Joint PhD defence Rebecca Ricifari

• Thursday 19 March 2026 - 10 am CET @Aula Seminari Valerio Onida, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Johan Meeusen University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Stefania Barriati (Università degli Studi di Milano)
• Joint PhD Università degli Studi di Milano & University of Antwerp
• The defence can be attended online via this MS Teams link.

Abstract

Despite the crucial role of corporate mobility in ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market, and although Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly recognize the freedom of establishment for certain – albeit not all – legal persons, the European Union still lacks a coherent, explicit, and comprehensive regime governing the law applicable to such entities. While recent legislative developments – most notably Directive (EU) 2019/2121 – have improved coordination among Member States’ legal systems, they fail to address, at least expressly and holistically, the problem of the law applicable to companies and other bodies.

 As a result, the matter remains, at least formally, governed by national private international law provisions and techniques, with the undesirable consequences this entails. Member States, in fact, not only rely on different connecting factors to determine the law applicable to companies and other entities but also disagree on which institutions fall within the scope of “company law” and should therefore be governed by choice-of-law rules on companies. All this often results in the non-recognition of companies and other entities incorporated under the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration, or principal place of business therein and in the impossibility for such entities to transfer their seat to another Member State, thereby significantly hindering cross-border corporate mobility and, hence, the effective exercise of the freedom of establishment.

Nevertheless, the very nature of the European Union legal order, along with the complex interaction between Union and national sources of law, makes it mandatory to use the adverb “formally” when affirming that the regulation of the law applicable to companies is left to national legal systems. Multiple sources of EU law directly affect – and prevail over – national law. First, the Court of Justice of the European Union has assigned to Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union a meaning that exceeds well beyond its literal function of identifying the legal persons entitled to exercise the freedom of establishment. The provision, in fact, requires Member States to recognize companies that are validly incorporated in another Member State and have their registered office, central administration, or principal place of business within the Union and to permit operations resulting in a modification of the law applicable to the entity. Secondly, the EU legislator has enacted a range of secondary law instruments that, in different ways, exert an influence over domestic conflict-of-law regimes. Indeed, on the one hand, when these instruments harmonize substantive law, they render – at least to some extent – immaterial the lingering divergences among national conflict rules. On the other hand, where they harmonize private international law in fields adjacent to company law, they define and redefine the institutions ascribable to the lex societatis.

Building on these premises, this research reconstructs the current legal framework governing the law applicable to companies within the European Union by identifying and analyzing the impact of EU law on national choice-of-law provisions concerning the law applicable to companies and other entities. Hence, first, the present study analyzes how, when, and to what extent European Union law supersedes national private international law rules and mechanisms governing the law applicable to companies. This inquiry demonstrates that, although formally, matters related to the law applicable to companies remain unharmonized, the pervasive influence of EU law considerably limits national regulatory autonomy and mitigates the impact of the consequences arising from the formal differences that still persist in Member States’ private international law regimes. This, in turn, supports the claim that a European private international law regime on the matter, to a large extent, already, de facto, exists. Secondly, the study critically assesses whether the current EU regulatory framework in this field is consistent with, and adequate to serve, the objectives of the European Union established by Treaties. Building on this latter analysis, the present study advocates for the adoption of a regulation on the law applicable to companies and other entities and examines its possible content.

Défense publique Richard Kasereka Ndekeninge

• Mardi 17 mars 2026 - 5 p.m. CET
• Directeur de thèse: prof. dr. Steven Dewulf (Université d'Anvers) et feu le professeur Koen De Feyter (Université d'Anvers)
• Si vous souhaitez assister à la soutenance, vous pouvez vous inscrire via ce lien.

Résumé

La présente thèse analyse la protection des déplacés internes, avec un focus sur leurs droits de propriété sur les biens qu’ils sont contraints de quitter, c’est-à-dire à peu près tout ce qu’ils ont comme biens matériels : logements, terres et autres propriétés. Appliquée au Nord-Kivu, en République démocratique du Congo, cette recherche ne se limite pas à l’examen du cadre juridique en vigueur, dont elle questionne l’efficacité. Grâce à une méthode ethnographique basée sur 120 entretiens semi-directifs, elle en analyse l’applicabilité – et l’application – dans ce contexte particulier, marqué par le déplacement prolongé, et où les droits de propriété sont principalement régis par des pratiques communautaires.

