Free movement of services is one of the most important freedoms of the internal market of the European Union. The primary provisions concerning that freedom were included in the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, but unfortunately this sphere of economy was not fully liberalized by the end of the 1980s. The implementation of three other freedoms creating the internal market of the EU pushed the regulatory and liberalisation process in the service industry. Freedom to provide services is linked with other freedoms: especially free movement of persons and capital. Elimination of border control in the EU is one of the most substantial steps towards an integrated European market in terms of not only labour market, but services as well. It helped service providers to cross the border within the EU without any additional administrative or legal obstacles, what makes their services available EU wide. On the other hand, due to the elimination of passport control many customers can go to other Member States and buy services from service providers form other Member States. It increases the value of intra-trade in services within the internal market of the EU. Moreover, creation of the economic and monetary union forced EU politicians and decision-makers to implement free movement of capital, what was a basis for the introduction of free movement of financial services. According to the research outcomes one may state that the freedom to provide services is extremely important to EU entrepreneurs. In terms of value, the flow of services within the EU is bigger in comparison to external service trade of the EU, Japan or the US. It means that EU entrepreneurs are much more interested in offering their services within the EU internal market. It is worth underlining that the three subsequent enlargements in 1995, 2004 and 2007 had the biggest, the most substantial and positive impact on intra-EU services trade. It seems that the services directive, implemented partially and with many derogations and the directive on posted workers limiting the economic activities of service-providers had a much smaller effect on the internal market of services within the European Union, as it was foreseen.s
Wpływ na handel między państwami członkowskimi UE jest jednym z elementów definicyjnych pojęcia pomocy państwa w rozumieniu art. 107 ust. 1 TFUE. W toku rozwoju judykatury TSUE wykładnia tego warunku ewoluowała. Orzecznictwo stopniowo poświęca jej ocenie więcej uwagi, doprecyzowując znaczenie oraz (nieznacznie) zawężając jej zakres. Ocena spełnienia warunku wpływu na handel wewnątrzunijny stosowana przez TSUE opiera się na analizie podażowej strony rynku — otoczenia konkurencyjnego beneficjenta pomocy. W innym kierunku rozwija się praktyka decyzyjna Komisji. W licznych decyzjach uznawała ona, że środek wsparcia nie stanowi pomocy państwa, ponieważ nie wpływa na handel między państwami członkowskimi UE. Komisja kierowała się tu przede wszystkim argumentem lokalnego zakresu działalności beneficjenta pomocy. Takie podejście, odnoszące się do oceny popytowej strony rynku, choć wprost niesprzeczne z orzecznictwem TSUE, nie znajduje w nim oparcia.
EN
The effect on trade between Member States is considered as one of the elements of the notion of State Aid within the meaning of art. 107 (1) TFEU. In the course of the development of the caselaw of the CJEU, the interpretation of this condition has evolved. The EU courts gradually devote more attention to its analysis, clarifying its meaning and even (slightly) narrowing its scope. Assessment of the condition on the effect on intra-EU trade, as applied by the CJEU, focuses on the supply side of the market — the competitive environment of the beneficiary of aid. The Commission’s decision-making practice develops in a different direction. In numerous cases the Commission held that a measure does not constitute State Aid due to lack of effect on intra-European trade. The Commission has based this approach on the argument of the local scope of the activity of a beneficiary. This approach, based on the assessment of the demand side of the market, though not directly contradictory to the case-law of the CJEU, finds no support in it.
Artykuł stanowi głos w dyskusji toczącej się w związku z opublikowaniem przez Komisję Europejską w grudniu 2015 roku dokumentu „Europejska strategia w dziedzinie lotnictwa” będącą w założeniu próbą wprowadzenia kompleksowej wizji rozwoju branży. Praca przedstawia zagadnienia związane z postrzeganiem interesu konsumentów jako jednej z determinant rozstrzygnięć postepowań z zakresu prawa konkurencji dotyczących koncentracji linii lotniczych i współpracy między przewoźnikami. Prezentowane jest stanowisko uznające potrzebę istnienia spójnego standardu oceny tytułowego kryterium dla wspomnianych rodzajów postepowań i postulujące uzupełnienie strategii dla lotnictwa o ten element.
EN
This article seeks to contribute to the discussion that surrounds the European Commission’s Aviation Strategy for Europe issued in 2015. The Strategy was heralded as an attempt to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for the air transport sector. The paper focuses on the “consumer interest” criterion, as one of the factors taken into account in antitrust and merger cases. The presented line of inquiry postulates the creation of a cohesive interpretation standard of “consumer welfare” for both antitrust and merger control proceedings and advocates its inclusion into the newly-created aviation strategy.
W warunkach globalnej konkurencji na rynku transportu lotniczego kontrola subsydiowania sektora jest zagadnieniem kontrowersyjnym. Warunkiem koniecznym jest z jednej strony istnienie politycznej woli uregulowania kwestii, a z drugiej – stworzenie praktycznie efektywnego mechanizmu kontroli i egzekucji. Można argumentować, że sama istota prawa międzynarodowego uniemożliwia wprowadzenie rozwiązań wystarczająco efektywnych, rozwiązujących problem zaburzenia konkurencji w wyniku subsydiowania niektórych przedsiębiorstw branży. Publiczne finansowanie portów lotniczych, które bywa uznawane za nienależne wsparcie dla przewoźników operujących z danego obiektu stanowi szczególnie referencyjny przykład powyższych trudności. Niniejszy artykuł zawiera analizę możliwości wprowadzenia prawnomiędzynarodowej kontroli pomocy pośredniej, gdzie realnym beneficjentem jest nie tylko adresat środka. Rozważania prowadzone są z perspektywy Unii Europejskiej w kontekście umów bilateralnych zawieranych między UE a państwami trzecimi, dotyczącymi kontroli subsydiów.
EN
The issue of subsidies control in the global air transport market is a controversial one. In order to regulate this sphere, both political consensus of the States involved as well as an effective enforcement mechanism is required. One may even say that the very nature of public international law precludes the introduction of sufficiently effective measures that would prevent competition distortion as a result of subsidization. Public financing of airport infrastructure, which could be considered as granting undue advantage to airlines operating from that hub, serves as a prime example of the above challenges. This paper provides a feasibility analysis of the introduction of a system of international control of indirect subsidies – measures where the recipient is not the sole beneficiary of the aid. The analysis is conducted through the lens of the European concept of State Aid, as introduced in the international agreements between the EU and non-member States.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 provides for the need to include initiatives such as “Smart Villages” in territorial development strategies. An explanation is needed for the purposes of constructing and implementing this element of the strategy. The research undertaken for this purpose started with a structural analysis, which showed, among other things, that the terms smart village and smart villages occur in about 100 legal acts and its preparatory documents of the European Union from the period between 2015 and 2021. A general definition of smart village as a concept that aims to develop services through digital technologies and better use of knowledge, for the benefit of inhabitants and businesses, is provided in a 2017 Commission document. Although a later opinion of the European Committee of the Regions, proposed replacing this term with smart rural areas; both phrases appear in the most recent documents. A contextual analysis of the 2020 and 2021 acts and documents shows expanded common elements of the smart village and smart city concepts compared to the original ones. This provides justification to the search for theoretical support in publications on smart cities, which, in addition to the opportunities and benefits, also points to the need to strengthen personal data protection and cybersecurity.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.