European company law and corporate governance

This page is also available in

Udvalgets udtalelse: European company law and corporate governance

Key points:

The EESC

  • does not agree with the arguments put forward by the Commission to justify this proposal. It does not consider the introduction of a minimum penalty within the EU to be justified, and feels that the expected "deterrent effect" of such a measure is debatable.
  • would point out that the proposal for a directive actually establishes a comprehensive arsenal for enforcing legislation against counterfeiting; this would appear to go beyond that which is authorised under Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
  • questions the need for such an approach to law enforcement and doubts that it would be effective inasmuch as, even if a minimum penalty were set, sentencing would still be subject to differences of interpretation depending on the legal traditions of Member States and judges' discretion.
  • The EESC finds it regrettable that the proposal for a directive does not take sufficient account – as required under Article 82(2) TFEU – of the differences between legal traditions and systems, not least in terms of its impact on individual rights and freedoms.
  • The EESC feels that the intent behind the action is a key consideration that the proposal for a directive does not properly highlight in its recitals.
  • feels that the draft directive needs to specify that the investigative tools used for organised crime should be used only for the most serious offences.

Other relevant EESC opinions:

For more information please contact the INT Section Secretariat