Claimants in the Group Litigation, supra n. 98.

  102. ECJ, Case C-326/07 Commission v. Italy [2009] ECR, p. I-2291 et seqq., paras. 33-36; Commission v. Italy, supra n. 36, at paras. 39-42; Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 29, at para. 79 et seq.; Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 66, at para. 43; Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 66, at para. 44; Commission v. Greece, supra n. 78, para. 22.

  103. Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, supra n. 43, at paras. 37–40; Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, supra n. 71, at paras. 36–38; ECJ, Case C-157/05 Holbök [2007] ECR, p. I-4054 et seqq., para. 24; ECJ, Case C-201/05 Test Claimants in the Dividend and CFC Group Litigation [2008] ECR, p. I-2875 et seqq., paras. 37-43; KBC, supra n. 22, at para. 69; ECJ, Case C-303/07 Aberdeen Property Fininvest [2009] ECR, p. I-5148 et seqq., para. 30 et seq.; Accor, supra n. 36, at paras. 30-38; Commission v. Belgium, supra n. 15, at para. 35; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at para. 38; Beker, supra n. 75, at paras. 22–28; Bouanich II, supra n. 36, at paras. 29–31.

  104. Roth (2009), at p. 263 et seq.; Frenz (2012), at paras. 2147, 2356; Rickford (2010), at p. 1199 et seqq.

  105. Schön (1997), at p. 748.

  106. Commission v. Italy, supra n. 51, at paras. 31–41; Commission v. France, supra n. 36, at paras. 21–34 (both regarding the capital movement—services relationship).

  107. On the development of the jurisprudence, see Haslehner (2008), at p. 569 et seqq.; Hindelang (2009), at p. 89 et seqq.; Schürmann (2013), para. 13 et seq.; Sedlaczek and Züger (2012), para. 33 et seqq.

  108. Roth (2009), at p. 264 et seq.; Advocate General Stix-Hackl, Opinion of 16.3.2006, paras. 55–58, in Fidium Finanz, supra n. 46.

  109. See, for example, X und Y, supra n. 67, at para. 64; ECJ Commission v. Belgium, supra n. 56, at para. 58 et seq.; Commission v. Italy, supra n. 56, at paras. 26-33.

  110. Safir, supra n. 47, at paras. 20, 35; Konle, supra n. 62, at paras. 22, 55; ECJ, Case C-200/98 X AB and Y AB [1999] ECR, p. I-8261 et seqq., paras. 25, 30; Baars, supra n. 48, at paras. 16, 42; Verkooijen, supra n. 14, at paras. 24, 63; Albore, supra n. 53, at paras. 11, 25; Joined Cases Metallgesellschaft and Others, supra n. 69, at paras. 35, 75; ECJ, Case C-136/00 Danner [2002] ECR, p. I-8147 et seqq., paras. 24, 58; X und Y, supra n. 67, at paras. 66–68 (very clear); ECJ, Case C-422/01 Skandia Ramstedt [2003] ECR, p. I-6817 et seqq., paras. 20, 60; Erben Barbier, supra n. 14, at paras. 27, 75; Bouanich I, supra n. 48, at paras. 21, 57; ECJ, Case C-471/04 Keller Holding [2006] ECR, p. I-2107 et seqq., paras. 20, 51; Joined Cases Commission v. Netherlands, supra n. 66, at para. 42 et seq.; Festersen, supra n. 53, at paras. 21, 47; Rewe Zentralfinanz, supra n. 71, at paras. 20, 71; Lammers & van Cleeff, supra n. 50, at paras. 13, 35; more recently: Commission v. Belgium, supra n. 15, at para. 73 et seq.

  111. ECJ, Case C-250/08 Commission v. Belgium [2011] ECR, p. I-12341 et seqq., paras. 31-32: regarding the acquisition of real property for a business, the free movement of capital prevails over the freedom of establishment.

  112. Baars, supra n. 48, at para. 21; Lang (2010), at p. 522.

  113. Fischer (2013), para. 5; Frenz (2012), at para. 2149; Sedlaczek and Züger (2012), para. 32 et seqq.

  114. Cadbury Schweppes, supra n. 51, at para. 33; ECJ, Case C-231/05 Oy AA [2007] ECR, p. I-6373 et seqq., para. 24; Test Claimants in the Dividend and CFC Group Litigation, supra n. 103, at paras. 73, 106; Lidl Belgium, supra n. 60, at para. 16; ECJ, Case C-284/06 Burda [2008] ECR, p. I-4603 et seqq., para. 74; Aberdeen Property Fininvest, supra n. 103, at paras. 32–35.

