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

在欧盟层面上，公司法协调的相对缺乏引起了学术界的极大关注。协调统一立足于条约本身，涉及成员国法律的趋同，以建立一个强大的内部市场。然而，这一结论是基于这样的假设，即协调可以分类，例如根据所寻求的趋同程度或进程的发起者（欧盟或成员国）。实际上，协调是一个取决于主体的过程，必须根据所使用的立法工具作出不同的解释。它既不是一个纯粹的纵向和有意的过程，也不是一个中立和直接的现象。我试图调查的方式，公司法的挑战传统的概念的协调，以表明它是受偶然的协调通过CJEU和国家立法者和judgers.Corporate法律之间的机构间的“对话”在欧盟层面似乎被误解。学术界将其视为监管竞争的一个领域，而不是内部市场的推动者，欧盟立法者努力将公司法的协调保持在宪法规定的权限范围内。但内部市场也围绕着基本自由，包括建立自由和资本自由流动。此外，欧盟竞争法的核心条款（例如，禁止协议和协调做法）确保了，如果协调失败，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倾向于最大限度地减少它们的相互联系。公司法和自由流动是无可争议的联系。设立自由促进了欧盟公司的流动性，从而对成员国的公司治理概念提出了挑战。公司法规范企业与公众之间的互动;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.