de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
Deutsch
 
Hilfe Wegweiser Datenschutzhinweis Impressum Kontakt
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

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

MPG-Autoren
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons41207

Höpner,  Martin
Politische Ökonomie der europäischen Integration, MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society;

Volltexte (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Volltexte verfügbar
Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

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.


Zitierlink: http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0001-9EBA-C
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.