Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
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
More than a year has passed since the European Commission introduced the European Private Company (Societas Privata Europaea, SPE) in June 2008. What has become of the draft statute? This paper is meant to give a short overview of its basic features, the other European institutions' discussions and statements, the problems that prevented the proposal from being adopted so far and possible solutions that were introduced.
1 For a comprehensive analysis of the Commission proposal, see Heinz Krejci, Societas Privata Europaea/SPE (2008) and the literature cited by Thomas Bücker, Die Organisationsverfassung der SPE, 173 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht 281, 285 n.13 (2009).Google Scholar
2 See Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European private company, COM(2008)396 final (June 25, 2008).Google Scholar
3 Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union - A Plan to Move Forward, COM(2003)284 (May 21, 2003).Google Scholar
4 See Communication from the Commission To the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Think Small First. A Small Business Act for Europe, COM(2008)394 final (June 25, 2008).Google Scholar
5 Charlie McCreevy, Speech at the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (Oct. 3, 2007) (speech 592/07), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/07/592. The aim of this directive was partly reached by the European Court of Justice's recent Cartesio judgment, Case C-210/06 CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt (ECJ 16 December 2008); but see European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 with recommendations to the Commission on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company (2008/2196(INI)), Eur. Parl. Doc. P6-TA(2009)0086 (2009).Google Scholar
6 See Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute of the European Private Company (SPE), at 5–6, SEC(2008)2098.Google Scholar
7 Articles not marked differently are those of the Commission's proposal for an SPE statute.Google Scholar
8 For further information on the function of model articles see Robert Drury, The European Private Company, 9 Eur. Bus. Org. L. Rev. 125, 132 (2008).Google Scholar
9 Example provisions for articles of association of an SPE, Council Register (12124/08) (July 23, 2008) (Commission).Google Scholar
10 Eur. Parl., Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on the European private company statute (2006/2013(INI)), Eur. Parl. Doc. P6_TA(2007)0023.Google Scholar
11 Eur. Parl., Legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company (COM(2008)0396 - C6-0283/2008 - 2008/0130(CNS)), Eur. Parl. Doc. P6_TA(2009)0094 (2009).Google Scholar
12 Eur. Parl., Comm. on Legal Affairs, Report on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company (COM(2008)0396 - C6-0283/2008 - 2008/0130(CNS)), at 42, A6-0044/2009 (Feb. 4, 2009).Google Scholar
13 Id. at 44.Google Scholar
14 The original report of the Committee on Legal Affairs also allowed an SPE to comply with the cross-border requirement by having its registered office and its central administration or principal place of business in different Member States. On the other hand, it demanded subsidiaries instead of establishments in different Member States, id. at 14.Google Scholar
15 The reference in Amendment 21 to Art. 3 para. 1 point (eb) is due to differences between the Legal Affairs Committee's report and the final resolution. The report proposed an additional requirement to define a business object from a limited range of objects which was declined in the plenary.Google Scholar
16 Horst Eidenmüller, Andreas Engert & Lars Hornuf, Incorporating under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage, 10 Eur. Bus. Org. L. Rev. 1, 22 (2009).Google Scholar
17 Council (EC), Progress Report on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the statute for a European private company, at 3, No. 16400/1/08 Rev 1 (Nov. 28, 2008); but see the critical statement of the German Bundesrat, Drucksache (479/08) (Oct. 10, 2008).Google Scholar
18 COM(2008)396 final, supra note 2, at 3.Google Scholar
19 SEC(2008)2098, supra note 6, at 26; see Adriaan F. M. Dorresteijn & Odeaya Uziahu-Santcross, The Societas Privata Europaea under the Magnifying Glass (Part 1), 5 Eur. Company L. 277, 279–80 (2008) (questioning the necessity of a European instrument).Google Scholar
