1 Fietz, in: GmbHR 321 (2007).Google Scholar

2 Accessible at www.eurparl.europa.eu/registre/recherche through “advanced search” in the document type “texts adopted” as of 1 February 2007; in this text, see also the reference to almost identical draft of the European Parliament legal committee with the exception of the co-determination passages.Google Scholar

3 Reproduced in Vorschläge für eine Europäische Privatgesellschaft (Boucourechliev/Hommelhoff eds., 1999), 281 (mainly in the area of creditor protection). See also the revised version by Christoph Teichmann, in European Company Law 279 (2006).Google Scholar

4 Accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/epc/index_de.htm Google Scholar

5 See, supra, note 2.Google Scholar

6 In its judgement of 2 May 2006(Rs. C-436/03, Coll. 2006, I-3733), the European Court of Justice [ECJ] specified this provision as the legal basis for companies of Community law; see hereto Christoph Teichmann, Binnenmarktkonformes Gesellschaftsrecht, (2006), at 192; in contrast, see PeterChristian Müller-Graff, Rechtsgrundlagen im Gemeinschaftsrecht für die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, in Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 289, 294 (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001), who suggests to resort to Art. 95 EC as the legislative basis.Google Scholar

7 See already Hommelhoff, Peter, Die “Société fermée européenne” – eine supranationale Gesellschaftsform für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Europäischen Binnenmarkt -, in Wertpapiermitteilungen [WM] 2102 (1997), at 2102–3; see further Steinberger, Christian, Die Europäische Privatgesellschaft – Schaffung einer europaweiten Gesellschaftsform für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Binnenmarkt, BetriebsBerater [BB] 7 (2006), at 28 with figures in note 16 (drawing on the experience of the Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau [VDMA])Google Scholar

8 See, supra, note 4 at 4 under II.Google Scholar

9 Statement of 31 October 2007 at the occasion of the EU consultation on the European Private Company, accessible at www.dihk.de through the link “Recht und Fairplay” on the “DIHK-Positionen zu Gesetzesvorhaben” in answer to Question 1 to the EU CommissionGoogle Scholar

10 Id., see the answer to Question 3.Google Scholar

11 In comparison see Brandi, Axel, Diskussionsbeitrag Einsatzmöglichkeiten einer EPG und ihre Akzeptanz in der mittelständischen Wirtschaft, in: Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 79 (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001) after consultation of a number of medium-size enterprises in east Westphalia; see also Harald Kallmayer, Einsatzmöglichkeiten einer EPG im Konzern, ibid., at 84Google Scholar

12 Specifically on the assessment of the engineering company VDMA, see Steinberger, , supra, note 7, at 28; in comparison see also Peter Hommelhoff, in Festschrift für Peter Doralt, 201, 202 (Kalss, Nowotny & Schauer eds., 2004).Google Scholar

13 See the DIHK Statement, supra, note 9 in the answer to Question 3.Google Scholar

14 See supra, note 4 in the answer to (1) II at 4.Google Scholar

15 In detail Robert Gutsche, Die Eignung der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen in Deutschland (1993) summarized at 239; consult also Teichmann, supra, note 6 at 273 with further references in footnote 249 of the text; for an emphatically positive contrasting view, although not fully convincing, see Heribert Heckschen, Die SE als Option für den Mittelstand, in: Wirtschaftsrecht. Festschrift für Westermann, 999 (Rainer, Albertz & Eberhard eds., 2008).Google Scholar

16 SE Statute recital 13 sentence 2 (OJ EC of 10 November 2001, L 294/1), also reproduced in Hans-Werner Neye, Die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft, 265 (2005); see also Françoise Blanquet, Das Statut der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft (Societas Europaea). Ein Gemeinschacftsinstrument für die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit im Dienste der Unternehmen, ZGR 20 (2002), at 52.Google Scholar

17 C-208/00, Coll. 2002, I-9947 “Überseering“; see also Teichmann, supra, note 6 at 89.Google Scholar

18 In the government bill (MoMiG) § 4a GmbHG new version, a German Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Limited Liability Corporation) (GmbH) is also able to seek permission to move its registered office abroad (details Hofmann, ZIP 2007, 1581). The transfer of registered office, according to established judgements, still involves the dissolution of the company (for a critical view of this consult C. Teichmann, supra, note 6 at 171). A solution may be provided in the soon to be anticipated codification of international company law: see Hans-Werner Neye, Casenote on a decision by the Oberlandesgericht [OLG] (Higher Regional Court) Munich of 4 October 2007), in: EwiR, 716 (2007).Google Scholar

