Home > All journals > European Energy and Environmental Law Review > 30(2) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Topi Turunen, Joonas Alaranta
European Energy and Environmental Law Review
Volume 30, Issue 2 (2021) pp. 51 – 61
https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2021006
Abstract
The case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has had a crucial impact on the development of the EU law. In particular, the role of CJEU case-law has been emphasized in relation to paradigm shifts in the EU. Currently the EU is aiming to transition to a circular economy by 2050. The drive towards a circular economy is based on the recognition that currently the world’s natural resources are used to excess and inefficiently. Waste management and in particular the regulation governing the transformation of waste back into raw materials plays an integral role in the circular economy. This article examines the CJEU case-law on the concept of waste and its implications towards circular economy from 1980s to the modern today. It shows that the case-law has had a crucial role in the development the concept of waste and the rules for excluding secondary materials from it. The article concludes that the CJEU’s powers are emphasized when a regulatory regime is in transition. Moreover, the circular economy regulatory environment is prone to generating numerous preliminary rulings. The importance of reconciling the objectives of the waste, product and chemicals regulation will be emphasized in the future. A natural continuation in the case-law would entail a gradual transition to a single regime for the regulation of materials and their flow. The CJEU could play an important role in the transition to the circular economy.
Keywords
waste, circular economy, Court of Justice of the European Union, transition, secondary raw materials, chemicals, end-of-waste, product safety
Extract
This article discusses the meaning and scope of the ‘ancillary principle’ as laid down in various provisions of the OECD, UN and US Model Tax Conventions and the Commentaries thereon, i.e. the principle according to which if, under a mixed contract, an activity is ancillary to another main one, the former transaction is to receive the tax treatment accorded to the latter. Although the ancillary principle is specifically considered in various articles of the Model Tax Conventions and the Commentaries thereon, neither the meaning of the word ‘ancillary’ nor the scope of such rule is precisely clarified. The term ‘ancillary’, in fact, takes on different meanings and, thus, has divergent scopes in the relevant provision of each tax treaty. This may eventually cause two states to understand and apply the principle in a given case differently, thus leading to situations of double taxation or non-taxation. Moreover, a far-stretched interpretation of the principle could result in an erosion of the source state’s taxing rights in favour of exclusive residence-based taxation. Lastly, despite being influenced by the need to simplify taxpayers’ obligations and to facilitate their monitoring by tax authorities, the application of the ancillary principle raises several concerns in terms of potential competitive distortions between domestic and international businesses.
Intertax