Summary: 6. Free Movement Of Capital And Payments

Study material generic cover image
  • This + 400k other summaries
  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
PLEASE KNOW!!! There are just 16 flashcards and notes available for this material. This summary might not be complete. Please search similar or other summaries.
Use this summary
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo

Read the summary and the most important questions on 6. Free movement of capital and payments

  • 1 Introduction

  • What are the three fundamentals when it comes to fundamental freedom of capitals acc. To art. 63-66 TFEU?

    • Liberalisation of capital as factor of production
    • Movement of capital between MS and between MS and third countries
    • Benefit for lawfully established capital
  • 2 Scope

  • We also have a prohibition of restrictions of the free movement of capital. This is in cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone. What are the two different capitals and give some examples?

    Movements of capital - financial operations essentially concerned with investment of funds

    - monetary capital: securities, loans, sureties
    - real capital: real estate investments, stake in companies
  • We also have a prohibition of restrictions of the free movement of payments. What is the most important transfer and give some examples?

    - Transfer of money: cash, transactions, cheque, bill, as a remuneration in exercising one of the other fundamental freedoms.

    Both prohibitions apply between MS and with third countries
  • ECJ joined cases 286/82 and 26/83, judgement of 21 Jan 1984, Luisi and Carbone. What were the facts of the case?

    • Italy limited export of foreign currencies for use in a foreign country to 500.000 lira. Italians Luisi and Carbone had collected foreign currencies amounting to a couple of million lira which they intended to use in other MS for touristic purposes and for medical treatment.
    • Italian authorities imposes fines. ECJ: Do these facts fall under free movement of capital or free movement of payments?
  • ECJ joined cases 286/82 and 26/83, judgement of 21 Jan 1984, Luisi and Carbone. What was the decision of the ECJ?

    • Current payments are foreign currency transfers constituting a consideration for the provision of a service or transfer of a good -> movement of payments
    • movement of capital are financial operations essentially concerned with the investment of funds inquisition and not a remuneration ef for a service
    • physical transfer of bank notes, movements of capital where transfer corresponds to an obligation to pay arising from a transaction involving the movement of goods or services
    • controls lawful, but may not effect the "the normal pattern of provision of services"
  • We have also a prohibition in discrimination. On what grounds?

    • On grounds of country of origin or destination of capital
    • Open and disguised (interest discounts for construction with domestic banks only)
    • tax reductions only for income from investments in respective country
    • Non-discriminatory rules
  • ECJ case C-483/99, judgement of 4 June 2002 COM/France. What were the facts of the case? Is there discrimination?

    • France has adopted rules for a state-held special share of the company Société national Elf-Aquitaine, which supplied France with petroleum products
    • The share allowed for the following special rights for France:
      • larger direct or indirect investments were subject to prior authorization by French minister of economic affairs. 
      • Veto right against decisions about the cession of the majority capital of the four subsidiaries or about its use as a surety
  • ECJ case C-483/99, judgement of 4 June 2002 COM/France. What was the decision of the ECJ? Is there discrimination?

    • No discrimination, but acquisition of shares may be prevented and investors may be impeded to invest in this company. This measure may render free movement of capital illusory
    • Justification: public security; necessity requirement not met. 
  • ECJ case C-112/05, judgement of 23 Oct 2007, COM/Germany. What were the facts of the case? Is there discrimination?

    • VW law in Germany:
      • limits the voting rights of each shareholder to max. Of 20% of VW's share capital
      • Federal state and Land Lower Saxony were entitled to appoint two representatives each to the company's supervisory board, as long as they own a share
      • requires a majority of 80% of shares represented for certain resolutions of general assembly of shareholders (normally: 75%)
  • ECJ case C-112/05, judgement of 23 Oct 2007, COM/Germany. What was the decision of the ECJ? Is there discrimination?

    • VW law is a national measure
    • prerogatives of FRG/Land Lower Saxony allow significant influence in spite of low investments
    • Unlawful restriction of movement of capital -> may impede direct investments (chilling effects)
PLEASE KNOW!!! There are just 16 flashcards and notes available for this material. This summary might not be complete. Please search similar or other summaries.

To read further, please click:

Read the full summary
This summary +380.000 other summaries A unique study tool A rehearsal system for this summary Studycoaching with videos
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

Topics related to Summary: 6. Free Movement Of Capital And Payments