“Golden Shares” and Other Special State Rights: An Assessment Based on CJEU Decisions Within the Scope of EU Internal Market Law

Yıl 2023, Sayı: 22, 167 - 195, 29.12.2023

Muhammedali Aktaş

https://doi.org/10.26650/ihid.22.007

Öz

Liberalization started to take effect in Western countries from the beginning of the 1970s. It manifested itself, among other processes such as deregulation, with privatization movements intensively from the late 1980s. Against it, states established golden shares and special state rights to ensure public safety, continuation of SGI, protection of the rights of workers and minority shareholders, and sometimes to obtain economic interests. Thus, they aimed to maintain the influence of states on related enterprises. However, these reflexes resulted in legal discussions under EU Law, particularly regarding the freedom of capital and establishment. The compliance of the special state rights with the EU internal market had been handled several times by the CJEU through the assessment of infringement of fundamental freedoms, starting from the late 1990s until the mid-2010s. In the text below, the golden shares and other special state rights are assessed in terms of the free movement of capital and establishment by referencing the related CJEU decisions. This assessment will be structured substantially based on the assessment scheme for four freedoms. Although privatization is a tool that has been intensely used in a certain period, there is no guarantee that privatization will not come to the fore again. Furthermore, finding reasonable solutions to the legal problems stemming from the special state rights would be guiding in terms of ensuring the compliance of the new types of state interventions to the economy, as we witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the fundamental freedoms of the EU internal market.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Golden Shares, Special State Rights, EU Internal Market Law, Privatization/Liberalization, Fundamental Freedoms

“Altın Hisseler” ve Diğer Özel Devlet Hakları: AB İç Pazar Hukuku Kapsamında ABAD Kararlarına Dayalı Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Serbestleşme/Liberalizasyon akımı 1970’li yılların başından itibaren etkisini Batı’da hissettirir. Deregülasyon gibi diğer süreçlerin yanı sıra, yoğun anlamda 1980’lerin sonundan başlayarak, kamu teşebbüslerinin özelleştirilmesi hareketleri ile kendisini gösterir. Bunun karşısında devletler kamu güvenliğinin tesisi, kamu hizmetlerinin devamlılığı, işçi ve azınlık hisse sahiplerinin haklarının korunması gibi temelde kamu yararı saikiyle ve kimi zaman ekonomik saiklerle ilgili şirket nezdinde kendi lehlerine altın hisse veya diğer özel haklar tesis etmek yoluna gitmişler, bu şekilde ilgili şirket üzerinde devletin etkisini devam ettirmeyi amaçlamışlardır. Ancak bu durum AB Hukuku kapsamında özellikle AB İç Pazarı bakımından temel özgürlüklerden olan sermayenin ve kuruluşların serbest dolaşımı hususlarında hukuki tartışmalara neden olmuştur. Özel devlet haklarının AB İç Pazarı ile uyumu, temel özgürlüklerin ihlali değerlendirmesi üzerinden, 1990’ların sonundan başlayarak 2010’lu yılların ortasına kadar Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı (ABAD) tarafından çok defa ele alınmıştır. Aşağıdaki metinde altın hisse ve diğer özel devlet hakları, ABAD kararlarına referanslarla, temel özgürlüklerden ikisi olan sermayenin ve kuruluşların serbest dolaşımı bakımından değerlendirilmektedir. Bu değerlendirmede kıta avrupasında kullanılan değerlendirme şeması takip edilmektedir. Belirtmek gerekir ki özelleştirme belli bir zamanda yoğun bir şekilde kullanılmış bir araç olsa da tekrar gündeme gelmeyeceğinin bir garantisi yoktur. Ayrıca özel devlet hakları üzerinden ortaya çıkan hukuki meselelere çözüm bulunması COVID-19 salgını sırasında da şahit olduğumuz devletin ekonomiye yeni müdahale biçimlerinin AB İç Pazarının temel özgürlüklerine uyumunun sağlanması bakımından yol gösterici olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Altın Hisseler, Özel Devlet Hakları, AB İç Pazar Hukuku, Özelleştirme/Serbestleştirme, (AB İç Pazarında) Temel Özgürlükler

