The European Insolvency Regulation enables to coordinate recovery procedures of the group of companies within the EU member states on voluntary basis. In the matter of approval of coordinated proceeding the national rules for approval of recovery proceedings are referred. The authors therefore deal with the question whether and how it is possible to apply national legislation on decision to opt-in to coordination proceeding in the frame of Czech law. The paper also focuses on question who gives approval to opt-in and what kind of majority is needed. Furthermore there is a question raised whether the conditions for approval according to national rules should have been passed to European level of legislation. Contractual interpretation, commercial contracts, principles of interpretation, subjective interpretation, objective interpretation, contextualism, textualism, English contract law, French contract law
{"title":"Legislation Comment: Opt-In to Coordination Proceeding According to the Czech Insolvency Law","authors":"T. Moravec, Petr Valenta","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021041","url":null,"abstract":"The European Insolvency Regulation enables to coordinate recovery procedures of the group of companies within the EU member states on voluntary basis. In the matter of approval of coordinated proceeding the national rules for approval of recovery proceedings are referred. The authors therefore deal with the question whether and how it is possible to apply national legislation on decision to opt-in to coordination proceeding in the frame of Czech law. The paper also focuses on question who gives approval to opt-in and what kind of majority is needed. Furthermore there is a question raised whether the conditions for approval according to national rules should have been passed to European level of legislation.\u0000Contractual interpretation, commercial contracts, principles of interpretation, subjective interpretation, objective interpretation, contextualism, textualism, English contract law, French contract law","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45068636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: Chiara Zilioli and Karl-Philipp Wojcik (Eds.), Judicial Review in the European Banking Union","authors":"Urs B. Lendermann","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021042","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46384659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The concept of beneficial ownership originally came from dual ownership regime which allows the division of legal and beneficial ownership, serving good economic functions, i.e. protection of family property and personal privacy. However, as dual ownership structures, e.g. trust, have been abused to such an extent that the transparency now outweighs the economic values of dual ownership, at least for most developed economies of the world. The G20 High-Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency thus came into being, pushing forward an agenda for changing the law globally to make the identities of the beneficial owners transparent, with a broader term of beneficial ownership than its original use in trust law. In this paper, we argue that these Principles, made by and serving the interests of small exclusive group of developed countries, could not be applied universally as the rule-takers, i.e. developing countries, do not share the same concern as the developed world and are unwilling to counter a problem they did not consider as a priority. Under the pressure of robust review mechanisms and name-and-shame strategy deployed by FATF and relevant international financial bodies, the rule-takers are forced to make relevant changes, but the changes will just be artificial and superficial to bypass the Principles prescribed and recommended by the rule makers who are not themselves taking a serious step to implement them. Legal and beneficial ownership, money laundering, transparency, G20, developed and developing economies, divergence of priorities.
