The Treaties lay down the rules for the functioning of the EU institutions. The EU was founded on a number of treaties, and its enlargement and development were underpinned by treaty agreements between Member States. “Territorial expansion” is described by Scott as the practice that allows the EU to “regulate activities that are not centred on EU territory and that shape the direction and content of international and third country law.” I described “rule transfer” as “a means or procedure by which EU legislation is adopted in the legal systems of third countries” and showed how EU rules move abroad and are adopted. Read more Our lawyers support multinationals and trade associations in the fields of food, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, cosmetics and food supplements in the EU and its 28 Member States. We provide cross-border policy advice to gain and maintain market access, anticipate government actions, advise on licensing and filing strategies, and work with trade associations, consultants and government officials. Many large multinational pharmaceuticals, bio and medical devices turn to our group for help with compliance issues at European manufacturing sites related to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) as well as EU drug safety/pharmacovigilance, quality system regulations and clinical trials in the EU. Our EU life sciences lawyers have experience in matters of interest to the European Commission, including the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW), the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANTE), the Commission`s Legal Service and other official EU bodies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Agency for Scientific and Scientific Affairs Committee on Consumer Products. The EU regulatory practice in life sciences is part of Sidley`s global life sciences practice, providing integrated, high-quality legal services to meet the needs of our clients worldwide. Recently, AG Hogan`s statement was published. The opinion raises a number of questions and underlines the importance of the case. A key question to be answered is whether the promotion of nuclear energy as a central objective of the Euratom Treaty (Euratom) is an objective capable of justifying State aid. However, the opinion raises other questions.
As Fernando Pastor-Merchante brilliantly explains, the opinion proposal has quite fundamental implications. It could remove Article 107(3)(c) TFEU from the Commission`s toolbox for designing state aid in the EU. It would limit the Commission`s competence by giving Member States carte blanche to grant State aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The Commission`s discretion would be considerably reduced and only the possible effects on competition and trade within the internal market would be examined. Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without the need to transpose them into national law. They are binding in their entirety for all EU countries. The EU`s legal bases are the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which were adopted unanimously by the governments of the 27 Member States. New members can join if they agree to abide by the rules of the organization, and existing members can leave in accordance with their “own constitutional provisions.” [6] Citizens have the right to participate in the drafting of EU legislation through the Parliament and their national governments. The Commission has the legislative initiative, the Council of the European Union represents the governments of the Member States, Parliament is elected by European citizens, while the Court of Justice is supposed to uphold the rule of law and human rights. [7] As the Court stated, the EU is “not only an economic union”, but must “ensure social progress and work for the continuous improvement of the living and working conditions of its peoples”.
[8] Competition law has been seen as an essential element of the “social market economy” since the Treaty of Rome. Its main objectives are to prevent abuse of dominance by monopolies by prohibiting and potentially disrupting operating practices, to prevent anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions, and to criminalize cartels or collusive practices by independent enterprises. According to the Court and the prevailing opinion, the law aims to protect “an effective competitive structure in order to improve consumer welfare and social welfare, with the aim of full employment and social progress, as well as a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment”. [355] The scope of EU competition law is essentially limited in three respects: first, it ensures that only “companies” are regulated. This includes all for-profit corporations, but the Court proposes that it be limited to companies that “carry on an economic activity”. [356] The “economic” test suggests that organizations based on the principle of solidarity and not for profit are generally exempt from competition law. [357] Workers and unions are completely outside the scope of competition law,[358] since labour is not a commodity and labour sellers inherently have unequal bargaining power compared to businesses and employers. [359] Second, trade between Member States must be affected at least to an “appreciable” extent.
[360] Third, the law promotes fair competition, not unfair “predatory competition”. Thus, in Meca Medina and Majcen v Commission, the Court held that the rules of the International Olympic Committee and the International Swimming Federation prohibiting drugs fall entirely outside the scope of competition law. While drugs can increase competitiveness, the “integrity and objectivity of competitive sport” is more important. [361] Thus, the central role of competition law is to regulate the unequal bargaining power of private for-profit enterprises[362] rather than to interfere with the provision of public services, the collective action of social groups or sound regulation of the economy. If a Member State has laws or practices that directly discriminate against imports (or exports within the meaning of Article 35 TFEU), this must generally be justified under Article 36.