Does the free movement of capital in the European Union imply a duty to privatise?

The principle of neutrality, embodied in Article 345 TFEU, leaves to the Member States the decision concerning private or public form of ownership of enterprises. Over the years it has been argued that the pertinence of the principle has faded in the practice of EU institutions. The following contribution examines how this principle is applied by the Court of Justice in the area of the free movement of capital, and more specifically – to what extent this internal market freedom undermines the principle of neutrality. It has been concluded that after the Essent judgment the status of the principle has been further reduced, if not rendered nugatory, which is difficult to reconcile with Article 345 TFEU.

Bibliografia/References

Akkermans, B., & Ramaekers, E. (2010). Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), its meanings and interpretations. European Law Journal, 16(3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00509.x

Antonaki, I. (2016). Article 345 TFEU and privatisation of public utilities: Is there still a place for public ownership in Europe? In: D. Anagnostopoulou, I. Papadopoulos, & L. Papadopoulou (Eds.), The EU at a Crossroads: Challenges and Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Cartier-Bresson, A. (2010). L'état actionnaire. L.G.D.J.

Delaunay, B. (2009). Les limites de la neutralité de l'article 295 CE a l'égard du régime de la propriété dans les États membres. Revue Juridique de l'économie Publique, (668).

Devroe, W. (1997). Privatizations and community law: Neutrality versus policy. Common Market Law Review, 34, 267–306.

Dralle, T. M. (2018). Ownership Unbundling and Related Measures in the EU Energy Sector. Vol. 5. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77797-9

Durand, É. (2014). Quelle place pour les motifs économiques dans la justification des entraves a la liberté de circulation des capitaux? Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires, 90.

Haraldsdóttir, K. (2020). The nature of neutrality in EU law: Article 345 TFEU. European Law Review, (1). 3–24.

Karpenschif, M. (2002). La privatisation des entreprises publiques: Une pratique encouragée sous surveillance communautaire. Revue française de droit administratif, (1), 95. (halshs-02242656).

Kerle, C., & Flynn, L. (2014). Chapter 11. Advantage. In: EU Competition Law. Vol. IV State Aid. Claeys and Casteels.

Losada, F., Juutilainen, T., Havu, K., & Vesala, J. (2012). Property and European Integration: Dimensions of Article 345 TFEU. Tidskrift Utgiven Av Juridiska Föreningen i Finland, 148(3).

Mataczyński, M. (2007). Swoboda przepływu kapitału a złota akcja Skarbu Państwa. Oficyna.

Mataczyński, M. (2015). What did the European Community founders actually mean by saying that the treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in member states governing the system of property ownership? Analysis of Article 345 TFEU. Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review, 4, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2014.4.05

Mele, P. (2006). Le droit de propriété en droit communautaire [Doctoral thesis, unpublished]. Paris X Nanterre.

Penttinen, L. (2015). The Essent Case – The one about free movement, economic justifications and the increasing role of the State. In: F. J. Säcker, L. Scholz, & T. Sveen (Eds.), Renewable Energy Law in Europe (99–118). Peter Lang Academic Research. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05668-6

Schweitzer, H. (2010). Sovereign wealth funds-market investors or 'Imperialist Capitalists'? The European Response to Direct Investments by Non-EU State-Controlled Entities. In: U. Bernitz, & W.-G. Ringe (Eds.) Company Law and Economic Protectionism: New Challenges to European Integration. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591459.003.0012

Thirion, N. (2002). Existe-t-il des limites juridiques a la privatisation des entreprises publiques? Revue internationale de droit économique, XVI(4), 627–654. https://doi.org/10.3917/ride.164.0627

Verhoeven, A. (1996). Privatisation and EC law: Is the European Commission "neutral" with respect to public versus private ownership of companies? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 45(4), 861–887. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002058930005973X