Home > All journals > European Review of Private Law > 28(2) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Ole Hansen, Clement Salung Petersen, Vibe Ulfbeck
European Review of Private Law
Volume 28, Issue 2 (2020) pp. 333 – 374
https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2020017
Abstract
Private governance can be defined as the phenomenon of private actors pursuing public goals and interests in the exercising of traditional state functions in the forms of rulemaking, implementation and dispute resolution. Private governance in these three ‘columns’ can have different sources and can be either ‘state driven’ or ‘market driven’. Whereas implications of private governance have to some extent been explored in public law, this article analyses the legal implications in private law and suggests a specific systematic approach. As examples, we focus on the supply chain as a market driven private governance system and the private provision of universal services as a state driven private governance system. The analysis shows how such private governance systems pose an immense challenge to the existing doctrines of private law and create considerable legal uncertainty. The analysis also leads to two more precise findings: (1) a private law analysis can benefit from focusing on the interplay between private governance in the three columns, and (2) the implications in private law seem to be of a different nature in the market driven as compared to the state driven private governance systems analysed.
Extract
Neutrality
and proportionality are two features of the European VAT that often come into
play when judiciary is requested to rule on alleged frauds to the tax.
According to the well settled case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
the right to deduct VAT can’t
be granted when such a fraudulent operation occurs. In the EN.SA. case, to the opposite, the Court rules that
neutrality is to be preserved even when the operation invoiced did not actually
take place, if very specific circumstances are met: namely, that no loss for
the national budget occurred, that the company invoiced was not actually planning
to erode its tax liability for VAT purposes and that the non-existent operation
was simulated for other commercial purposes (not directly affecting the tax
due). This conclusion is made possible making the principles of proportionality
(and reasonableness) to prevail over a mechanical application of the tax that
would otherwise prevent the right to deduct the tax charged.