The ECJ, Volkswagen and European Corporate Law: Reshaping the European Varieties of Capitalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 23 October 2007, the European Court of Justice handed down its much-awaited Volkswagen decision (Case C-112/2005), following a suit launched by the Commission against the Federal Republic of Germany in 2005. The Volkswagen statute, through which first the Federal government together with the Land (federal state) of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), later only Lower Saxony, had reserved a veto against majority acquisition while only holding a fifth of all shares, had come into the Commission's purview as part of its large-scale attempts at reforming and modernizing European company law. The preparatory steps in that regard had been the suits brought by the Commission with regard to other, 'golden share' provisions under Portuguese, French, Belgian and English company laws in recent years. Yet, the Volkswagen decision of the ECJ is of interest in more than one respect. Not only does it constitute a continuation and further accentuation of a line of argument that the Court has been unfolding over past few years with regard to the Member State provisions in conflict with the EC's guarantee of the free movement of capital as laid down in Art. 56 EC. In addition, the impact of the ECJ's new ruling will have to be assessed in the context of a high-powered regulatory field, in which member states, the Commission, and the Court have been finding themselves in an ongoing negotiation and contestation of historically grown company law regimes and the pressures of globalizing capital markets. In that regard, the Volkswagen decision raises a host of questions relating to the Commission's future agenda of corporate governance reform on the one hand and the persisting differences among member states' corporate law regimes on the other. The following article lays out the Court's reasoning, before observing both the immediate and the more long-term effect of the decision.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".