Repository logo
 

FD - Working Papers / Preprints

Permanent URI for this collection

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Between shared and unique constitutional traits: the portuguese constitutional tradition
    Publication . Botelho, Catarina Santos
    Ten years after the entry into force of the “identity clause”, densified by the Lisbon Treaty (2009), we should reflect on its exact extent (Article 4, § 2 TEU). The principle of the respect of the national identities of Member States conveys that European political integration cannot annihilate national state’ minimum core of political and constitutional self-determination. My point is that, whatever the scholarly stance adopted, ‘national identity’ should be understood as a cluster-concept that assembles a myriad of identities, such as cultural, linguistic and social identities or political, or economic ones. ‘Constitutional identity’ is a legal concept open to many interpretations. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) endeavored to clarify it, without success. In other situations, the ECJ has plainly avoided the subject, preferring other routes of argumentation. Does ‘constitutional identity’ mean the specific constitutional traits of each state, such as having a written or unwritten constitution, being a republic or a monarchy, the system of government, the protection of a State’s official national language, and the extension of the right’s catalog? Or does it have something to do with the cultural context in which a constitution operates? As a given constitutional identity is fluid, it can never be fully acknowledged in the present time. In some sense, it is always partially revealed, and it can evolve. Since ‘constitutional identity’ captures the “core or fundamental elements or values of a particular member state’s constitutional order” or ‘the individuality or essence of an order”, we wonder: Is ‘constitutional identity’ a constitution inside the constitution and, therefore, immune to change?
  • Company’s cross-border transfer of seat in the EU after cartesio
    Publication . Sousa, António Frada de
    This paper analyses the present state of affairs of companies’ cross-border mobility in the EU after the ECJ’s judgment in Cartesio. This judgment is subject to an in-depth critical examination in light of the preceding case-law of the Court on companies’ freedom of establishment. Departing from Cartesio the paper enters into the debate about the adoption of new harmonization measures designed to remove the existing barriers on companies’ cross border mobility in the internal market that result from the divergent and deep rooted Member States’ companies’ private international law rules. The paper critically assesses the non-EU legislatives initiatives regarding the adoption of the long awaited 14th company law directive on the crossborder transfer of registered office. It argues that such a harmonization measure should now be finally adopted allowing companies to transfer their registered office alone from one Member State to another. That legal instrument must, in any event, respect the boundaries of the ‘abuse of law’ put forward by the Court in Cadbury Schweppes in the context of the exercise of the community right of establishment by companies in the EU.