Kaynakça

• Akkermans B and Ramaekers E, ‘Article 345 TFEU (ex-Article 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations’ (2010) 16(3) European Law Journal 292-314. google scholar
• Antonaki I, ‘Capital, Market and the State: Reconciling Free Movement of Capital with Public Interest Objectives’ (Brill 2022). google scholar
• Barnard C, ‘Derogations, Justifications and the Four Freedoms: Is State Interest Really Protected?’ in Catherine Barnard and Okeoghene Odudu (eds.), The Outer Limits of European Law (Hard 2009) 273-305. google scholar
• Barnard C and Snell J, ‘Free Movement of Legal Services and the Provision of Services’ in Barnard and Peers (eds.), European Union Law (3th Edition, Oxford 2020) 438-478. google scholar
• Biondi A, ‘When the State is the Owner—Some Further Comments on the Court of Justice ‘Golden Shares’ Strategy’ in Bernitz and Ringe (eds.), Company Law and Economic Protectionism: New Challenges to European Integration (Oxford 2011) 95-102. google scholar
• Camesasca P and Henschen H, ‘“No Issues” with Member State Participations - State-backed EU Companies as the New Normal?’ <https://www.covcompetition.com/2020/04/no-issues-with-member-state-participations-state-backed-eu-companies-as-the-new-normal/> (last accessed on 24/04/2023). google scholar
• Csaba L, ‘Chapter 58: Liberalization’ in Merkel, Kollmorgen and Wagener (eds.), The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation (Oxford 2019) 547-551. google scholar
• Cuyvers A, ‘The EU Common Market’ in Ugirashebuja, Ruhangisa, Ottervanger and Cuyvers (eds.), East African Community Law: Institutional, Substantive and Comparative EU Aspects (Brill 2017) 293-302. google scholar
• Dallago B and Guglielmetti C, ‘Chapter 67: Privatisation’ in Merkel/Kollmorgen/Wagener (eds.), The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation (Oxford 2019) 604-610. google scholar
• Dunne N, ‘Liberalisation and the Pursuit of the Internal Market’ (2018) 43(6) European Law Review 803-836. google scholar
• Escarmelle J et Melis P, ‘Essai de definition du Concept d’Entreprise Publique’ (1981)(47) International Review of Administrative Science 365-376. google scholar
• Flynn L, ’Free Movement of Capital’ in Bernard and Peers (eds.), European Union Law (3th Edition, Oxford 2020) 479-509. google scholar
• Gallo D, ‘The CJEU vis-â-vis EU and non-EU investors, between national and european solidarity: golden shares, sovereign investment and socio-economic protectionism under free movement rules’, Working Paper No. 03-2014, LUISS Guido Carli/Department of Law. google scholar
• Gallo D, ‘On the Content and Scope of National and European Solidarity Under Free Movement Rules: The Case of Golden Shares and Sovereign Investments’ (2016)(1) European Papers 823-845. google scholar
• Gerner-Beuerle C, ‘Shareholders Between the Market and the State. The VW Law and Other Interventions in the Market Economy’ (2012)(49) Common Market Law Review 97-144. google scholar
• Jeronimo V, Pagan JA and Soydemir G, ‘Privatisation and European Economic and Monetary Union’ (2000) 26(3) Eastern Economic Journal 321-333. google scholar
• Kellerbauer M and Rusche M, ‘Art. 106 TFEU’, in Kellerbauer, Klamert and Tomkin (eds.), Commentary on The EU Treaties and The Charter of Fundamental Rights (Oxford 2019). google scholar
• Lieder J, ‘Staatliche Sonderrechte in Aktiengesellschaften’ (2008) 172(3) Zeitschrift Für Das Gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht 306-342. google scholar
• MaeBe J, ‘Post-neoliberalism in Europe? How economic discourses have changed through COVID-19 pandemic’ (2020)(13) Post-Filosofie 119-145. google scholar
• Mestre B, ‘The ECJ’s Decision on Portugal’s “Golden Share”: Broader Implications of a Restatement’ (2010)(9) EUR. L. REP. 283-289. google scholar
• O’Brien M, ‘Case C-326/07, Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009’ (2010)(1) Common Market Law Review 245-261. google scholar
• Ostry J-D, Loungani P and Furceri D, ‘Neoliberalism: Oversold’, (2016)(2) (June) Finance & Development 38-41. google scholar
• Parker D, ‘Privatization in the European Union: A Critical Assessment of its Development, Rationale and Consequences’ (1999) 20(1) Economic and Industrial Democracy 9-38. google scholar
• Papadopoulos T, ‘Privatized Companies, Golden Shares and Property Ownership in the Euro Crisis Era: A Discussion After Commission v. Greece’ (2015)(1) ECFR 1-18. google scholar
• Poyet M, ‘Le Contröle de l’Entreprise Publique Essai Sur Le Cas Français’, (Phd. These -unpublished-, Jean Monnet University-Saint-Etienne, 2001.) google scholar
• Rickford J, ‘Protectionism, Capital, Freedom, and the Internal Market’ in Bernitz and Ringe (eds.), Company Law and Economic Protectionism: New Challenges to European Integration (Oxford 2011) 54-94. google scholar
• Ringe W-G., ‘Company Law and Free Movement of Capital’ (2010)(2) Cambridge Law Journal, pp. 378-409. google scholar
• Ringe W-G, ‘Kornhaas and the Challenge of Applying Keck in Establishment’ (2017)(2) European Law Review 270-279. google scholar
• Ringe W-G, ‘Kornhaas and the Limits of Corporate Establishment’ (Oxford Business Law Blog 25 May 2016) <https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/05/kornhaas-and-limits-corporate-establishment> (last accessed on 20/04/2023). google scholar
• Rosanvallon P., ‘La Crise de l’Etat Providence’ (Seuil 2015) google scholar
• Snell J, ‘The Internal Market and the Philosophies of Market Integration’ in Barnard and Peers (eds.), European Union Law (3th Edition, Oxford 2020) 334-363. google scholar
• Steiblyte A and Tomkin J, ‘Chapter 4: Capital and Payments’ in Kellerbauer, Klamerta dn Tomkin (eds.), Commentary on The EU Treaties and The Charter of Fundamental Rights (Oxford 2019) 743-776. google scholar