{"title":"Beneficial Ownership Transparency: The Viability of Global Implementation of G20 High-Level Principles","authors":"M. Bagheri, Jia Zhou","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021037","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of beneficial ownership originally came from dual ownership regime which allows the division of legal and beneficial ownership, serving good economic functions, i.e. protection of family property and personal privacy. However, as dual ownership structures, e.g. trust, have been abused to such an extent that the transparency now outweighs the economic values of dual ownership, at least for most developed economies of the world. The G20 High-Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency thus came into being, pushing forward an agenda for changing the law globally to make the identities of the beneficial owners transparent, with a broader term of beneficial ownership than its original use in trust law. In this paper, we argue that these Principles, made by and serving the interests of small exclusive group of developed countries, could not be applied universally as the rule-takers, i.e. developing countries, do not share the same concern as the developed world and are unwilling to counter a problem they did not consider as a priority. Under the pressure of robust review mechanisms and name-and-shame strategy deployed by FATF and relevant international financial bodies, the rule-takers are forced to make relevant changes, but the changes will just be artificial and superficial to bypass the Principles prescribed and recommended by the rule makers who are not themselves taking a serious step to implement them. Legal and beneficial ownership, money laundering, transparency, G20, developed and developing economies, divergence of priorities.","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41751168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, I consider whether the recent overhaul of French contract law via ordonnance No 2016-131 of 10 February 2016 has changed the principles of judicial interpretation of commercial contracts, and how these compare with the principles in English law. One of the questions I ask is whether the traditional dichotomy between the French subjective approach and the English objective one has been altered now that the objective principle of interpretation has been incorporated in the Code civil. I explore how both jurisdictions deal with the main aspects of judicial interpretation, such as the nature of the interpretative question and the purpose and scope of contractual interpretation. Similarities emerge that show a rapprochement between these judicial approaches. Naturally, differences persist, which reflect distinct contract law values embedded in each legal order. Even if the ordonnance No 2016-131 has only introduced in appearance small changes to the provisions relating to interpretation, French courts now have the interpretative tools to follow in the footsteps of English courts when interpreting professionally drafted commercial contracts. An emerging coalescence around an objective literal interpretation in a sophisticated business setting is to be welcomed as it enhances commercial certainty across borders. Contractual interpretation, commercial contracts, principles of interpretation, subjective interpretation, objective interpretation, contextualism, textualism, English contract law, French contract law
{"title":"Judicial Interpretation of Commercial Contracts in English and French Law: A Comparative Perspective","authors":"Catherine Pédamon","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021040","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I consider whether the recent overhaul of French contract law via ordonnance No 2016-131 of 10 February 2016 has changed the principles of judicial interpretation of commercial contracts, and how these compare with the principles in English law. One of the questions I ask is whether the traditional dichotomy between the French subjective approach and the English objective one has been altered now that the objective principle of interpretation has been incorporated in the Code civil. I explore how both jurisdictions deal with the main aspects of judicial interpretation, such as the nature of the interpretative question and the purpose and scope of contractual interpretation. Similarities emerge that show a rapprochement between these judicial approaches. Naturally, differences persist, which reflect distinct contract law values embedded in each legal order. Even if the ordonnance No 2016-131 has only introduced in appearance small changes to the provisions relating to interpretation, French courts now have the interpretative tools to follow in the footsteps of English courts when interpreting professionally drafted commercial contracts. An emerging coalescence around an objective literal interpretation in a sophisticated business setting is to be welcomed as it enhances commercial certainty across borders.\u0000Contractual interpretation, commercial contracts, principles of interpretation, subjective interpretation, objective interpretation, contextualism, textualism, English contract law, French contract law","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43834938","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The political environment of corporations has been evolving rapidly. There has been increasing pressure to hold corporations accountable for social, environmental and political aspects of the business enterprise – even the very purpose of the corporation has been challenged. The salience of corporate matters has increased overall as a result of changes in the political environment and an increasing awareness of corporate externalities. With the growing economic and political significance of corporations, corporate governance has emerged as a relevant framework for political action. These developments have affected the relationships among corporate constituencies and the boundaries of the corporate enterprise. Based on a political approach to corporate governance, this paper considers the resulting implications for the legal premises of corporate governance in an EU context. The paper argues that current corporate structures may not reflect the requirements of the rapidly evolving political environment. Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, politicization of the corporation
{"title":"Corporate Governance and Accountability in an Evolving Political Environment","authors":"Klaus R. Ilmonen","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021029","url":null,"abstract":"The political environment of corporations has been evolving rapidly. There has been increasing pressure to hold corporations accountable for social, environmental and political aspects of the business enterprise – even the very purpose of the corporation has been challenged. The salience of corporate matters has increased overall as a result of changes in the political environment and an increasing awareness of corporate externalities. With the growing economic and political significance of corporations, corporate governance has emerged as a relevant framework for political action. These developments have affected the relationships among corporate constituencies and the boundaries of the corporate enterprise. Based on a political approach to corporate governance, this paper considers the resulting implications for the legal premises of corporate governance in an EU context. The paper argues that current corporate structures may not reflect the requirements of the rapidly evolving political environment.\u0000Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, politicization of the corporation","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44706396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pensions, pension policy, and retirement provision has been historically associated with Member States alone. However, this is not so any longer. For years, occupational pension schemes have been brought within the scope of the internal market of the European Union. Extensive judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as harmonised legislation from the EU legislature have followed to improve the marketplace for work-related pensions. Today, the market freedoms are now being furthered to cover not just occupational pension schemes, but also, the private pension market. In light of such developments at EU level, including the development of pan-European Personal Pension (PEPP) products, what is evident is a significant shift in the establishment of an EU-wide private pension market, mirroring developments in the United States in what are known as ‘individual retirement accounts’ (IRAs). In light of these EU advances emanating from free movement case law and the PEPP Regulation, with effects for both individual Europeans as future retirees, and financial services undertakings as pension product providers; this article analyses the complementary aspects of both positive and negative integration in the private pension market. The article elaborately demonstrates the significant effect of legal progress, through slow-moving developments, that are collectively contributing to closing the deficit in the retirement provision of Europe’s retirees of the future. EU internal market law, EU free movement law, pension law, private pensions, national personal pension products, PPP, Pan-European Personal Pension Products, PEPP, retirement, harmonisation
养恤金、养恤金政策和退休规定历来只与会员国有关。然而，情况已不再如此。多年来，职业养恤金计划已纳入欧洲联盟内部市场的范围。欧盟法院(Court of Justice of European Union)的大量判决以及欧盟立法机构的协调立法随后改善了与工作有关的养老金市场。今天，市场自由正在进一步扩大，不仅包括职业养恤金计划，还包括私人养恤金市场。鉴于欧盟层面的这些发展，包括泛欧个人养老金(pep)产品的发展，欧盟范围内私人养老金市场的建立明显发生了重大转变，反映了美国所谓的“个人退休账户”(ira)的发展。鉴于欧盟在自由流动判例法和pep法规方面取得的这些进步，对未来退休的欧洲个人和作为养老金产品提供商的金融服务企业都有影响;本文分析了民营养老金市场正整合与负整合的互补方面。这篇文章详细地展示了通过缓慢发展的法律进步所产生的重大影响，这些进展共同有助于消除欧洲未来退休人员退休供应方面的赤字。欧盟内部市场法，欧盟自由流动法，养老金法，私人养老金，国家个人养老金产品，PPP，泛欧个人养老金产品，pep，退休，协调
{"title":"Private Pensions and EU Internal Market Law: Enhancing Retirement Provision through Harmonisation","authors":"G. Butler","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021030","url":null,"abstract":"Pensions, pension policy, and retirement provision has been historically associated with Member States alone. However, this is not so any longer. For years, occupational pension schemes have been brought within the scope of the internal market of the European Union. Extensive judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as harmonised legislation from the EU legislature have followed to improve the marketplace for work-related pensions. Today, the market freedoms are now being furthered to cover not just occupational pension schemes, but also, the private pension market. In light of such developments at EU level, including the development of pan-European Personal Pension (PEPP) products, what is evident is a significant shift in the establishment of an EU-wide private pension market, mirroring developments in the United States in what are known as ‘individual retirement accounts’ (IRAs). In light of these EU advances emanating from free movement case law and the PEPP Regulation, with effects for both individual Europeans as future retirees, and financial services undertakings as pension product providers; this article analyses the complementary aspects of both positive and negative integration in the private pension market. The article elaborately demonstrates the significant effect of legal progress, through slow-moving developments, that are collectively contributing to closing the deficit in the retirement provision of Europe’s retirees of the future.