  115. Fidium Finanz, supra n. 46, at para. 34; Glaxo Wellcome, supra n. 71, at para. 37; Dijkman, supra n. 46, at paras. 31–35.

  116. Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 66, at para. 98.

  117. Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 56, at para. 55 et seq.; Commission v. France, supra n. 56, at para. 55 et seq.; Commission v. Spain, supra n. 56, at para. 85 et seq.; Commission v. United Kingdom, supra n. 56, at para. 51 et seq.; Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 29, at para. 80; Commission v. Portugal, supra n. 66, at para. 98 et seq.

  118. Commission v. Greece, supra n. 78, at para. 23 (but see para. 30); Scheunemann, supra n. 77, at paras. 18–20; Advocate General Léger, Opinion of 2.5.2006, para. 32 in: Cadbury Schweppes, supra n. 51.

  119. Joined Cases Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35, at para. 35 et seq.; Accor, supra n. 36, at para. 32 et seq.; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at paras. 90-92; Bouanich II, supra n. 36, at paras. 24–29; Kronos, supra n. 7, at paras. 30-32.

  120. Glaxo Wellcome, supra n. 71, at para. 49 et seq.

  121. Scheunemann, supra n. 77, at para. 27: ‘One of the aims of the tax advantages provided for under the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings is to encourage persons inheriting substantial shareholdings in a company to become involved in its management so as to be able ultimately to ensure the survival of the undertaking and save jobs’; see also the comprehensive Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak of 20.3.2012, paras. 34–62.

  122. Affirming Germelmann (2008), at p. 600; Bröhmer (2011), para. 30.

  123. Hindelang (2010); Von Brocke (2009), at p. 1677 et seqq.; Cordewener et al. (2007a), at p. 112 et seq.; Cordewener (2009), p. 995 et seqq.

  124. Affirming Kofler (2008); Lang (2010), at p. 524 et seqq.; Lang (2011), at p. 215; Sedlaczek and Züger (2012), para. 34 et seq.; Zorn (2010).

  125. Lasertec, supra n. 77, at para. 24; SEW, supra n. 60, at para. 15.

  126. Lasertec, supra n. 77, at para. 25; SEW, supra n. 60, at para. 16.

  127. Habersack and Verse (2011), Sect. 3, para. 32.

  128. KBC, supra n. 22, at paras. 68, 70; A Oy, supra n. 73, at para. 30 et seq.; left open in: Holbök, supra n. 103, at paras. 22 et seq., 31.

  129. Ress and Ukrow (2015), para. 314 (‘Paradox’); Cordewener et al. (2007a), at p. 113; Cordewener et al. (2007b), at p. 374.

  130. Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at paras. 96–10; see, there, also the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen of 19.7.2012, paras. 115–117; on that, Hindelang (2013); Beker, supra n. 75, at para. 30 et seq.; Emerging Markets, supra n. 35, at paras. 27–30; Kronos, supra n. 7, at paras. 38–40, 42–52; Schürmann (2013), para. 15 et seq.; Watrin and Eberhardt, at p. 2969 et seqq.

  131. Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6, at para. 100; Emerging Markets, supra n. 35, at para. 31; Kronos, supra n. 7, at paras. 53-56; Roth (2009), at p. 265; Rickford (2010), at p. 1223 et seq.

  132. Fidium Finanz, supra n. 46.

  133. Ibid, at paras. 45-49.

  134. Ibid, at paras. 45-46.

  135. Ibid, at para. 48.

  136. Ibid, at para. 49.

  137. Regarding the various language versions Roth (2009), at p. 266 et seq.

  138. Rightly, Lang (2010), at p. 527 et seq.

  139. Scheunemann, supra n. 77.

  140. Lankhorst-Hohorst, supra n. 69; Lasertec, supra n. 77; Test Claimants in the Group Litigation, supra n. 98; Lammers & van Cleeff, supra n. 50.

