MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287322648

Case Annotation, Case C-326/07, Commission of the European Communities V. Italian Republic, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009, Nyr.

2010· article· en· W2287322648 on OpenAlexaff
Martha O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyDeclarationEconomic JusticeLawDivestmentCommissionPolitical scienceCapital (architecture)State (computer science)VotingLaw and economicsBusinessEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade, the Court of Justice has had to resolve a number of legal issues arising from the efforts of Member States to divest themselves of publicly owned enterprises, and at the same time retain some control over the ownership or activities and decisions of such enterprises, or prevent the acquisition of control of such companies by investors that they consider to be undesirable. The case discussed in this annotation is the latest in a series of these rulings, known as the “golden share” cases, in which the Commission has sought a declaration that a Member State’s control of management decisionmaking, voting, or other powers over a private company’s destiny restricts a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty, and now the TFEU. There are, however, important new statements by the Court in Case C-326/07 that shift the evaluation of golden share measures from the free movement of capital (Art. 56(1) EC – now Art. 63(1) TFEU) to the right of establishment (Art. 43 EC – now 49 TFEU). The implications of such a determination are especially significant in relation to the third country dimension of the free movement of capital.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207