Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T01:05:25.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The End of the Real Seat Theory (Sitztheorie): the European Court of Justice Decision in Ueberseering of 5 November 2002 and its Impact on German and European Company Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Kilian Baelz  and
Teresa Baldwin

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In a long awaited judgement delivered on 5 November 2002, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that it is incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed in Arts. 43 and 48 EC for a member state to deny a company formed in a member state which moves its central place of administration to another member states, legal capacity (and standing to sue or be sued in courts). Against the expectations of many German legal commentators and the recommendation of the Advocate General, the ECJ also held that where a company incorporated in another member state exercises its freedom of establishment in another member state, that other member state is required to recognise the company's legal capacity (and capacity to be a party to legal proceedings) which it enjoys under the laws of its state of incorporation.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 12 , December 2002 , E8
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

(1) Preliminary Ruling on a referral from the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) in the proceedings Überseering NV and Nordic Construction Company Baumanagment GmbH (Case C-208/00).Google Scholar

(2) See, Opinion of the Advocate General Colomer of 4 December 2001 in Case C 208/00.Google Scholar

(3) Cf. the discussions in Palandt (ed.), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Anh. zu Art 12 EGBGB; Münchener Kommentar, Vol. 10, 3rd ed., Einl. IPR, Nos. 149-151; Staudinger/Grossfeld, Vol. Arts. 7-12 EGBG, Part 7.3.Google Scholar

(4) See, Referral Order to the ECJ of 30 March 2000, DB 2000 1114.Google Scholar

(5) BGHZ 97, 269, 272 citing Sandrock in Festschrift für Beitzke, 1979, P. 669, 683; Staudinger/Großfeld aaO, No. 167.Google Scholar

(6) OLG Frankfurt, RIW1999, 783 citing BGH, NZG 2000, 1025.Google Scholar

(7) Cf. Facts in Decision of BGH of 1 July 2002, II ZR 380/00 discussed at 2.D. below.Google Scholar

(8) Cf. Facts in Überseering in Case C-208/00.Google Scholar

(9) See, Soergel/Lüdertz, 12 ed, Art. 10, Fn. 9 and 13.Google Scholar

(10) Soergel/Lüdertz, 12 ed, Art. 10, Fn. 4.Google Scholar

(11) Case C-212/97, ECJ, 9.3.1999, [1999] ECR I - 1459.Google Scholar

(12) Cf. Behrens, Das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Centros-Urteil des EuGH, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 1999, Volume 5, P. 323; Ebke, Das Schicksal der Sitztheorie nach dem Centros-Urteil des EuGH, Juristenzeitung, 1999, Volume 13, P. 656; Roth, Gründungstheorie, ist der Damm gebrochen?, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 1999, Volume 21, P. 861; Sandrock, Centros: ein Etappensieg für die Überlagerungstheorie, Betriebsberater, 1999, Volume 26, P. 1337; Steindorff, Centros und das Recht auf die günstigste Rechtsordnung, Juristenzeitung, 1999, Volume 23, P. 1140; Wouters, Private International Law and Companies’ Freedom of Establishment, European Business Organisation Law Review, 2001, Volume 2, P. 101; Zimmer, Mysterium Centros': von der schwierigen Suche nach der Bedeutung eines Urteils des Europäischen Gerichtshofes, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht, 2000, Volume 1, p. 23.Google Scholar

(13) II ZR 380/00.Google Scholar

(14) LG München I, 25 November 1998 (29 O 16900/97 – not published) and OLG München 21 March 2000 (25 U 2710/99 – not published).Google Scholar

(15) Case No. 81/87, The Queen v Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and GeneralTrust [1988] ECR 5483.Google Scholar

(16) Cf. Palandt/Heldrich, Anh Art. 12 EGBGB no. 6-17, with further references.Google Scholar

(17) BGH, Order of 30.3.2000 - DB 2000 1114, 1115.Google Scholar

(18) Großfeld, in Staudinger (ed.), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch Einführungsgesetz zum BGB/IPR, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht, 14 ed., Berlin 1998.Google Scholar

(19) Case C-208/00, Note 92.Google Scholar

(20) For a recent discussion of this approach, see Sandrock, “Deutschland als gelobtes Land des Kapitalgesellschaftsrechts?,” Betriebs-Berater 2002, 1601 seq. and id. “Centros: ein Etappensieg für die Überlangerungstehorie,” Betriebs-Berater 1999, 1337 seq.Google Scholar

(21) Cf. sect. 3 German Transformation of Companies Act.Google Scholar

(22) Cf. sect. 1 German Transformation of Companies Act.Google Scholar