We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
1 See point (1) of Council Regulation of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), 2001 O.J., (L 294) 1.Google Scholar
2 Report on the implementation of the European Charter for small enterprises, 13 February 2003, Com (2003) 21 final/2; Report on the implementation of the European Charter for small enterprises in the candidate countries for accession in the European Union, 21 January 2003, SEC (2003) 57, 1.Google Scholar
3 Id.Google Scholar
4 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe, 4 November 2002, 1, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/report_de.pdf Google Scholar
5 Id. at 27.Google Scholar
6 Boucourechliev, European Perspectives: Initiatives in Favour of a European Law Company, 1 (1999) at http://www.creda.ccifr/colloque/13spe/13-04aspdf Google Scholar
7 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21 May 2003, COM (2003) 284, 6, at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar
8 Council Regulation No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Group, 1985 O.J. (L 199) 1.Google Scholar
9 Council Regulation No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company, 2001 O.J. (L 294) 1, Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 Supplementing the Statute for a European Company with Regard to the Involvement of Employees, 2001 O.J. (L 294) 22.Google Scholar
10 Council Regulation No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society, 2003 O.J. (L 207), 1, Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, 2003 O.J. (L 207) 1.Google Scholar
11 For an account of the legislative history and the final scope of the SE, see Teichmann, 4 German L. J. No. 4, 309 (1 April 2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=259.Google Scholar
12 Orgalime, Creation of a European Private Company – Position Paper, 24 October 2002, available at http://www.orgalime.org/positions/epc.htm; Helms, Die Europäische Privatrechtsgesellschaft 11 (1998).Google Scholar
13 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21 May 2003, COM (2003) 284, 21, at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar
14 Community guidelines on State aid to SMEs, 1992 O.J. (C 213) 2.Google Scholar
15 Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (1996/280/EC), 1996 O.J. (L 107) 4: as of 1 January 2005 this Recommendation will be replaced by Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC), 2003 O.J. (L 124) 36 and the Ecu will be replaced by Euro.Google Scholar
16 Drury & Hicks, The Proposal for a European Private Company, in The Journal of Business Law 436 (1999): In France and in Germany internal company law developments aimed at increasing flexibility by introducing a new and supple form or by making existing forms less rigid, ex. “Société par actions simplifiées” in France, “Kleine Aktiengesellschaft” in Germany.Google Scholar
17 Boucourechliev, supra note 6, at 3.Google Scholar
18 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe, 13 (2002) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/report_de.pdf Google Scholar
19 Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 26) 1.Google Scholar
20 See Art. 9 of the Council Regulation on the Statute for a European company; Kübler, Leitungsstrukturen der Aktiengesellschaft und die Umsetzung des SE-Statuts, in: ZHR 222, 224 (2003) speaks of nine levels.Google Scholar
21 Drury & Hicks, supra note 16.Google Scholar
22 Id.Google Scholar
23 Id.Google Scholar
24 Id.Google Scholar
25 Propositions Pour Une Societe Fermee Europeenne (Boucourechliev ed., 1997).Google Scholar
26 European Commission, A modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe – A consultative document of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/1_en.htm Google Scholar
27 Helms, supra note 12, at 105; Drury/Hicks, supra note 16.Google Scholar
28 First Directive 68/151/EEC, 1968 O.J. (L 65) 8.Google Scholar
29 Third Directive 78/855/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 295) 36.Google Scholar
30 Helms, supra note 12, at 126-127; Drury/Hicks, supra note 16, at 441: But the provisions of a minimum capital has not always the effect of providing any sort of guarantee that the business is sufficiently capitalised to protect third parties dealing with it.Google Scholar
31 Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 26) 1.Google Scholar
32 Drury & Hicks, supra note 16, at 448: This was one of the most difficult and pressing problems connected with the project.Google Scholar
33 Helms, supra note 12, at 142.Google Scholar
34 ECJ Case C-167/01, 48 AG 680 (2003); English version available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html; see the comments by Erich Schanze & Andreas Jüttner, Die Aktiengesellschaft 661 (2003); Maul, Silja, 58 BetriebsBerater 2297 (2003); Kersting, Christian & Schneider, Clemens Philipp“ 4 German L.J. 1277 (1 December 2003), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=344 Google Scholar
35 The Anglo-American countries followed this approach. See Lüdertz, in Soergel, Kommentar zum BGB, (12th ed. 1992), Art. 10, annotations 9, 13.Google Scholar
36 This approach was respected in Germany, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, Spain, Portugal, Greece. See Id. at Art. 10, annotation 4.Google Scholar