• Szabados T, ‘Recent Golden Share Cases in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union’ (2015) 16(5) German Law Journal 1099 - 1130. google scholar
• Tomkin J,’Chapter 2: Right of Establishment’ in: Kellerbauer, Klamert and Tomkin (eds.), Commentary on The EU Treaties and The Charter of Fundamental Rights (Oxford 2019) 647-701. google scholar
• Van Lange A, Gondouin G et Inserguet-Brisset V, Dictionnaire de Droit Administratif (6. Edition, Sirey 2012). google scholar
• European Commission, ‘Staff Working Document: Special rights in privatised companies in the enlarged Union-a decade full of developments’ Brussel, (2005). google scholar
• ‘The welfare state in crisis: an account of the Conference on Social Policies in the 1980s’, OECD, Paris, 20-23 October 1981. google scholar
• Table of Cases google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 23 May 2000, Case C-58/99, Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2000:280. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 8 November 2012, Case C-244/11, Commission v. Hellenic Rep., ECLI:EU:C:2012:694. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 4 June 2002, Case C-367/98, Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2002:326. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 13 May 2003, Case C-98/01, Commission v. UK, ECLI:EU:C:2003:273. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 28 September 2006, (joined) Cases C-282/04-C-283/04, Commission v. Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:2006:608. google scholar
• The Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in CJEU, Delivered on 6 April 2006, Case C-282/04, Commission v. Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:2006:234. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 26 March 2009, Case C-326/07, Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2009:193. google scholar
• The Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in CJEU, Delivered in 6 November 2008, Case C-326/07, Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2009:193. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 4 June 2002, Case C-503/99, Commission v. Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2002:328. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 4 June 2002, Case C-483/99, Commission v. France, ECLI:EU:C:2002:327. google scholar
• The Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in CJEU, Delivered in 3 July 2001, Cases C-367/98, C-483/99, C-503/99, Commission v. Portugal/France/Belgium. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 14 March 2000, Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister of France, ECLI:EU:C:2000:124. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 8 July 2010, Case C-171/08, Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2010:412. google scholar
• The Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in CJEU, Delivered on 2 December 2009, Case C-171/08, Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2009:743. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 14 February 2008, Case C-274/06, Commission v. Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2008:86. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 13 May 2003, Case C-463/00, Commission v. Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2003:272. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 11 November 2010, Case C-543/08, Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2010:669. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 10 November 2011, Case C-212/09, Commission v. Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2011:717. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 18 July 2007, Case C-503/04, Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2007:432. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 22 October 2013, Case C-105/12, Netherlands v. Essent NV and others, ECLI:EU:C:2013:677. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 11 December 2007, Case C-438/05, Commission v. Finland, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 23 October 2007, Case C-112/05, Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2007:623. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 2 June 2005, Case C-174/04, Commission v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2005:350. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 30 November 1995, Case C-55/94, Gebhard v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1995:411 google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 22 January 2015, Case C-463/13, Stanley International Betting Ltd/Stanleybet Malta Ltd v. Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze/Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato, ECLI:EU:C:2015:25. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 26 September 2000, Case C-478/98, Commission v. Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2000:497. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 16 July 2015, Case C-255/14, Robert Michal Chmielewski v. Nemzeti Ad6- es Vamhivatal Del-alföldi Regionalis Vam- es Penzügyöri Föigazgatösâga, ECLI:EU:C:2015:475. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 10 December 2015, Case C-594/14, Simona Kornhass v. Thomas Dithmar, ECLI:EU:C:2015:806. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 7 June 2012, Case C-39/11, VBV - Vorsorgekasse AG v. Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA), ECLI:EU:C:2012:327. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement of 11 March 2010, Case C-384/08, Attanasio Group Srl v. Comune di Carbognano, ECLI:EU:C:2010:133. google scholar
• CJEU, Judgement du 17 Juillet 2008, Case C-207/07, Commission v. Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2008:428. google scholar