Pour cause de conflits armés et de catastrophes, le déplacement interne de populations touche de plus en plus de personnes dans de nombreux pays. En dépit de l’adoption en Afrique des protocoles de la CIRGL, puis de la Convention de Kampala, dont la mise en application reste par ailleurs mitigée, des instruments de soft law constituent le principal foncement de l’action des agences onusiennes et des Ongs humanitaires en faveur des déplacés internes. Tous ces instruments ont comme épine dorsale la responsabilité première de l’État concerné dans la prévention (du) et la réponse au déplacement forcé, y compris dans la mise en oeuvre des solutions durables.

À propos justement des solutions durables, il se trouve que le cadre normatif n’offre pas nécessairement les meilleures réponses. A certains égards, comme par exemple s’agissant de la primauté de la restitution des biens quittés aux PDI, il pourrait même générer ou exacerber des conflits. La question est tellement sensible et complexe qu’elle est intimément liée au processus de recherche de la paix en RDC. La réponse à y apporter devrait prendre en compte les causes profondes des conflits armés, dont la question ethnique, la réforme agraire, la gouvernance des ressources minières, voire la gouvernance tout court, la cohabitation entre éleveurs et agriculteurs, la question du Parc national des Virunga, etc. Et si les autorités congolaises ont un rôle prépondérant à jouer dans ce processus, l’appui de la Communauté internationale s’avère cruciale.

PhD defence Débora Ottoni Uébe Mansur

• Thursday 29 January 2026 - 5 p.m.
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Tarcisio Diniz Magalhaes (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law) & prof. dr. Ann Jorissen (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business Economics)
• If you would like  to attend the defence, please register via this link.​

Abstract

This thesis examines whether international profit allocation rules, as reflected in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, can be better aligned with sustainability-related societal concerns as defined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and whether alternative frameworks can operationalize such an alignment.

The analysis considers that taxation is an important tool to foster sustainability, also in the international scene. It demonstrates that while sustainability is not an objective of transfer pricing rules, both normative and positive grounds exist for incorporating sustainability-related considerations into international profit allocation. Although the SDGs are not binding on the international tax system as a whole, they exert significant normative and interpretive influence. Moreover, foundational principles of international tax allocation—such as economic allegiance and the benefits principle—are sufficiently broad to accommodate sustainability-related factors when these materially affect income generation. From a practical perspective, the thesis finds that the current profit allocation framework, grounded in the arm’s length principle and operationalized through the analysis of functions, assets, and risks (FAR), systematically allocates a disproportionate share of taxable profits to high-income jurisdictions and does not account for the social and environmental burdens associated with global production, leaving some jurisdictions fiscally undercompensated. As a result, the existing framework exacerbates global inequality, weakens the fiscal capacity of resource- and labor-providing jurisdictions, and undermines progress toward several SDGs, most notably SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The introduction of the value creation standard did not materially address these shortcomings, but rather reinforced established distributive patterns.

To address these limitations, the thesis develops three alternative frameworks that integrate sustainability-related factors into profit allocation while remaining anchored in existing transfer pricing concepts. These include: (i) an expanded recognition of location-specific advantages, including natural resource-based advantages; (ii) an adjustment of risk allocation to reflect jurisdictions’ exposure to sustainability-related internal risks; and (iii) the incorporation of negative externalities as hidden profit drivers. While these proposals cannot transform underlying market structures or fully internalize social and environmental harms, they demonstrate that profit allocation rules can be reoriented to produce more sustainability-aligned outcomes.

The thesis concludes that aligning international profit allocation with sustainability is legally permissible and practically justified, albeit inherently limited by the allocative nature of transfer pricing. Meaningful progress therefore depends on integrating transfer pricing reform within broader fiscal, regulatory, and cooperative frameworks.

Doctoraatsverdediging Charlotte Termonia De Mulder

• Donderdag 22 januari 2026 - 17 uur
• Promotoren: prof. dr. Frederik Swennen (Universiteit Antwerpen) & prof. dr. Thierry Vansweevelt (Universiteit Antwerpen)
• Indien u de verdediging wenst bij te wonen, kan u zich aanmelden via deze link.

