Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-309"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.13.2-309"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking both Mr Galeote Quecedo and Mr Gasòliba i Böhm for the questions they have put which indeed touch on an important aspect of the internal market.
May I begin by saying that the communication of 19 July 1997 on certain legal aspects concerning intra-EU investments to which both speakers made reference was adopted by the Commission, as was the case for a series of other communications, on the basis of its exclusive competence stemming from its role as guardian of the Treaties. As is specified in the communication itself, its objective is to indicate to national authorities and economic operators in Member States how the Commission interprets the provisions of the Treaty on capital movements and the right of establishment in order to reduce the risk of divergent legal interpretations.
The principles set out in that communication are essentially based on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which remains, of course, the sole competent institution to provide a definitive interpretation of Community law.
In accordance with Article 56 of the EC Treaty all restrictions on capital movements between Member States, be they discriminatory or non-discriminatory, are prohibited. The communication, being devoted to intra-Community investment, goes more deeply into the respect for this fundamental principle insofar as two specific forms of capital movements are concerned: the acquisition of domestic securities and direct investments. All restrictions applied to these capital movements can pose compatibility problems with, in particular, Article 56 which deals with the free movement of capital, and Article 43, which deals with freedom of establishment. The communication to which I referred a little while ago states that, in conformity with the very notion of direct investments, nationals of other Member States of the European Union should be free to acquire controlling stakes, exercise their voting rights attached to those stakes, and manage domestic companies under the same conditions as are laid down in a given Member State for its own nationals.
While the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital are among the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty, certain exceptions to the general rules exist which allow Member States to impose certain restrictions. As far as the freedom of establishment is concerned these restrictions may be motivated by the exercise of official authority or on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health – Article 46. As far as the free movement of capital is concerned they may be justified on the basis of requisite measures in the field of taxation, prudential supervision, or the use of declaration procedures, or by considerations in relation to public policy or public security – Article 58. Finally, Member States may take measures which they consider necessary for the protection of the essential interests of their security which are connected with the defence sector – Article 296.
In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice it is necessary to interpret those exceptions narrowly in order to satisfy the criterion of proportionality. All interpretation based on economic criteria should be excluded. An exception should not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the freedom of movement of capital. In the light of the principles which I have just set out, and taking into account that the Treaty is neutral insofar as the private or public nature of companies is concerned, it clearly appears that all restrictions aimed at preventing subsequent purchases by investors of other Member States of controlling rights in privatised companies under the pretext that the capital of these investors is to different degrees in public ownership cannot be justified by the exceptions of the Treaty in the area of capital movements or the rights of establishment, exceptions which I delineated a few moments ago.
In conclusion, may I say that as Members of this Parliament may be aware, the Commission will shortly have a debate on restrictions on intra-Community investment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples