Abstract This chapter discusses Art 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (Recast) on the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of a Member State. It covers exclusive jurisdiction relating to immovable property, companies, entries in public registers, intellectual property rights, and enforcement of judgments.
Bankkosten und Bankpreise im Massengeschäft In dem Aufsatz wird die Bedeutung der Kostenrechnung für die Preissetzung mit einem neuartigen Argument untersucht. Es wird gezeigt, daß der in der bisherigen Literatur, zumal der zur Bankkostenrechnung, durchgängig behauptete Gegensatz zwischen der theoretisch richtigen Teilkosten- rechnung und der angeblich praktisch unvermeidbaren Vollkostenrechnung auflösbar ist. Der Aufsatz beginnt mit dem ausführlichen Nachweis, daß die seit dem 1.4.1980 geltende neuartige Gebührenpolitik der Dresdner Bank, die zu unterschiedlichen Preisen (Gebühren) für verschiedene Zahlungsverkehrsleistungen geführt hat, zwar als vollkostenrechnerisch motiviert erscheint, daß sie sich aber auch als eine konsequente und originelle Anwendung teilkostenrechnerischen Denkens deuten läßt. Die anhand der Fallstudie vorgeführten Überlegungen werden in der zweiten Hälfte des Aufsatzes verallgemeinert. Der Nachweis der Bedeutung der Kosten für rational gesetzte Preise stützt sich auf die Überlegung, daß Preise Kundenreaktionen auslösen, die außer Erlöswirkungen auch Kostenwirkungen haben. Sinnvollerweise sind daher Preise unter Berücksichtigung der Kostenwirkungen zu bestimmen. Sie sind insofern kostenabhängig. Wenn Banken (und andere Unternehmungen) aufgrund ihrer Marktstellung generelle Offerten machen müssen, sind die dabei relevanten Kosten nicht die der individuellen Leistung, sondern die der Gesamtheit aller abgesetzten Leistungen. Damit löst sich der Gegensatz zwischen Voll- und Teilkostenrechnung auf: Einzelkosten müssen nicht für Einzelleistungen, sondern für die generelle Offerte ermittelt und berücksichtigt werden. Und weil die Kosten- und Erlöswirkungen der Preissetzung für eine Art von Leistungen häufig davon abhängen, welche vergleichbaren Leistungen von demselben Anbieter zu welchen Preisen angeboten werden, muß der Sortimentsverbund explizit berücksichtigt werden: Die Preise für alle (Zahlungsverkehrs-)Leistungen müssen simultan so gesetzt werden, daß die Preise des ganzen Sortiments die gewünschten kostensenkenden Kundenreaktionen auslösen. Darauf zielt nach unserer Vermutung die neue Gebührenpolitik der Dresdner Bank ab
Abstract Bank resolution is key to avoiding a repetition of the global financial crisis, where failing financial institutions had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money. It permits recapitalizing banks or alternatively winding them down in an orderly fashion without creating systemic risk. Resolution measures, however, suffer from structural weakness. They are taken by States with territorially limited powers, yet they concern entities or groups with global activities and assets in many countries. Under traditional rules of private international law, these activities and assets are governed by the law of other States, which is beyond the remit of the State undertaking the resolution. This paper illustrates the conflict between resolution and private international law by taking the example of the European Union, where the limitations of cross-border issues are most acute. It explains the techniques and mechanisms provided in the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) Regulation to make resolution measures effective in intra-Eurozone cases, in intra-EU conflicts with non-Euro Member States and in relation to third States. However, it also shows divergences in the BRRD's transposition into national law and flaws that have been uncovered through first cases decided by national courts. A brief overview of third country regimes furthermore highlights the problems in obtaining recognition of EU resolution measures abroad. This article argues that regulatory cooperation alone is insufficient to overcome these shortcomings. It stresses that the effectiveness of resolution will ultimately depend on the courts. Therefore, mere soft law principles of regulatory cooperation are insufficient. A more stable and uniform text on resolution is required, which could take the form of a legislative guide or, ideally, of a model law. It is submitted that such a text could pave the way for greater effectiveness of cross-border resolution.