19 See Hommelhoff, , supra, note 12 at 204; Steinberger, supra, note 7 at 29–31; Oliver Vossius, Die Europäische Privatgesellschaft – Societas Europaea Privata, EWS 438 (2007), at 440.Google Scholar

20 See Radwan & Arkadiusz European Private Company and the Regulatory Landscape in the EU - An Introductory Note, 18 European Business Law Review 769, 771 (2007); Steinberger, supra, note 7 at 29.Google Scholar

21 See Vossius, supra, note 19 at 440.Google Scholar

22 See Steinberger, supra, note 7 at 28; see also Brandi, supra, note 11 at 81.Google Scholar

23 Supra, note 4, see (1) III at 5 (Model A and B).Google Scholar

24 DIHK Statement, supra, note 9 at 4 in answer to Question 7.Google Scholar

25 In detail Hans-Jürgen Hellwig, Zum Einsatz einer EPG als Jointventure, in: Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 89 (Hommelhoff & Helms eds., 2001); see also Brandi, , ibid., at 81.Google Scholar

26 This description is known to come from Wiedemann, Herbert, Unternehmensrecht und GmbH-Reform, in Juristenzeitung [JZ] 592 (1970), at 596.Google Scholar

27 This idea was also the basis of the European Private Company (EPC) Draft Regulation of the CCIP/CNPF Working Group, supra, note 3, Preamble at 282.Google Scholar

28 On company law freedoms see the seminal book by Fritz Rittner, Die werdende juristische Person (1973) at 248.Google Scholar

29 On the protection of individuals and minorities see supra, note 4, section II at 4; on commercial co-determination of employees, see supra, note 4, section II at 6.Google Scholar

30 See supra, note 4, in answer to section (2) IV see Question 11 at 12; most of the companies asked did not answer, see DIHK Statement, supra, note 9, section IV at 5.Google Scholar

31 Teichmann, supra, note 6 at 328 correctly sees the grant of legal personality as the key to the integration of a supra-national legal form into the legal systems of the Member States.Google Scholar

32 Peter Hommelhoff, supra, note 7, at 2104.Google Scholar

33 This solution is suggested by Vossius, supra, note 19 at 443, for further discussion.Google Scholar

34 For the legal position under German law, see the “TRIHOTEL” decision by the Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] (Federal Court of Justice - FCJ), published in GmbHR 927 (2007), at 931, where the FCJ applies the valid fundamentally preventative “Basisschutzkonzept“ (Base Protection Concept) of §§ 30, 31 GmbHG and thereby rejects to “lift the veil” which would in many cases be extremely excessive and would seriously undermine the basis for the GmbH legal form.Google Scholar

35 This is recommended by the European Parliament. Hereto, see the commentary by Hommelhoff, in Festschrift für Priester, 251(2007)], however, with mediating compromises.Google Scholar

36 See Röhricht, Volker, Insolvenzrechtliche Aspekte im Gesellschaftsrecht, in ZIP 505 (2005), 514; see the decision by the BGH, published in GmbHR 927 (2007), at 929 [16] with further references.Google Scholar

37 See the report by Veil, Rüdiger, Kapitalerhaltung. Das System der Kapitalrichtlinie versus situative Ausschüttungssperren, in Das Kapital der Aktiengesellschaft in Europa, 92 (Lutter ed., 2006), 96–113; Joost, in: Die GmbH-Reform in der DiskussionSondertagung der, Gesellschaftsrechtlichen Vereinigung, 46 (Peter Behrens, Peter Hommelhoff & Detlev Joost, eds., 2006).Google Scholar

38 Supra, note 35.Google Scholar

39 Supra, note 11.Google Scholar

40 Such a combination is recognized in USA and New Zealand law, see Veil, supra, note 37 at 96.Google Scholar

41 The DIHK Statement is more open on this, supra, note 9, in answer to Question 12.Google Scholar

42 See the Consultation Paper, supra, note 4, in answer to Question (1) III at 5.Google Scholar

43 On creditor protection by insolvency law in England see Bachner, Thomas, Gläubigerschutz durch Insolvenzrecht in England, in Das Kapital der Aktiengesellschaft in Europa, 526 (Lutter ed., 2006).Google Scholar