20 Hadding, Walther & Erik Kießling, Die Europäische Privatgesellschaft (Societas Privata Europaea), 63 Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht 145, 147 (2009).Google Scholar
21 COM(2008)396 final, supra note 2, at 7.Google Scholar
22 A6-0044/2009, supra note 12, at 42.Google Scholar
23 COM(2008)396 final, supra note 2, at 7–8.Google Scholar
24 See Hommelhoff, Peter & Teichmann, Christoph, Eine GmbH für Europa: Der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission zur Societas Privata Europaea (SPE), 99 GmbHRundschau 897, 906 (2008); different Hadding & Kießling, supra note 20, at 149.Google Scholar
25 On the shortcoming of this attempt, see Peter Hommelhoff, Unternehmensfinanzierung in der Europäischen Privatgesellschaft, 173 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht 255, 264 n.38 (2009).Google Scholar
26 The application of this procedure to an SPE's formation was introduced during the discussions in the Legal Affairs Committee as a compromise to keep the minimum legal capital at a symbolic € 1 while trying to secure sufficient capitalization according to the needs of the respective company.Google Scholar
27 On the different functions of balance sheet tests and solvency tests, see Wolfgang Schön, Balance Sheet Tests or Solvency Tests - or Both?, 7 Eur. Bus. Org. L. Rev. 181 (2008)Google Scholar
28 Pablo Rüdiger S. de Erice & Gaude, Frank, Societas Privata Europaea - Unternehmensleitung und Haftung, DStR 857, 861 (2009).Google Scholar
29 A6-0044/2009, supra note 12, at 25.Google Scholar
30 Siems, Mathias, Erik Rosenhäger & Leif Herzog, Aller guten Dinge sind zwei: Lehren aus der Entwicklung der SE für die SPE, Der Konzern 393, 400 (2008).Google Scholar
31 For a detailed, critical analysis of the draft's system of employee participation see Peter Hommelhoff, Rüdiger Krause & Christoph Teichmann, Arbeitnehmer-Beteiligung in der Europäischen Privatgesellschaft (SPE) nach dem Verordnungsentwurf, 99 GmbHRundschau 1193 (2008).Google Scholar
32 Council Directive 2001/86 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
33 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2005/56 of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, 2005 O.J. (L 310) 1.Google Scholar
34 See Hommelhoff, , Krause & Teichmann, supra note 31, at 1195 (finding as a result of the ECJ's rulings on the freedom of establishment that this construction can already be used with any company form from another EU Member State).Google Scholar
35 On the interlinkage of these two Directives see Kisker, Olaf, Unternehmerische Mitbestimmung in der Europäischen Gesellschaft, der Europäischen Genossenschaft und bei grenzüberschreitender Verschmelzung im Vergleich, 59 Recht der Arbeit 206 (2006).Google Scholar
36 A6-0044/2009, supra note 12, at 44.Google Scholar
37 Id. Google Scholar
38 16400/1/08 Rev 1, supra note 17, at 2; Council (EC), ‘2910th meeting of the Council: Competitiveness (internal market, industry and research) Brussels, 1 and 2 December 2008’ (press release), No. 16577/08 (Dec. 1–2, 2008), at 10.Google Scholar
39 Council (EC), Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European private company (SPE), No. 17152/08 (Dec. 11, 2008).Google Scholar
40 Council (EC), Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European private company (SPE), No. 9065/09 (Apr. 27, 2009), not yet accessible.Google Scholar
41 Council (EC), Progress report on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the statute for a European private company (SPE), No. 9658/09 (May 8, 2009), at 3.Google Scholar
42 16400/1/08 Rev 1, supra note 17, at 3.Google Scholar
43 Id. at 4.Google Scholar
44 Second Council Directive 77/91 of 13 December 1976 on the coordination of safeguards, 1977 O.J. (L 26) 1 (EEC).Google Scholar
45 9658/09, supra note 41, at 3.Google Scholar
46 9658/09, supra note 41, at 2–3.Google Scholar
47 Presidency, Swedish, Work programme for the Swedish Presidency of the EU. 1 July - 31 December 2009, at 32, available at http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/L6248!menu/standard/file/Work%20Programme%20for%20the%20Swedish%20Presidency%201%20July%20-%2031%20Dec%202009.pdf.Google Scholar
48 Swedish law entitles employees even in small companies (at least 25 employees) to elect representatives to the board of directors, see Lone L. Hansen & Erik Werlauff, Employee Representation on the Board of Directors of a Company with its Registered Office in a Nordic Country, 6 European Community Law 68, 71 (2009).Google Scholar
49 See Hommelhoff, Krause & Teichmann, supra note 31, at 1196.Google Scholar
You have
Access
