In June 2013, the European Commission issued a package of draft legislation governing procedural rules for private damages actions across the 28 Member States of the EU. This article considers the impact of this legislation and the possible advantages for both claimants and defendants.
UN and EU sanctions are a cornerstone of international diplomacy, but what happens when individuals are wrongly targeted?
Whether a specific tax regime is compatible with European state aid rules turns on the question of whether it is ‘selective’: does it favour certain undertakings or products over comparable undertakings or products, in a way that is not justified by the nature of scheme? That question can be difficult to answer in practice. After ten years of litigation, during which the General Court has itself misinterpreted selectivity, the General Court has outlined a staged analysis that should be undertaken, which focuses heavily on the effects that the tax has and will have in practice.
The Government response to consultation on competition reform (“Growth, Competition and the Competition Regime”) suffers from one “hidden” major flaw, which may be fatal to its objectives. The flaw is the lack of any proper accountability within the new Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in respect of decision making (findings and remedial action) in market inquiries and mergers. It is “hidden” because, unlike other areas such as the removal of dishonesty from the cartel offence, it is not immediately apparent to non specialised readers of the consultation document.
A third party (P) who bears the burden of unlawfully levied tax paid by a supplier (T) to the State may be able to recover the tax from T or the State. The European Court of Justice in Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet (Case C-94/10) ruled that a defence raised by the State that P has no direct causal link because P did not pay the tax to the State would breach the principle of effectiveness.
Reproduced from PLC Tax with the permission of the publishers. For further information visit www.practicallaw.com or call 020 7202 1200.
2011 was an exciting year for Monckton Chambers’ public law and human rights team. This newsletter brings together some of the wide ranging cases Members of Chambers have recently been involved in that may be of interest.
Part 7A ITEPA (“Part 7A“) was introduced by Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2011. The essential aim of Part 7A is to tackle “arrangements used for the purpose of disguising remuneration in order to avoid or defer income tax or national insurance contributions”1. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke MP, in Committee debates on Part 7A said:
The most prominent recent developments in UK merger control are the protracted News Corp/BSkyB saga and the Ryanair v. OFT litigation at the CAT. The former has been analysed exhaustively and the latter will be illuminated by the forthcoming judgment of the CAT. This update therefore leaves these cases to one side and instead discusses three other topical merger control issues: the counterfactual; the “timeliness” test for new entry; and the use of hypothetical questions in merger surveys.
The disguised remuneration rules to be introduced under the Finance Act 2011 are acknowledged by the Government to be complex. The legislation is deliberately drafted to catch more than the Government intended, namely EBTs and EFURBs considered to be abusive. Although numerous exclusions seek to allow normal business activity to continue unhindered, businesses will need to check they are not caught by the new rules. The rules are expected to produce some inequitable results. The attached note seeks to provide a guide to the new rules, with some analysis. The note is based on the draft rules as amended at the Committee stage. Once the Finance Bill becomes law later this summer, the note will be updated.
