Prospects for European Company Law After the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Centros Ltd

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 203-230
Author(s):  
Karsten Engsig Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Company Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

The ruling of the European Court of Justice in C-212/97 Centros Ltd v. Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen suggests that the right of establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty includes the right to incorporate a company in the EC Member State with the most favourable company laws. The case provides a platform for arguing that choice of place of incorporation within the European Union is at the absolute discretion of business operators, after which point branches may be set up in any other Member State. Even if all activities are conducted in the Member State where the branch is situated, rather than in the Member State of incorporation, no abuse of Article 43 will arise, and the Member State in which the branch is located may be in no position to impede the establishment of a business which has utilised the vehicle of a foreign company.

Prospects for European Company Law After the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Centros Ltd

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 203-230
Author(s):  
Karsten Engsig Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Company Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

The ruling of the European Court of Justice in C-212/97Centros Ltdv.Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsensuggests that the right of establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty includes the right to incorporate a company in the EC Member State with the most favourable company laws. The case provides a platform for arguing that choice of place of incorporation within the European Union is at the absolute discretion of business operators, after which point branches may be set up in any other Member State. Even if all activities are conducted in the Member State where the branch is situated, rather than in the Member State of incorporation, no abuse of Article 43 will arise, and the Member State in which the branch is located may be in no position to impede the establishment of a business which has utilised the vehicle of a foreign company.

Centros Ltd—A Complete U-Turn in the Right of Establishment for Companies?

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Looijestijn-Clearie
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

InCentros Ltd and Erhvers-og Selskabsstyrelesen (hereinafter Centros),1 the European Court of Justice ruled that it is contrary to Article 52 (now Article 432) and Article 58 (now Article 48) of the EC Treaty for the authorities of a member State (in casu Denmark) to refuse to register a branch of a company formed under the law of another member State (in casu the United Kingdom) in which it has its registered office, even if the company concerned has never conducted any business in the latter State and intends to carry out its entire business in the State in which the branch is to be set up. By avoiding the need to form a company there it would thus evade the application of the rules governing the provision for and the paying-up of a minimum share capital in force in that State. According to the Court, this does not, however, prevent the authorities of the member State in which the branch is to be set up from adopting appropriate measures for preventing or penalising fraud, either with regard to the company itself, if need be in co-operation with the member State in which it was formed, or with regard to its members, where it has been determined that they are in fact attempting, by means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations towards creditors established in the territory of the member State of the branch.

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

2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kilian Baelz ◽  
Teresa Baldwin
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Seat ◽  
A Company

In a long awaited judgement delivered on 5 November 2002, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that it isincompatiblewith 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 isrequired to recognisethe company's legal capacity (and capacity to be a party to legal proceedings) which it enjoys under the laws of its state of incorporation.

scholarly journals THE MYSTERIES OF FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT AFTER CARTESIO

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Gerner-Beuerle ◽  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Coherent System ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe judgment of the European Court of Justice in Cartesio was eagerly awaited as a clarification of the questions concerning the scope of the right of establishment (articles 49, 54 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), (ex-articles 43, 48 EC) that remained after previous landmark decisions such as Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art. This article analyses the implications of Cartesio in light of different scenarios of transfer of the registered and the real seat within the European Union. It assesses the interrelations of right of establishment and private international law rules for the determination of the law applicable to companies and concludes that the case law of the European Court of Justice after Cartesio, rather than providing for a coherent system of European company law, leads to arbitrary distinctions and significantly impedes the free movement of companies.

scholarly journals Transfer of Company's Seat - an Unfolding Story in Europe

2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 359
Author(s):  
Carsten Frost
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Company ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Company Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Controversial Area