Resumen: En los últimos años la Comisión Europea ha planteado la propuesta de implementar una norma general que permita que los documentos e inscripciones en registros oficiales de un Estado Miembro de la Unión Europea sean reconocidos por los Tribunales y Autoridades públicas de los otros Estados Miembros. Esta denominada norma de reconocimiento trae consigo varias ventajas, entre ellas que permite evitar relaciones claudicantes, disminuye la burocracia y aumenta la seguridad jurídica entre los Estados miembros. Pero sobretodo, el mayor beneficio que aporta el reconocimiento es la posibilidad de reemplazar parcialmente el complejo método del Derecho internacional privado. En contraste, la iniciativa de que también se reconozcan automáticamente situaciones jurídicas que no hayan sido registradas en documentos públicos no parece viable. Palabras clave: reconocimiento, documentos públicos, inscripciones en registros, armonización europea e internacional, Derecho internacional privado. Abstract: In the past few years the European Commission has proposed to implement a rule that allows official documents and registrations in the official records of a EU Member State to be recognized by courts and public authorities of other Member States. This rule of recognition offers several advantages, including that it avoids limping relationships, reduces bureaucracy and increases legal certainty between Member States. Another benefit provided by this rule of recognition is the possibility of partially replacing the complex method of determining the choice of law. In contrast, the further suggestion to introduce a framework that automatically recognizes mere legal situations that have not been registered in public documents or registers does not seem viable. Keywords: recognition, public documents, entries into public registers, European and international harmonization, Private international law. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2016.3258
Section I: The Broad Picture1 Is the European Union going to help us overcome the COVID-19 crisis (Danny Busch)2 COVID-19 and European banks: no time for lawyers (Wolf-Georg Ringe)3 The COVID-19 crisis and financial regulation (Eddy Wymeersch)4 Culutral reforms in Irish banks. Walking the walk during the COVID-19 pandemic (Blanaid Clarke)5 Mothballing the economy and the effects on banks (Matthias Lehmann)Section II: Fiscal Response6 European economic governance and the pandemic: Fiscal crisis management under a flawed policy process (Christos Hadjiemmanuil)7 What recovery fund for Europe? For a dedicated equity line for business, and sound fiscal policy (Marco Lamandini, Guido Ottolenghi & David Ramos Muñoz)8 The EU fiscal response to the COVID-19 crisis and the Banking sector: risks and opportunities (Luis Silva Morais)Section III: Banking Regulation9 Global pandemic crisis and financial stability (Filippo Annunziata & Michele Siri)10 Blancing macro- and micro-prudential powers in the SSM during the COVID-19 crisis (Bart P. M. Joosen)11 The application of the EU banking resolution framework amidst the pandemic crisis (Christos V. Gortsos)12 Lending activity in the time of coronavirus (Concetta Brescia Morra)Section IV: Capital Markets Regulation13 Emergency measures for equity trading: the case against short-selling bans and stock exchange shutdowns (Luca Enriques & Marco Pagano)14 Restrictions on Shareholder's Distribution in the COVID-19 Crisis: Insights on Corporate Purpose (Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi & Claudio Frigeni)
This article seeks to reestablish academic interest in cooperative law. It is driven by the motive to narrow the gap between the importance of cooperatives in practice and their relatively benign place in legal research. In order to kick-start a comparative and interdisciplinary debate on the subject, some fundamental points are made that are indispensible for any discussion. First and foremost, the notion of the cooperative is explained in order to differentiate it from other phenomena. The contribution criticizes any understanding that is linked to a peculiar societal model. In particular, it is shown that cooperatives can neither be claimed as fiefdoms by the socialist or anti-globalisation movements nor should be considered as a panacea for the shortcomings of the capitalist world. Instead, it suggests to adopt an economic viewpoint and to consider the cooperative as a particular type of governance mechanism that is appropriate in some instances because it is apt to solve specific problems. The article discusses what these problems are and how this governance mechanism is used to solve them. Starting on the basis of the Rochdale Principles, some important features of cooperative governance are highlighted. Finally, a research agenda is set out. It is hoped that academics as well as practitioners will be inspired by this contribution to endeavor their own studies on cooperatives.