37 Kindler in Münchener Kommentar, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht para. 312 (1999); GRoßfeld in Staudinger, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht para 20, 26 (1998).Google Scholar
38 Kindler, supra note 37, at para. 256; Großfeld Großfeld, supra note 37, at para. 20, 22.Google Scholar
39 Behrens, Die grenzüberschreitende Sitzverlegung von Gesellschaften in der EWG, 9 IPRax 354 (1989); Knobbe-Keuk, Umzug von Gesellschaften in Europa, 154 ZHR 325 (1990); Ulmer, Schutzinstrumente gegen die Gefahren aus der Geschäftstätigkeit inländischer Zweigniederlassungen von Kapitalgesellschaften mit fiktiven Auslandsitz, 54 JZ 662 (1999).Google Scholar
40 Case C-167/01, Inspire Art, in: 48 AG 680, 683 (2003).Google Scholar
41 Case C-81/87, Daily Mail, 1988 E.C.R. I – 5483.Google Scholar
42 See for a comprehensive discussion, Halbhuber, Limited Company statt GmbH? (2001); see National Doctrinal Structures and European Company Law, 38 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1385 (2001); see also Ebke, Centros – Some Realities and Some Mysteries, 48 Am. J. Com L. 623 (2000).Google Scholar
43 Case C-212/97, Centros, 1999 E.C.R. I – 1459.Google Scholar
44 See Halbhuber and Ebke, supra, note 42.Google Scholar
45 Case C-208/00, Überseering, 2000 E.C.R. I – 9919. See, e.g., the comments by Bälz & Baldwin, The End of the Real Seat Theory (Sitztheorie): the European Court of Justice Decision in Überseering of 5 November 2002 and its impact on German and European Company Law, 3 German L.J. No 12 (2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.phd?id=214; Mock, Harmonization, Regulation and Legislative Competition in European Corporate Law, 3 German L.J. No 12 (2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.php?id=216; Behrens, Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Überseering-Urteil des EuGH und den Schlussanträgen zu Inspire Art, 193 IPRax (2003); Wymeersch, , The Transfer of the Company's Seat in European Company Law, ECGI Law Working Paper N°. 08/2003 and CMLR 2003 (40), 661.Google Scholar
46 See Bälz & Baldwin, supra note 45; see also Wooldridge, Überseering: Freedom of Establishment of Companies Affirmed, 14 European Business Law Review [EBLR] 227 (2003); Roth, , From Centros to Ueberseering: Free Movement of Companies, Private International Law, and Community Law, 52 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 177 (2003).Google Scholar
47 Questions concerning the freedom of establishment of companies have always been both a central and controversial area of Community law.Google Scholar
48 See Kersting & Schindler, The ECJ's Inspire Art Decision of 30 September 2003 and its Effects on Practice, 4 German L.J. No 12, 1277 (2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol04No12/PDF_Vol_04_No_12_1277-1291_Privat_Kersting_Schindler.pdf Google Scholar
49 Schanze & Jüttner, Kollisionsrecht und Gesellschaftsrecht nach „Inspire Art“, 48 AG 661, 663 (2003).Google Scholar
50 Id.Google Scholar
51 Case C-167/01, 48AG 680 (2003).Google Scholar
52 See Inspire Art, supra note 40.Google Scholar
53 See Bayer, Die EuGH-Entscheidung “Inspire Art” und die deutsche GmbH im Wettbewerb der europäischen Rechtsordnungen, 58 BB 2357 (2003); Ziemons, , Freie Bahn für den Umzug der Gesellschaften nach Inspire Art?, 42 ZIP 1913 (2003); Wachter, , Errichtung, Publizität, Haftung und Insolvenz ausländischer Kapitalgesellschaften nach Inspire Art, GmbHR 1254 (2003): arguing to the contrary.Google Scholar
54 Großerichter, Ausländische Kapitalgesellschaften im deutschen Rechtsraum: Das deutsche Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht und seine Perspektiven nach der Entscheidung „Überseering“,169 DStR 159 (2003).Google Scholar
55 Diego, Gemeinschaftsrechtskonformität mitgliedstaatlicher Reglementierungen des Wettbewerbs der Gesellschaftsrechtsordnungen in der EG, 6 JURA 400, 401 (2004).Google Scholar
56 Forsthoff, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht im Umbruch, DB 979, 981 (2003).Google Scholar
57 Boucourecheliev, supra note 6.Google Scholar
58 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21.05.2003, COM (2003) 284, 8, 9, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar
59 Nagel, Wirtschaftsrecht der Europäischen Union, 4. Auflage 338 (2003).Google Scholar
60 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe, 2002, 113, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/report_de.pdf Google Scholar
61 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border mergers of companies with share capital, 18.11.2003, Com (2003) 703 final.Google Scholar
62 Id.Google Scholar
63 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21.05.2003, COM (2003) 284, 21, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar
64 Hulle, Van & Maul, , Aktionsplan zur Modernisierung des Gesellschaftsrechts und Stärkung der Corporate Governance, 33 ZGR 484, 501 (2004).Google Scholar
65 Drury, & Hicks, , supra note 16, at 451: “… the European Private Company could become the corporate vehicle of first resort and a familiar feature of our common company laws in the next century.”Google Scholar
66 Id. at 448-449: One aim of the EPC proposal was to keep it as simple as possible, not to go in for over-regulation and to end up with an enormous statute.Google Scholar
You have
Access
