FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL: GOLDEN SHARES NOT CONTRARY TO EU LAW, SAYS ADVOCATE-GENERAL.

Commission pours cold water on Opinion.The Commission's immediate reaction was to dismiss the significance of the Opinion. A spokesman for EU Internal Market Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, claimed the Opinion has "no implications whatsoever" for the Commission's liberalisation policy. Neither would it influence the Commission in deciding whether to launch infringement proceedings against Italy for trying to stop Electricite de France buying into Italian utility Montedison. Nor would it affect its ongoing investigation into the German Lower Saxony Region's hold over Volkswagen. The Commission is "studying the Opinion carefully" but "waiting for the definitive judgement" before commenting in detail.Non-discriminatory investment restrictions allowed?Advocate-General Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer focused on the structure of shareholdings and the organisation of privatised companies in the field of strategic economics. He examined the principle of "golden shares" (administrative authorisation formalities, privileged shares, nominations) in terms of obstacles to free movement it may represent for non-nationals. According to his Opinion, a Portuguese law of 1990 is contrary to EU law because it discriminates against non-Portuguese EU citizens.However, a Portuguese Decree of 1993 and the French and Belgian laws do not explicitly discriminate between nationals and non-nationals. The Advocate-General reaffirms Article 295 of the Treaty, which says "The Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership". He notes that this provision was inserted by "the father of Europe" Robert Schuman. He adds that the Member State are entitled to impose certain economic policy goals, which differ from the maximum profit motive that characterises private sector activity.The Advocate-General says golden shares are in accordance with this principle of neutrality. As long as they apply equally to nationals and non-nationals, they are not per se contrary to the Treaty. It is only the concrete implementation of the national regulations, which could be go against the Treaty. Therefore, he recommends that the Court of Justice validate the three national laws in question.--The Role of the Advocate-GeneralThe Advocate-General assists the Court of Justice by delivering Opinions on how the Court of Justice should, in his view, resolve the case before it...