On 28 June 2014, the Faculty of Law of the University of Sarajevo hosted a workshop entitled ‘Collective Redress in South-East Europe’, organised by the Law Faculties of the Universities of Sarajevo and Zagreb with the financial support of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The workshop gathered law professors from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. The guest of honour was Ms Diana Wallis, President of the European Law Institute (ELI). Collective redress is a relatively new topic among lawyers in South-East Europe. While certain countries of the region have horizontal legislation on collective redress, legislators in other countries still hesitate to introduce this mechanism, ‘replacing’ it with different forms of organisational claims. Even in countries that introduced a collective redress mechanism, decisional practice is quite scarce. The novelty of the collective redress mechanism in the region of South-East Europe, as well as its relevance in the European Union, especially given the recent initiatives of the European Commission, incited the organisers to arrange this exchange of views between researchers from South-East Europe and the European Union.

The shadow banking system is the one that conducts credit, maturity and liquidity transformation outside regular banking mechanisms. Chinese practices largely fit into this concept. However, unlike their foreign peers, Chinese shadow banking institutions have been intertwined into a complex whole and have achieved credit intermediation usually through wealth management products, often using the problematic asset-pool model. They are also substantially influenced by the unique political economic dynamics in China, such as the rigid financial licensing regime and credit policy control. Both the supply and demand ends of funding have provided those activities with new features, for instance, the P2P lending marketplaces and local government financing vehicles. Chinese government agencies have interplayed responsively and proactively with the market via rulemaking and enforcement, in particular recently, with the aim to fix loopholes, level the playing field and limit regulatory arbitrage. However, further efforts are imperative in order to develop moderate and appropriate regulation and draw clearer legal boundaries.

This paper seeks to analyse the ruling (hereinafter: the Essent ruling) handed down by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) on 22 October 2013 on the compatibility with EU law of Dutch legislation concerning ownership unbundling in the electricity and natural gas sectors. The ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 63 TFEU (free movement of capital) and Article 345 TFEU.

The paper starts by briefly outlining the developments in the EU energy market since the 1990s and the contents of the Dutch legislation at issue. This is followed by a short description of the factual background to the cases and the preliminary questions. The analysis then shifts to three important legal issues. The first is the interaction between Article 345 TFEU and the free movement rules. The second is the dividing line between purely economic interests and overriding reasons in the general interest. A final issue to be touched upon is that of so-called ‘gold plating’, i.e., the situation in which the requirements laid down in the implementing legislation of a Member State go further than those set out in relevant EU directives.

Globalisation requires a competition law regime since this is an important element of the overall state economic policy. For countries in the developing world that are facing globalisation, a sound framework of competition law is crucial for solving the problems of private restraints on trade, such as boycotts against foreign firms, and of economic concentration. In particular, competition law plays a prominent role in ensuring that the rule of law is followed in a competitive market in modern society. This article discusses the issues arising in the development of the Korean economy and competition law, as an example of success in the progress of competition policy, and suggests proposals for further development.

The Nordic countries have traditionally cooperated in different legislative areas, although lately to a lesser extent. The experience with Nordic company law development illustrates particularly well the problems related to harmonisation. Although the difficulties were alleviated by the fact that the harmonisation programme took place on a small scale, with few countries involved and with large similarities in the cultural, social and political environment, many goals could not be achieved. The EU, with its current 28 Member States and their differences, in similar respects, has faced and will continue to face far greater problems. The Nordic countries, and knowledge of their history in this respect, can provide some guidelines for possible solutions regarding harmonisation.

Despite the cooperation in company law, the Scandinavian countries have adopted different regulatory strategies because of political and other factors. Significant differences can be seen in the extent and type of regulation used, but also between countries that use one law for regulating companies and those that use, or have used, separate laws for the regulation of private and public companies. Small company regulation is a highly topical issue in view of the Commission proposal for the SPE.

In conclusion, knowledge of the Nordic countries and their history in harmonisation and small company regulation can provide valuable information for possible solutions.

This paper focuses critically on European conflicts and insolvency law – examining and evaluating the relationship between the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation. The Regulations are founded on the notion of judicial cooperation in civil matters linked to maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. The paper asks whether these high-minded ideals have been achieved in practice. It also asks whether the recent recasting of the Jurisdiction and Judgments Regulation, and the proposals for revision of the Insolvency Regulation will improve the situation. The paper concludes that the ideals have not quite been achieved and the reform proposals provide only a partial solution.