44 See for example, the discussion on the approach to protection of (deemed capital) shareholder loans: Huber/Habersack, GmbH-Reform: Zwölf Thesen zu einer möglichen Reform des Rechts der kapitalersetzenden Gesellschafterdarlehen, in BetriebsBerater [BB], 1 (2006); Mathias Habersack, Gesellschafterdarlehen nach MoMiG: Anwendungsbereich, Tatbestand und Rechtsfolgen der Neuregelung, in ZIP 2145 (2007), at 2146–7 on the one side, and Peter Hommelhoff, in Die GmbH-Reform in der Diskussion (supra, note 37), 124., and Bork, Abschaffung des Eigenkapitalersatzrechts zugunsten des Insolvenzrechts?, in ZGR 250 (2007), 252, 254 on the other.Google Scholar

45 Drenckhan, Gläubigerschutz in der Krise der GmbH (2005); Veil, Krisenbewältigung durch Gesellschaftsrecht, in ZGR 374 (2006); Kalss/Adensamer/Oelkers, in Das Kapital der Aktiengesellschaft in Europa (supra, note 43), 134.Google Scholar

46 See Schmidt, Karsten, in: Das Kapital der Aktiengesellschaft in Europa (supra, note 43), 188; emphasising preventative creditor protection by insolvency law; specifically on the EPC see Ulrich Ehricke, Die Überwindung von Akzeptanzdefiziten als Grundlage zur Schaffung neuer supranationaler Gesellschaftsformen in der EU, in 64 Rabels Z 497 (2000), 503–4.Google Scholar

47 Supra, note 2, Recommendation 11.Google Scholar

48 For more details see Wolfgang Zöllner, Inhaltsfreiheit bei Gesellschaftsverträgen, in: Festschrift 100 Jahre GmbH Gesetz, (Lutter/Ulmer/Zöllner eds., 1992) 85, 88; Karsten Schmidt, Gesellschaftsrecht, (4^th ed., 2002) 114. and Hommelhoff, , Gestaltungsfreiheit im GmbH-Recht, in: Gestaltungsfreiheit im Gesellschaftsrecht, 38 (Lutter/Wiedemann eds., 1997).Google Scholar

49 See, supra note 4, in answer to (1) III2 option 1, at 6.Google Scholar

50 See, supra, note 9 in answer to Question 10; see also Steinberger, supra, note 7 at 29.Google Scholar

51 Consultation Paper, supra, note 4, in answer to question (1) II at 4: here the EPC is distinguished from the SE as a “public company”.Google Scholar

52 Supra, note 2, in answer to question (1) III 1 at 6.Google Scholar

53 Supra, note. 4, in answer to Question 7.Google Scholar

54 .Supra, note 4, in answer to Question 10.Google Scholar

55 See Hommelhoff, supra, note 7, at 2106; Karsten Heider, Gesellschafterpflichten nach dem EPG-Statut, in: ßNeue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 138 (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001).Google Scholar

56 Consultation Paper, supra, note in answer to question (1) IV at 8.Google Scholar

57 On the principle of subsidiarity see only Streinz, in: Streinz, EUV/EGV, 2003, Art. 5 EC, see note in the margin at 30 with further references.Google Scholar

58 Art. 4 ss. 2 EEIA Regulation; Art. 2 SE Regulation; Art. 2 European Cooperative Regulation (SCEVO).Google Scholar

59 See for example Steinberger, supra, note 7, at 29 following the high level group on company law (Winter Group).Google Scholar

60 On company law competition between legislatures in detail most recently, see Teichmann, supra, note 6 at 320.Google Scholar

61 On the troubled history of the coming into being of the SE in detail, see Blanquet, in ZGR, 20 (2002), at 21; see also Grundmann, Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht (2004), 480; Schwarz, Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht (2000) 643; Teichmann, supra, note 6) p. 249.Google Scholar

62 Notably Karel van Hulle, Geleitwort. Die EPG – ein Blick aus Brüssel, in: Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, VII (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001).Google Scholar

63 Supra, note 4 in answer to (1) V p. 8.Google Scholar

64 Supra, note 9 in answer to Question 13.Google Scholar

65 Supra, note 27.Google Scholar

66 Paper, Consultation, supra, note 4, in answer to (2) Question 13.Google Scholar

67 See Hommelhoff, , supra, note 35 at 253–4.Google Scholar

68 For a review of the co-determination regimes in the EU see Mävers, Die Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer in der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft (2002) 58; see also the contributions in Unternehmens-Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer im Recht der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, ZHR Sonderheft No. 72 (Theodor Baums & Peter Ulmer eds., 2004).Google Scholar

