“Fintech”: in search of a legal definition

by Carlos Goettenauer (PhD Candidate at University of Brasília)

During the last decade, the term “fintech” gained popularity and became a topic of discussion among market agents and financial regulators all around the world. The term’s origin, however, can be traced to the early 1990s, when Citigroup established the “Financial Services Technology Consortium”[1]. As with any other nascent buzzword, its meaning remains a subject of debate and controversy among many social actors. Market agents tend to associate the term “fintech” with innovations on financial systems and on so-called “market disruptions”, linking it to other common Silicon Valley tropes, such as “disintermediation” and “consumer-empowerment”. On the other hand, financial industry incumbents, and even its regulators, may wish to broaden the meaning of the term “fintech”, in order to fit all sorts of technological innovation under its umbrella. Considering its many possible meanings, it is time we ask whether there is space for a legal definition of “fintech”.

The law often plays a major role in reducing polysemy in contested expressions. Legal predictability and normative stability require terms to be precisely defined and agreed upon. This way, a legal definition (or even a statutory definition) of “fintech” would aid authorities in grounding their regulatory efforts, thus producing a more stable and predictable legal environment for both entrants and incumbents.

Continue reading ““Fintech”: in search of a legal definition”

Summaries of judgments: Ryanair DAC/Commission

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)
 ▪

Judgment from General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 February 2021, T – 259/20, Ryanair DAC/Commission

State aid – French air transport market – Deferral of payment of civil aviation tax and solidarity tax on airline tickets due on a monthly basis during the period from March to December 2020 in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic – Decision not to raise any objections – Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence – Free provision of services – Equal treatment – Criterion of holding a license issued by the French authorities – Proportionality – Article 107(2)(b) TFEU – Duty to state reasons

1. Facts

On 24 March 2020, French Republic notified the Commission of an aid scheme in the form of a deferral of the payment of civil aviation tax and solidarity tax on airline tickets due on a monthly basis during the period from March to December 2020, accordingly with Article 108(3) TFUE. This aid is designed to guarantee that the airlines holding an operating license issued in France are able to maintain sufficient liquidity until the restrictions, prohibitions on movement are lifted, and normal commercial activity is resumed. With this measure, the French Republic differs the referred tax payment until the 1 January 2021 and then spreads payments over a period of 24 months, until 31 December 2022.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Ryanair DAC/Commission”