Founded in Paris in 1920, Gide is a leading international law firm with 12 offices spread throughout the world.
Gide is physically present in six regions of the world, with 11 offices, enabling it to act on cases globally.
26 February 2016
Brussels | Competition & International Trade
In its Grand Chamber judgment handed down on 23 February 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) observed that several aspects of the SZÉP leisure-card and Erzsébet meal-voucher schemes, which allow employers in Hungary to grant their employees in-kind benefits whilst themselves enjoying certain tax advantages, contravene EU law.
Introduced by the Hungarian government in 2011, these two schemes involved:
These restrictions entailed the immediate ousting from the Hungarian market, without warning, of a number of European operators, some of which had been present in Hungary for several decades.
The Court, ruling pursuant to infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission against Hungary, held that these schemes represented an obstacle to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
The ruling confirms that the creation of a monopoly, constitutes by definition a restriction both to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, even when the objectives pursued are social in nature, and in the present case, one that was not necessary and proportionate, as the objectives could be achieved by other less restrictive measures.
Benoit Le Bret, the partner at Gide (Brussels) who prepared the complaint against Hungary and handled the entire process that ultimately resulted in the Commission's action for failure to fulfil obligations, is delighted by this ruling: "This is an important ruling that gives hope to all entrepreneurs wishing to innovate and promote their services throughout Europe." He goes on to say that: "Europe can only be competitive against the US and emerging countries if it is able to fully develop its internal market for services. In the present context of international competition, an inward-looking policy simply does not represent a viable economic solution.”
Gide Brussels acted as counsel for the plaintiffs throughout these proceedings, with a team led by Benoit Le Bret (partner) with assistance from Diana Calciu (associate).