69 On similarities and the (few) differences between the negotiation solution of the SE Directive and the 10^th Directive, see Teichmann, in: Der Konzern 89 (2007).Google Scholar

70 Supra, note 11.Google Scholar

71 See Hommelhoff, supra, note 12, at 209.Google Scholar

72 On this problem in the SE see Habersack, , Grundfragen der Mitbestimmung in SE und SCE sowie bei grenzüberschreitender Verschmelzung, in: 171 ZHR 613 (2007), at 613; for a contrasting view see Teichmann, supra, note 69 at 93; both authors argue different positions on freedom of the social partners in the structure of an agreement on worker participation.Google Scholar

73 See Blanquet, , in ZGR 20 (2002), at 23–4; Teichmann, supra, note 6 at 249.Google Scholar

74 Consultation Paper, supra, note 4 on (1) III 2 at 6 points this out explicitlyGoogle Scholar

75 See Vossius, , supra, note 19 at 441.Google Scholar

76 Consultation Paper, supra, note 4, to (1) III 2 at 6.Google Scholar

77 Supra, note 9, in answer to Question 10 at 5.Google Scholar

78 Supra, note 73.Google Scholar

79 For a pointedly critical view of the EP decision see also supra, note 2, recommendation 1 sentence 1; see also Hommelhoff, supra, note 35 at 246.Google Scholar

80 I thank RA Dr. Dietmar Helms, Frankfurt, for the information on French corporate practice.Google Scholar

81 Supra, note 2, recommendation 1; see also Hommelhoff, supra, note 35 at 246.Google Scholar

82 For a seminal book on prescribed self-regulation, see Constantin Beier, Der Regelungsauftrag als Gesetzgebungsinstrument im Gesellschaftsrecht (2002), specifically on the EPC at 256.Google Scholar

83 . DIHK Statement, supra, note 9, section IV at 5.Google Scholar

84 Vossius, supra, note 19 at 441.Google Scholar

85 Supra, note 7.Google Scholar

86 On their function see Helms, Dietmar, Mustersatzungen für die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, in: Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 259 (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001); and recently Drury, European Company Law (2006), 267, 268.Google Scholar

87 For information on the current political discussion see Bayer, Hoffmann & Schmidt, , Satzungskomplexität und Mustersatzung, in: GmbHR 953 (2007),; Heidinger, , Fluch und Segen der privatschriftlichen Mustersatzung, in: Status: Recht DB 07/2007, at 243; Karsten, , Kann man eine GmbH auf einem Bierdeckel gründen?, in: GmbHR 958 (2007).Google Scholar

88 See the controversial discussion reported by Mattheus, Daniela, Die EPG: Grundkonzept und rechtspolitische Eckpunkte, in: Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 97 (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001).Google Scholar

89 DIHK Statement, supra, note 9, section III in answer to Question 10/VII at 6.Google Scholar

90 This is the formula originally proposed for the SE Regulation; having regard to the common principles of the laws of the Member States, it will only be sustainable for the EPC without this part because English and Irish law on the one hand, and Scandinavian law on the other, are not part of the continental European legal family. The expansion of the EC must be taken into account in any event in the formula for closing gaps for the EPC. A first attempt to develop legal principles and regulatory concepts in European Company Law is made by Veil, supra, note 35 at 799.Google Scholar

91 Most recently Wicke, Die Euro-GmbH im “Wettbewerb der Rechtsordnungen”, in: GmbHR 356 (2006), 357–8 (with further references)Google Scholar

92 Supra, note 10.Google Scholar

93 Supra, note 79Google Scholar

94 Supra, note 90Google Scholar

95 Bilanzrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz (BilMoG), www.der-betrieb.de/pdf/081107_bilmog_refe.pdf (§ 342 ss 1 p. 1 No. IV HGB - Commercial Code) wishes to impose an additional (national) task on the private accountancy committee DRSCGoogle Scholar

96 On the inter-action of national and European courts, see Ulrich Everling, Das Europäische Gesellschaftsrecht vor dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, in: Festschrift für Lutter, 33 (2000).Google Scholar

97 See Bachmann, Gregor, Grundtendenzen der Reform geschlossener Gesellschaften in Europa, in: ZGR 351 (2001), 373; on closing the gaps in connection with the EPC Statute in general see Armin Hatje, Lückenschluss im Europarecht, in: Neue Wege in die Europäische Privatgesellschaft, 247 (Hommelhoff/Helms eds., 2001); Heike Völter, Der Lückenschluss im Statut der Europäischen Privatgesellschaft (2000).Google Scholar