Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT
  Curbing Negative Integration: German Supervisory Board Codetermination Does Not Restrict the Common Market: Case C-566/15 Konrad Erzberger v. TUI AG, EU:C:2017:562

Höpner, M. (2018). Curbing Negative Integration: German Supervisory Board Codetermination Does Not Restrict the Common Market: Case C-566/15 Konrad Erzberger v. TUI AG, EU:C:2017:562. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, (published online July 3). doi:10.1177/1023263X18773052.

Item is

Basisdaten

einblenden: ausblenden:
Genre: Zeitschriftenartikel

Dateien

einblenden: Dateien
ausblenden: Dateien
:
mpifg_zs18_0307.pdf (beliebiger Volltext), 187KB
 
Datei-Permalink:
-
Name:
mpifg_zs18_0307.pdf
Beschreibung:
Full text
OA-Status:
Sichtbarkeit:
Privat (Embargo bis 2019-04-30)
MIME-Typ / Prüfsumme:
application/pdf
Technische Metadaten:
Copyright Datum:
-
Copyright Info:
-
Lizenz:
-

Externe Referenzen

einblenden:
ausblenden:
externe Referenz:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X18773052 (Verlagsversion)
Beschreibung:
Full text via publisher
OA-Status:
externe Referenz:
http://intranet/bib/PuRe/Article/mpifg_zs18_0307.pdf (beliebiger Volltext)
Beschreibung:
Internal link
OA-Status:

Urheber

einblenden:
ausblenden:
 Urheber:
Höpner, Martin1, Autor           
Affiliations:
1Politische Ökonomie der europäischen Integration, MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society, ou_1856345              

Inhalt

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Schlagwörter: Social Europe, Codetermination, European market freedoms, Negative integration, Territoriality principle
 Zusammenfassung: TUI v Erzberger is a landmark decision on the normative meaning and scope of the fundamental freedoms. Mr Erzberger complained that the territoriality principle as the linking factor of German supervisory board codetermination violates European law. He argued that lack of voting rights among the employees of foreign subsidiaries was in violation of the ban on discrimination in Article 18 TFEU. He further argued that the possible loss of voting rights when domestic employees move across borders within the same company group makes the move less attractive and therefore violates the free movement of workers in Article 45 TFEU. The Appeals Court Berlin referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled that the German regulation does not violate European law. The ruling went further than should have been necessary in order to reject the plaintiff’s legal view. It stated, first, the legality of the territoriality principle as the linking factor of national labour law as long as no European secondary law rules otherwise. Second, the Court raised fundamental insights about the telos of Article 45 TFEU and stated that its purpose is not to neutralise the heterogeneity of the social regulations of the Member States.

Details

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Sprache(n): eng - English
 Datum: 2018-07-03
 Publikationsstatus: Online veröffentlicht
 Seiten: 14
 Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
 Inhaltsverzeichnis: -
 Art der Begutachtung: Expertenbegutachtung
 Identifikatoren: DOI: 10.1177/1023263X18773052
 Art des Abschluß: -

Veranstaltung

einblenden:

Entscheidung

einblenden:

Projektinformation

einblenden:

Quelle 1

einblenden:
ausblenden:
Titel: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Genre der Quelle: Zeitschrift
 Urheber:
Affiliations:
Ort, Verlag, Ausgabe: -
Seiten: - Band / Heft: (published online July 3) Artikelnummer: - Start- / Endseite: - Identifikator: ISSN: 1023-263X
ISSN: 2399-5548