  141. Société de Gestion Industrielle, supra n. 80.

  142. X und Y, supra n. 67.

  143. SEW, supra n. 60.

  144. Tippelhofer and Lohmann (2008), at p. 861.

  145. Critical of that: Schön (1988).

  146. Manninen, supra n. 35; Skatteverket, supra n. 37; Joined Cases Haribo Licorice and Austrian Salines, supra n. 35; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation II, supra n. 6; Bouanich II, supra n. 36; Kronos, supra n. 7.

  147. Cadbury Schweppes, supra n. 51.

  148. Schön (2013).

  149. Marks & Spencer, supra n. 69; A Oy, supra n. 73; ECJ, Case C-80/12 Felixstowe Dock; Oesterhelt (2008), at p. 260; Schlag (2012), para. 11.

  150. Beker, supra n. 75.

  151. Ress and Ukrow (2015), para. 318.

  152. See already Schön (2005).

References

  • Bröhmer J (2011) Commentary on Art. 54 TFEU. In: Calliess C, Ruffert M (eds) EUV/AEUV, 4th edn. Beck, Munich

  • Cordewener A (2009) EG-rechtlicher Grundfreiheitsschutz in der Praxis—Auswirkungen der Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit auf Sachverhalte mit Drittstaatsberührung. Internationale Wirtschafts-Briefe (IWB) 10:497.=IWB, Europäische Union: Steuer- und Zollrecht, Fach 11, Gruppe 2, pp 995

  • Cordewener A, Kofler GW, Schindler CP (2007a) Free movement of capital, third country relationships and national tax law: an emerging issue before the ECJ. European Taxation (ET), pp 107

  • Cordewener A, Kofler GW, Schindler CP (2007b) Free movement of capital and third countries: exploring the outer boundaries with ‘Lasertec’, ‘A and B’ and ‘Holböck’. ET, pp 371

  • Fischer H-G (2013) Art 49 TFEU. In: Lenz C-O, Borchardt K-D (eds) EU-Verträge, 6th edn. Bundesanzeiger-Verl., Cologne and Vienna

  • Fleischer H (2003) Case C-367/98, Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic (golden shares). C-483/99 Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (golden shares) and Case C-503/99 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (golden shares). Judgments of the Full Court of 4 June 2002. Common Market Law Review 40:493–501

  • Frenz W (2012) Handbuch Europarecht, Bd 1: Europäische Grundfreiheiten, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Germelmann CF (2008) Konkurrenz von Grundfreiheiten und Missbrauch von Gemeinschaftsrecht—zum Verhältnis von Kapitalverkehrs- und Niederlassungsfreiheit in der neueren Rechtsprechung. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), pp 596

  • Habersack M, Verse D-A (2011) Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht, 4th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslehner WC (2008) Das Konkurrenzverhältnis der Europäischen Grundfreiheiten in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH zu den direkten Steuern. Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR), pp 565

  • Hindelang S (2009) The free movement of capital and foreign direct investment. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang S (2010) Gestufte Freiheitsverbürgung? Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR), pp 443

  • Hindelang S (2013) Die steuerliche Behandlung drittstaatlicher Dividenden und die europäischen Grundfreiheiten. Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR), pp 77

  • Kofler G (2008) Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit, Kontrollbeteiligungen und Drittstaaten. taxlex, pp 326

  • Lang M (2010) Der Anwendungsbereich der Grundfreiheiten—Maßgeblichkeit des Sachverhaltes oder der nationalen Rechtsvorschrift? In: Lang M, Weinzierl C, Festschrift Rödler. Linde Verlag, Vienna, pp 521

  • Lang M (2011) Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit. Steuerrecht und Drittstaaten, Steuer und Wirtschaft (StuW) p, p 209

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübke J (2006) Der Erwerb von Gesellschaftsanteilen zwischen Kapitalverkehrs- und Niederlassungsfreiheit. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutter M, Bayer W, Schmidt J (2011) Europäisches Unternehmens- und Kapitalmarktrecht, 5th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Graff P-C (2012) Art 49 TFEU. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (2008) Unternehmensübernahmen durch Staatsfonds—Europarechtliche Vorgaben und Schranken. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 172:729

    Google Scholar 

  • Oesterhelt S (2008) Bedeutung der Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit für die Schweiz: Erkenntnisse aus kürzlich ergangenen Urteilen des EuGH zu Art 56 EG-Vertrag. Der Schweizer Treuhänder, pp 256

  • Oliver P, Roth W-H (2004) The internal market and the four freedoms. Common Mark Law Rev (CMLR) 41:407

