Magánjogi Tudományok Intézete

Permanent URI for this community

https://krepozit.kre.hu/handle/123456789/446

Browse

Browsing Magánjogi Tudományok Intézete by Author "Korom Ágoston"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    A TAGÁLLAMOK FISKÁLIS HATÁSKÖREINEK GYAKORLÁSA SORÁN HOZOTT DÖNTÉSEINEK FELÜLVIZSGÁLATA AZ EUB GYAKORLATÁBAN
    (Budapesti Gazdasági Egyetem, Kereskedelmi, Vendéglátóipari és Idegenforgalmi Kar, 2022) Szuchy Róbert; Korom Ágoston
    A tagállamok fiskális hatásköreik gyakorlása során adókat szednek be, illetve gazdasági szereplőknek támogatásokat nyújtanak. A tagállamok e területen nem élveznek korlátlan mozgásteret, gyakran előfordul, hogy egy gazdasági szereplőnek nyújtott támogatás vagy beszedett adó nem felel meg az uniós jog kritériumainak. Ilyen esetekben főszabályként, különösen a belső piaccal összeegyeztethetetlen támogatás esetén, az adókat, és a támogatásokat is vissza kell téríteni. E főszabály alól jelent kivételt, ha az adott döntés jogerőre emelkedett, ilyen esetben az uniós jog nem követeli meg a kérdéses döntések felülvizsgálatát. Azonban e kivétel nem minden esetben alkalmazható, valamint a belső piaccal összeegyeztethetetlen támogatásokra speciális szabályok vonatkoznak. E dolgozatban azt vizsgáljuk, hogy mely esetekben kell eltekinteni a tagállami jogerős döntésektől. Jelentős állami támogatások visszafizetése, vagy éveken át befizetett adók utólagos visszafizetése komoly befolyást gyakorolhat a gazdasági szereplők, valamint a tagállamok költségvetésére is.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission
    (Mádl Ferenc Összehasonlító Jogi Intézet, 2021) Korom Ágoston
    The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Korom, Ágoston The European Union’s Legal Framework on the Member State’s Margin of Appreciation in Land Policy: The CJEU’s Case Law After the “KOB” SIA Case
    (Central European Academic Publishing, 2022) Korom Ágoston
    Several studies and scientific workshops have considered the member states’ rules—within the framework of EU law—on the ownership and use of agricultural and forest property, taking into account that this area is significant not only for the member states that acceded after 2004, such as Hungary, but also for the founding members. These examinations have focused on the public interests acknowledged by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), such as the preservation of the rural population; the promotion of small and middle-sized, livable properties; and the easing of the speculative pressure on the land market, which should be achieved in practice without compromising EU law—especially its fundamental freedoms. This characteristic of the CJEU’s relevant case law primarily led to the application of the free movement of capital; nevertheless, the CJEU’s judgment in the “KOB” SIA case resulted in a significant change in this area, which is the main subject of the current examination.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Requirements for the cross border inheritance of agricultural property:
    (CEDR - Magyar Agrárjogi Egyesület, 2022) Korom Ágoston
    Regulation 650/2012/EU does not substantially affect the powers of Member States with regard to the inheritance of agricultural property, but Member States are not exempted from the EU control mechanism on fundamental economic freedoms in this area. Article 345 of TFEU, according to settled practice, prevails as private autonomy which, in principle, may not extend to national rules on the succession of agricultural property. Most of the CJEU decisions in this area concern to inheritance duties, where the CJEU exercises special control. The practice developed by the CJEU in the case of other real estate operations in the Member States may apply to the rules of the Member States on the succession of agricultural real estate, taking into account that, in addition to the free movement of capital and property rights guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter, in the legal developments in the KOB Sia case the freedom of establishment and Directive 2006/123 may be applied in certain circumstances.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Subsidies granted to economic operators and sanctions within the scope of the CAP – Different treatment in terms of the EU regulation and the implementation by Member States?
    (2021) Szuchy Róbert; Korom Ágoston
    The aim of the article is to examine the decisions made by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) regarding the irregularities affecting the subsidies granted to economic operators under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) through the detailed examination of the National Farmers’, the Hofmeister and the Belgisch Interventie cases. The main finding of the study is that the economic operators have a fine chance of success in relying on the general principles of EU law in relation to atypical regulations if they believe that the sanctions applied against them do not comply with the requirements implied in the general principles.