\u0000EU internal market law, EU free movement law, pension law, private pensions, national personal pension products, PPP, Pan-European Personal Pension Products, PEPP, retirement, harmonisation","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44757143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following several scandals, especially in the business sector, the European Union (EU) decided to adopt legislation on the protection of whistle-blowers. The Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law is an ambitious legal text complying with several international and European standards of whistle-blower protection. The fragmented legislative approaches of the EU member states will become more coherent as the Directive offers common minimum standards of protection. The Directive contains certain positive elements such as a clear definition for the whistle-blower or clear channels for disclosure. Nevertheless, the Directive does not address the issue of financial rewards and does not address clearly the issue of anonymity. The purpose of this contribution is to present the Directive and highlight its positive and negative elements. Due to the scarce legal literature upon this new EU legal act, this contribution is important and further research is needed. Whistle-blower, EU law, protection, culture, financial rewards, financial scandals, financial law, enforcement, channels for disclosure, ECHR
{"title":"What to Expect from the Directive on the Protection of Whistle-blowers?","authors":"Dimitrios Kafteranis","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021035","url":null,"abstract":"Following several scandals, especially in the business sector, the European Union (EU) decided to adopt legislation on the protection of whistle-blowers. The Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law is an ambitious legal text complying with several international and European standards of whistle-blower protection. The fragmented legislative approaches of the EU member states will become more coherent as the Directive offers common minimum standards of protection. The Directive contains certain positive elements such as a clear definition for the whistle-blower or clear channels for disclosure. Nevertheless, the Directive does not address the issue of financial rewards and does not address clearly the issue of anonymity. The purpose of this contribution is to present the Directive and highlight its positive and negative elements. Due to the scarce legal literature upon this new EU legal act, this contribution is important and further research is needed.\u0000Whistle-blower, EU law, protection, culture, financial rewards, financial scandals, financial law, enforcement, channels for disclosure, ECHR","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46140984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Affirmative action is a widely acknowledged phenomenon in the US, and in the context of small businesses (US counterpart to European SMEs) within public procurement it is manifested in a 23% set-aside. The purpose of affirmative action in the US is equal treatment – as is the overall purpose of EU law. However, in EU law affirmative action and equal treatment are considered somewhat opposites, for which reason there is no set-asides as such. That said, Article 67(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU provides for including social aspects in the contract award criteria, and therefore the main question of this article is whether it would be against the principle of equal treatment to use Article 67 as a basis for introducing affirmative action to promote SMEs in European public procurement? In this author’s opinion, the answer is no. EU public procurement, US government purchasing, small and medium-sized enterprises, SME, small businesses, affirmative action, sustainable procurement, principle of equal treatment, incomparable positions, Article 47
{"title":"Can Affirmative Action be Allowed in EU Procurement Law? – SMEs to be Positively Discriminated?","authors":"Dorthe Kristensen Balshøj","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021034","url":null,"abstract":"Affirmative action is a widely acknowledged phenomenon in the US, and in the context of small businesses (US counterpart to European SMEs) within public procurement it is manifested in a 23% set-aside.\u0000The purpose of affirmative action in the US is equal treatment – as is the overall purpose of EU law. However, in EU law affirmative action and equal treatment are considered somewhat opposites, for which reason there is no set-asides as such. That said, Article 67(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU provides for including social aspects in the contract award criteria, and therefore the main question of this article is whether it would be against the principle of equal treatment to use Article 67 as a basis for introducing affirmative action to promote SMEs in European public procurement? In this author’s opinion, the answer is no.\u0000EU public procurement, US government purchasing, small and medium-sized enterprises, SME, small businesses, affirmative action, sustainable procurement, principle of equal treatment, incomparable positions, Article 47","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43622281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
China is in a process of upgrading its corporate law and corporate governance regime. The reform involves a learning process of incorporating corporate governance norms from other jurisdictions. In the field of takeover rules, China’s hybrid regime is a combination of some elements from both the US model and the UK model, reflecting China’s pragmatic approach towards rule of law and legislative reform. Though flexible and pragmatic, this transplant approach without taking into account China’s own economic, social and even political scenarios is of little help to address the agency problem embedded in China’s concentrated shareholding model faced by its SOEs and family–controlled enterprises let alone the shareholder protection rules investors are keen to have. A comparative study is conducted in this article to investigate the collective action problems the Chinse takeover rules fail to address. Autonomy of sport, Private International Law, Public-private Governance, Corruption, Transnational Legal Order, Sports Economy, Legal Status of Sporting Organisations, Audit, Managerial Transparency, Economic Monitoring, International Sporting Convention
{"title":"Collective Action Problems in Chinese Takeover Rules: Deficiency and Difficulty in Protecting Target Shareholders in a Hybrid Regime","authors":"W. Shen, Colin Mengshan Xu","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021032","url":null,"abstract":"China is in a process of upgrading its corporate law and corporate governance regime. The reform involves a learning process of incorporating corporate governance norms from other jurisdictions. In the field of takeover rules, China’s hybrid regime is a combination of some elements from both the US model and the UK model, reflecting China’s pragmatic approach towards rule of law and legislative reform. Though flexible and pragmatic, this transplant approach without taking into account China’s own economic, social and even political scenarios is of little help to address the agency problem embedded in China’s concentrated shareholding model faced by its SOEs and family–controlled enterprises let alone the shareholder protection rules investors are keen to have. A comparative study is conducted in this article to investigate the collective action problems the Chinse takeover rules fail to address.\u0000Autonomy of sport, Private International Law, Public-private Governance, Corruption, Transnational Legal Order, Sports Economy, Legal Status of Sporting Organisations, Audit, Managerial Transparency, Economic Monitoring, International Sporting Convention","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46910360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This research studies the impact of the growth of the sports economy on the limitation of the autonomy of sports organisations, taking into account the driving role of the sovereign power of public orders to fight against corruption. It illustrates the idea according to which the economic governance of sport is based on the specific governance of the International Sports Movement and it verifies how and to what extent the public orders are affecting the regulatory autonomy of sport’s transnational legal orders. The study analyses, firstly, the legal status of the sporting organisations, arguing that the fundamental operational and organisational requirements of sporting organisations have international sources and transnational effects. Secondly, it considers the economic competences of sporting organisations, detecting the limits of sport autonomy due to the exercise of economic activities. Thirdly, it points up the international convergences on managerial transparency and some examples of national and international monitoring of economic activities in sporting organisations, delineating the emergence of a specific international legal framework for economic sports governance. The analysis, finally, identifies the limits of the recent developments at international level, exposing the potential role of the European authorities and the legitimate ways to justify the international limitation of the autonomy of sport. Autonomy of sport, Private International Law, Public-private Governance, Corruption, Transnational Legal Order, Sports Economy, Legal Status of Sporting Organisations, Audit, Managerial Transparency, Economic Monitoring, International Sporting Convention
{"title":"Sports Economy and Fight against Corruption: Which Limits to the Sporting Organisations Autonomy?","authors":"Antonio Di Marco","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021031","url":null,"abstract":"This research studies the impact of the growth of the sports economy on the limitation of the autonomy of sports organisations, taking into account the driving role of the sovereign power of public orders to fight against corruption. It illustrates the idea according to which the economic governance of sport is based on the specific governance of the International Sports Movement and it verifies how and to what extent the public orders are affecting the regulatory autonomy of sport’s transnational legal orders. The study analyses, firstly, the legal status of the sporting organisations, arguing that the fundamental operational and organisational requirements of sporting organisations have international sources and transnational effects. Secondly, it considers the economic competences of sporting organisations, detecting the limits of sport autonomy due to the exercise of economic activities. Thirdly, it points up the international convergences on managerial transparency and some examples of national and international monitoring of economic activities in sporting organisations, delineating the emergence of a specific international legal framework for economic sports governance. The analysis, finally, identifies the limits of the recent developments at international level, exposing the potential role of the European authorities and the legitimate ways to justify the international limitation of the autonomy of sport.\u0000Autonomy of sport, Private International Law, Public-private Governance, Corruption, Transnational Legal Order, Sports Economy, Legal Status of Sporting Organisations, Audit, Managerial Transparency, Economic Monitoring, International Sporting Convention","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48408405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：