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann T, Classen C-D, Nettesheim M (2014) Europarecht, 6th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Ress G, Ukrow J (2015) Commentary on Art. 63 TFEU. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union, Art. 63 TFEU (loose-leaf, delivery complement). Beck, Munich

  • Rickford J (2010) Capital and establishment—never the twain shall meet? In: Grundmann S, Haar B, Merkt H (eds) Festschrift Hopt, Bd 1. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 1187

  • Roth W-H (1997) Die Niederlassungsfreiheit zwischen Beschränkungs- und Diskriminierungsverbot. In: Schön W, Flume W, Jakobs H-H, Picker E, Wilhelm J (eds) Gedächtnisschrift für Brigitte Knobbe-Keuk. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 729

  • Roth W-H (1999) Freier Warenverkehr nach ‘Keck’. In: Festschrift Großfeld. Heidelberg, pp 92

  • Roth W-H (2009) Investitionsbeschränkungen im deutschen Außenwirtschaftsrecht. Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft (ZBB), pp 257

  • Roth W-H (2013) Free movement of goods, market access and consumer protection. In: Terryn E, Straetmans G, Colaert V (eds) Landmark cases in EU consumer law: in honour of Jules Stuyck. Intersentia, Cambridge, p 119

  • Schlag M (2012) Art 49 TFEU. In: Schwarze J (ed) EU-Kommentar, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön W (1988) Der Gewinnanteil des Personengesellschafters und das Einkommen der Personengesellschaft. Steuer und Wirtschaft (StuW), pp 258

  • Schön W (1997) Europäische Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit und nationales Steuerrecht. In: Schön W, Flume W, Jakobs H-H, Picker E, Wilhelm J (eds) Gedächtnisschrift für Brigitte Knobbe-Keuk. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 743

  • Schön W (2005) Der Kapitalverkehr mit Drittstaaten und das internationale Steuerrecht. In: Gocke R, Gosch D, Lang M. Festschrift Wassermeyer. Beck, Munich, p 489

  • Schön W (2013) Deutsche Hinzurechnungsbesteuerung und Europäische Grundfreiheiten. Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR), Supplementary Booklet 1

  • Schürmann T (2013) Commentary on Art 63 TFEU. In: Lenz C-O, Borchardt K-D (eds) EU-Verträge, 6th edn. Bundesanzeiger-Verl., Cologne and Vienna

  • Sedlaczek M, Züger M (2012) Commentary on Art 63 TFEU. In: Streinz R (ed) EUV/AEUV, 2nd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow S, Franke Y (2013) Überraschendes EuGH-Urteil zur Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit in Drittstaatensachverhalten und zu Missbrauchsregelungen. Der Betrieb (DB), pp 2642

  • Tippelhofer M, Lohmann A (2008) Niederlassungsfreiheit vs. Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit: Analyse der jüngeren Rechtsprechung des EuGH zu den direkten Steuern. Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR), pp 857

  • Von Brocke K (2009) Die Abgrenzung von Niederlassungsfreiheit und Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit in der neuesten EuGH-Rechtsprechung: Mehr Verwirrung als klare Linien. In: Wachter T. Festschrift Spiegelberger. Zerb-Verl., Bonn, pp 1671

  • Watrin C, Eberhardt D (2014) Anwendung der Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit im Bereich der internationalen Dividendenbesteuerung. BB, pp 2967

  • Zorn N (2008) EG-Grundfreiheiten und dritte Länder. In: Festschrift Nolz. LexisNexis ARD ORAC, Vienna, pp 211

  • Zorn N (2010) Nochmals: Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit für Drittstaatendividenden. Internationales Steuerrecht (IStR) pp 190

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance, Munich University, Munich, Germany

      Wolfgang Schön

    Authors
    1. Wolfgang Schön
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Wolfgang Schön.

    Additional information

    This article goes back to the contribution ‘Kapitalverkehrsfreiheit and Niederlassungsfreiheit’ published in Ackermann T, Köndgen J (eds) (2015) Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht in Europa: Festschrift für Wulf-Henning Roth zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, Munich.

    W. Schön: Director at the Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance, Munich and Honorary Professor at Munich University.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Schön, W. Free Movement of Capital and Freedom of Establishment. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 17, 229–260 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-016-0051-1

    Download citation

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-016-0051-1

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation