Abstract
Part II of the Industry Act 1975 confers upon the Secretary of State for Industry a number of powers in relation to the transfer of control of important manufacturing undertakings to persons not resident in the United Kingdom.
For the first part of this article, see 15 C.M.L. Rev. 1978, 9–34.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For a fuller account, see Sharpe, The Industry Act 1975, Ch. 4.
E.g. s. 13 (1), (2), (3), (4) (a), (b).
S. 12 (3) provides that (a) control of a body corporate consists of the right to cost 30 per cent or more of the votes at a general meeting: (b) control of a body corporate having control of another body corporate gives control of the latter.
S. 18 (2).
S. 15 (4). See infra, p. 119.
S. 13 (1). The order may include incidental or supplementary provisions which appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
S. 15 (1).
S. 17.
The power is thus confined to changes occurring after the publication (as distinct from the enactment) of the Industry Bill.
S. 13 (2). Incidental or supplementary provisions which appear necessary or expedient may be included in the order for other matters which may be covered by visiting orders, see s. 16.
S. 14.
S. 15 (3).
S. 15 (4).
S. 19 (1).
Provision is made for the settlement by arbitration of disputes arising in connection with a vesting order or a compensation order. See S. 20 and Schedule 3 to the Act.
This provides inter alia, that “... any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section” (including s. 2 (1) which provides for the recognition and enforcement of “All such rights... from time to time created... under the Treaties... as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect... in the United Kingdom...”). For a particularly subtle analysis of the way in which the Act brings Community Law into force in the United Kingdom, while allowing it to remain true to its own nature, see Mitchell, Kuypers and Gall, 9 C.M.L. Rev. 1972, 134.
Case 167/73, Commission v. French Republic (1974) E.C.R. 359.
Ibid, at 372.
Ibid, at 373. Commons on the Industry Bill, 22 April 1975, cols. 962–970, and by Lord Lovell-Davies during the House of Lords report stage, 5 August 1975, cols. 1577–1584.
See statements by Mr Meacher in Standing Committee E of the House of
See note 15, 15 C.M.L. Rev. 1978, p. 13, and the statement by Mr Kaufman at 894 HC Deb. cols. 1347–8, which is discussed in detail infra p. 126–128.
Case 2/74, (1974) E.C.R. 631. See also Case 71/76, Thieffry, (1977) E.C.R. 765.
The Act of Accession made no transitional arrangements in relation to the right of establishment.
The direct effect of Art. 53 was first recognised by the Court in Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL (1964) E.C.R. 585.
O.J. Spec. Edn., 2nd series, IX p. 8. Cf. Art. 3 of the Convention on the Mutual Recognition of Companies and Bodies Corporate.
See the discussion in Kapteyn and Verloren van Themaat, Introduction to the Law of the European Communities (London, Deventer, Alphen, 1973) p. 219.
(1974) E.C.R. at 650.
Case 33/74, (1974) E.C.R. 1299 at 1316.
See s. 13 (1).
See s. 13 (2).
E.g. Case 152/73, Sotgiu (1974) E.C.R. 153.
Case 33/74, Van Binsbergen, (1974) E.C.R. 1299; Case 39/75, Coenen (1975) E.C.R. 1547.
E.g. criteria based on a person’s place of birth or residence.
(1977) E.C.R. 765.
(1977) E.C.R. 1199.
Cf. the cases relating to the provision of services. On the more qualified nature of the freedom to provide services, as opposed to the right of establishment, see Bronkhorst, 12 C.M.L. Rev. 1975, 245 et seq.
See note 16, 15 C.M.L. Rev. 1978, p. 13.
Ss. 11–20 of the Act.
The point was reiterated by Lord Lovell-Davies in almost identical terms to those used by Mr. Kaufman: loc. cit. note 15 supra at col. 1583.
Similar advice had been given to Mr. Meacher: loc. cit. note 15 supra, at col. 968.
It may be necessary that the subsidiary should not be merely a “brassplate” company but one having an effective and continuous link with the economy of the Member State concerned: see p. 122 supra.
J.O. p. 921/1960.
S. 21 (2). See Sharpe, op. cit. n. 96, Ch. 5, for a full discussion of Planning Agreements and their evolution.
See Rederiaktiebolaget Amphitrite v. R. [1921] 3KB 500.
Parliamentary Under Secretary, Industry Bill 1975 HC Deb. Standing Committee E col. 1248.
E.g. concerning the pig production subsidy. See note 30, 15 C.M.L. Rev. 1978, p. 17.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1978 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dashwood, A., Sharpe, T. (1978). The Industry Acts 1972 and 1975 and European Community Law. In: Kapteyn, P.J.G., Ehlermann, CD., Simmonds, K.R., Winter, J.A. (eds) Common Market Law Review. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3273-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3273-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-2068-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-3273-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive