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

欧盟层面公司法协调的相对缺失吸引了大量学术界的关注。以条约本身为基础的协调，涉及成员国法律的统一，以创建一个强大的内部市场。然而，这一结论的前提是可以对协调进行分类，例如根据所寻求的趋同程度或该过程的发起者（欧盟或成员国）。实际上，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进行不同的解释。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。我试图调查公司法挑战传统的协调概念的方式，以表明它是通过欧洲法院与国家立法者和法官之间的机构间“对话”偶然协调的。欧盟层面的公司法似乎被误解了。学者们将其视为监管竞争的一个领域，而非内部市场的推动者，欧盟立法者也在努力将公司法的协调保持在宪法赋予其权力的范围内。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（例如禁止达成协议和协调一致的做法）确保，在未能协调一致的情况下，成员国企业的差异化战略不会构成市场扭曲。尽管公司法和欧盟奖学金有共同的显著特点，如真正的席位、团体和事务所，但它们往往将相互联系降到最低。公司法和自由流动毫无疑问是联系在一起的。设立自由促进了公司在欧盟的流动性，从而挑战了成员国的公司治理观念。公司法规范了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企业集团的概念，这挑战了成员国内部企业集团法的概念。

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.