|
A. Gkoutzinis, European Banks and the Cross-border Provision of Services via the Internet: Commercial Pracitces and Regulatory Concerns, J. of Int’l B. Reg., Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 222.
A. M. Corcoran & T. L. Hart, The Regulation of Cross-border Financial Services in the EU Internal Market, Colum. J. of Euro. L., Spring, 2002, p. 266.
E. Lomnicka, The Home Country Control Principle in the Financial Services Directives and the Case Law, Euro. Bus. L. Rev., Sep./Oct. 2000, p. 324.
See C-33/74 Van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging, ECR 1299; C-2/74 Jean Reyners v. Belgian State, ECR 631.
See C-233/94 Germany v. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, ECR I-2405, para. 127.
本文第三部分将详细分析有关共同利益例外规则的问题。
A. Gkoutzinis, Cross-border Electronic Banking Activities in the Single European Market and the Normative Value of Home Country Supervision, J. of Int’l B. Reg., Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 85.
See A. Gkoutzinis, Cross-border Electronic Banking Activities in the Single European Market and the Normative Value of Home Country Supervision, J. of Int’l B. Reg., Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 85.
A. M. Corcoran & T. L. Hart, The Regulation of Cross-border Financial Services in the EU Internal Market, Colum. J. of Euro. L., Spring, 2002, p. 236.
例如，欧盟框架性金融服务指令都强调，指令的有关规定仅仅为各成员国金融服务监管制度设定了最低标准，成员国可以针对本国金融机构制定更加严格的监管标准。
A. Gkoutzinis, Cross-border Electronic Banking Activities in the Single European Market and the Normative Value of Home Country Supervision, J. of Int’l B. Reg., Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 85.
A. Gkoutzinis, Cross-border Electronic Banking Activities in the Single European Market and the Normative Value of Home Country Supervision, J. of Int’l B. Reg., Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 92.
C-25/88 Criminal Proceedings v. Wurmser, ECR 1105, para. 18.
Directive 77/780/EEC, Recital (10).
Directive 77/780/EEC, Recital (3).
E. Lomnicka, The Home Country Control Principle in the Financial Services Directives and the Case Law, Euro. Bus. L. Rev., Sep./Oct. 2000, p. 324.
M. Hoskins, EEC Banking Law: Plugging the Gaps, J. of Int’l B. L., 1992, p. 57.
C-120/78 Rewe-Zentral v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, ECR 649. 这是一个关于货物自由流动的案件。原告系一家德国企业（Rewe-Zentral），拟从一家法国企业（Cassis de Dijon）进口一种法国利口酒。被告德国联邦酒类产品垄断管理局（Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein）允许进口这种酒，但禁止其在德国销售，理由是德国《酒类产品垄断法》第100条第3款规定了利口酒的最低酒精含量标准，而Cassis de Dijon生产的这种酒并未达到上述标准。原告不服，向德国财政法院（Hessisches Finanzgericht）提起诉讼，后者遂请求欧洲法院就德国法律的上述规定是否符合《罗马条约》第30条和第37条的规定作出预先裁决（preliminary ruling）。欧洲法院判决认为，德国法律中有关货物自由流动的限制性措施并不符合公共利益的要求。
|
