Free Movement and Antitrust Law through the lens of the CJEU: A Blueprint for Incidental Harmonisation of Corporate Laws in Europe

欧盟层面的公司法协调相对缺乏，这引起了学术界的极大关注。以条约本身为基础的协调，涉及成员国法律的趋同，以建立一个强大的内部市场。然而，这一结论的前提是，可以根据所寻求的趋同程度或进程的发起者(欧盟或成员国)对协调进行分类。在现实中，协调是一个依赖于主体的过程，必须根据所使用的立法工具做出不同的解释。它既不是一个纯粹垂直的、有意的过程，也不是一个中性的、直接的现象。我试图调查公司法如何挑战传统的协调概念，以表明它通过CJEU与各国立法者和法官之间的机构间“对话”而受到附带的协调。欧盟层面的公司法似乎被误解了。学者们将其视为一个监管竞争领域，而不是内部市场的推动者，欧盟立法者努力将公司法协调保持在宪法授权的范围内。但国内市场也围绕着基本自由展开，包括设立自由和资本自由流动。此外，欧盟竞争法的核心条款(例如禁止达成协议和协调一致的做法)确保在未能协调的情况下，成员国公司的不同战略不会构成市场扭曲。尽管有共同的显著特征，如真实的席位、集团和公司、公司法和欧盟奖学金，但它们之间的相互关联性往往会降至最低。公司法和自由流动无可争辩地联系在一起。设立自由促进了企业在欧盟的流动，从而挑战了成员国对企业治理的概念。公司法规范企业和公众之间的互动；欧盟法律关注的是允许公司资本在外国投资者之间自由流动。最后，欧盟反垄断法采用了公司集团的概念，挑战了成员国内部集团法的公司法概念。

The relative absence of corporate law harmonisation at the EU level has attracted a great deal of academic attention. Harmonisation, anchored in the Treaties themselves, is concerned with the convergence of Member States' laws for the creation of a robust internal market. However, this conclusion is premised on the assumption that harmonisation can be categorised, for example according to the degree of convergence sought or the initiator of the process (EU or Member States). In reality, harmonisation is a subject-dependent process and must be interpreted differently depending on the lawmaking instrument used. It is neither a purely vertical and intentional process, nor a neutral and direct phenomenon. I seek to investigate the ways in which corporate law challenges traditional conceptions of harmonisation, to show that it is subject to incidental harmonisation via an inter-institutional "dialogue" between the CJEU and national lawmakers and judges.Corporate law at the EU level appears to be misunderstood. Academics treat it as an area of regulatory competition rather than promoter of the internal market, and EU lawmakers struggle to keep corporate law harmonisation within the constitutional limits of its authority. But the internal market also revolves around the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of establishment and free movement of capital. Also, core provisions of EU Competition Law (ex. the prohibition of agreements and concerted practices) ensure that, failing harmonisation, diverging strategies of Member States' companies do not amount to market distortions.Despite sharing salient features like real seat, groups and a firm , corporate law and EU scholarship tend to minimise their interconnectedness. Corporate law and free movement are indisputably connected. Freedom of establishment facilitates corporate mobility in the EU, and thereby challenges Member States' conceptions of corporate governance. Corporate law regulates the interaction between businesses and the public; EU law is concerned with allowing free movement of firms' capital among foreign investors. Finally, EU antitrust law adopts a conception of corporate groups that challenges corporate law conceptions of group law within Member States.