Abstract

Ongeboren menselijk leven was de afgelopen jaren het onderwerp van publieke en parlementaire debatten; was te zien op spandoeken en verkiezingsaffiches; en werd meermaals vermeld in regeerakkoorden. De status van ongeboren leven is echter onduidelijk en de bescherming hiervan sterk gefragmenteerd. Dit blijkt uit vier toepassingen van de bescherming van ongeboren leven die in dit proefschrift worden geanalyseerd: (1) zwangerschapsafbreking, (2) totstandkoming en bestemming van embryo’s in vitro (in het kader van medisch begeleide voortplanting en embryo-onderzoek) (3) preventief en repressief ingrijpen bij prenatale schade (bv. door de uitbreiding van jeugdhulp naar ongeboren leven) en (4) doodgeboorte. De strikte dichotomie die in het Belgische recht wordt gehanteerd tussen personen en voorwerpen volstaat hierbij niet als leidraad voor een consistente en coherente benadering van de status en bescherming van ongeboren menselijk leven. In dit proefschrift worden daarom vier benaderingen beschreven en geëvalueerd die beogen een oplossing te bieden voor de, naar huidig recht, problematische, of minstens oncomfortabele, kwalificatie van ongeboren leven als voorwerp: (1) progressieve beschermwaardigheid, (2) relatieve bescherming, (3) bescherming als(of) persoon en (4) bescherming op grond van menselijke waardigheid. Deze benaderingen doorstaan de toets van consistentie en coherentie echter niet. Ieder van de vier benaderingen draagt, afzonderlijk bekeken, bij tot een conflictmodel, waarbij het eenzijdige perspectief van de benadering ertoe leidt dat de nadruk ligt ofwel op de bescherming van het ongeboren leven, ofwel op de bescherming van de ‘ouders’, in het bijzonder de zwangere persoon.

In dit proefschrift wordt een alternatieve benadering voorgesteld die dit conflictmodel overstijgt: de vermenselijking van ongeboren menselijk leven. Deze benadering is opgebouwd uit drie elementen: (1) de objectieve bescherming als stadium in de ontwikkeling van een mens op grond van de objectieve, collectieve dimensie van menselijke waardigheid (2) de (groeiende) symbolische waarde als bijna-mens in het licht van de (toenemende) associatie met de geboren mens en (3) de bescherming van ongeboren leven als onderdeel van menselijke relaties: ongeboren leven is op unieke wijze verbonden met het lichaam van de zwangere persoon en kan deel uitmaken van een beschermwaardige (familie)relatie met de ‘ouders’. De vermenselijking van ongeboren leven leidt tot een fluïde juridische status die niet eenvormig is, maar relationeel en contextgericht. Dit staat de consistentie en coherentie van deze benadering niet in de weg. De benadering biedt immers duidelijke handvatten die binnen ieder van de vier toepassingen leiden tot een consistente en coherente bescherming van ongeboren menselijk leven.

Joint PhD defence Liesa Keunen

• Thursday 8 January 2026 - 5:30 p.m.. at Hof van Beroep Gent (Koophandelsplein 23, 9000 Gent)
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Bruno Peeters (University of Antwerp), prof. dr. Sylvie De Raedt (University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Eva Lievens (Ghent University)
• Joint PhD Ghent University and University of Antwerp
  
• Please confirm your attendance via this form.

Abstract

This dissertation analyses the legitimacy of tax administrations’ information-gathering methods in light of the prohibition of fishing expeditions. In carrying out their control activities, tax administrations have traditionally relied on non-digital methods of information gathering. The arrival of digital technologies and the ongoing digitalisation, however, has increased data availability, strengthening tax control but raising concerns about data collection and taxpayer rights. The research finds that the aforementioned prohibition is interpreted as a “speculative and/or excessive expedition.” It rests on three clusters of legal grounds: fundamental rights, principles of good administration and the tax relevance criterion. Traditional information-gathering methods are legitimate only when not speculative, nor excessive. Other methods like database consultation or web scraping can be assessed by analogy. The prohibition of fishing expeditions is not applicable on methods such as reporting obligations and data mining. The dissertation recommends legislative reform, specific legal frameworks and more transparency by tax administrations.