The harmonisation of company law has long been a goal of the European Union. Questions concerning the freedom of establishment have always been both a central and controversial area of European law. The European Court of Justice has decided in favour of the freedom of establishment of EU companies establishing themselves in other Member States in several cases since Centros in 1999, resulting in a discernible and consistent line of authority. The Court has made clear that Member States have to allow companies that have been incorporated in other Member States to freely enter their territory, according to the rules under which they have been formed in their state of origin. But the decisions have left other important questions open to doubt. The purpose of this article is to examine the consequences of these judgments, not only for European company law, but for related legal areas as well. The paper addresses this issue by giving a short overview on the freedom of establishment under the Treaty Establishing the European Community and on the existing European theories about the transfer of a company’s seat. It then analyses the European Court of Justice cases and their implications. The article argues that the pressure on national legislators that arises from the judgments helps to keep European company law attractive to investors. It concludes that an increased mobility of companies within Europe is necessary if Europe is to remain competitive on an international level, even if the price of this is the abolition of some traditional domestic legal principles.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

Access to Justice in Environmental Matters: Recent Developments

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Charles Poncelet
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Abstract The right of access to justice in environmental matters constitutes one of the three pillars enshrined by the Århus Convention to which the European Union is a Party. This article will examine a recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, the latter appears to play an important role in the implementation of this procedural right.

scholarly journals Right to be forgotten: european data imperialism, national privilege, or universal human right?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-152
Author(s):  
Oskar J. Gstrein
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Data ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The Digital Age has fundamentally reshaped the preconditions for privacy and freedom of expression. This transpires in the debate about a "right to be forgotten". While the 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in "Google Spain" touches upon the underlying issue of how increasing amounts of personal data affects individuals over time, the topic has also become one of the salient problems of Internet Governance. On 24th September 2019 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in "Google vs CNIL" (C-507/17) which was supposed to clarify the territorial scope of the right. However, this judgment has raised doubts about the enforceability of the General Data Protection Regulation, and reveals the complex, multi-layered governance structure of the European Union. Acknowledging such complexity at a substantive and institutional level, this article starts by analysing the judgment. Additionally, to better understand the current situation in the European Union and its member states, recently produced draft guidelines by the European Data Protection Board are presented and discussed, as well as two judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Subsequently, the European developments are put in international context. Finally, the insights from these sections are combined which allows to develop several conceptual ideas. In conclusion, it is argued that the right to be forgotten remains complex and evolving. Its success depends on effective multi-layer and multistakeholder interaction. In this sense, it has become a prominent study object that reveals potential venues and pitfalls on a path towards more sophisticated data protection frameworks.

scholarly journals The Role of Subsidiarity and Proportionality Principles in the Development of a Future Digital Single Market and a Common European Contract Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1178-1186
Author(s):  
Ovidiu Ioan Dumitru
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Single Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Contract ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Contract Law

AbstractFrom the far beginning of the European Communities, with broader objective of creating a perfect unique market for the member states, it must be underlined the importance of the results of the harmonisation process of the contract law and the single market and that, in time, the institutions struggled in their tumultuous work for fulfilling the indicated objectives to overcome the interventions from each Member State, interested, also, in shaping a great and prosperous common market, but trying, subsequently, to reason with their traditions, culture, ideological and political choices. The legislation on single market and European contract law is a subjected to the three guiding principles of the European Union: the principle of conferral, which empowers the European Union in terms of competence, the principle of subsidiarity, which underlines the European Union’s competence in a certain field that is shared with a Member State and the principle of proportionality, which applies if the first two principles are validated, dealing with the how the European Union should legislate. However, there are some critics who express their worries in that there are insufficient empirical proofs for redefining the harmonisation process. Taking into account the criticism, the European Court of Justice has ruled in numerous occasions that the authorisation to harmonise laws, with the scope of safeguarding the proper functioning of the European internal market does not grant the European Union a carte blanche in order to interfere with the sake of harmonisation any law it wishes. The way the above indicated principles maintained their roles provided by the treaties or they were subject of modification, by enrichment or limitation, by the caselaw provided by the European Court of Justice, we must investigate in order to picture a possible “finale” of our Single Market and this paper will concentrate of the influence of subsidiarity and proportionality on the fields most dynamic in the past years, the Digital Single Market and its contract law. This paper wishes to clarify how the two fundamental principles, of subsidiarity and proportionality, provided in time by the modifying treaties and consolidated by the European Court of Justice, influenced the evolution of the legislation regarding the Single Market and how those two may help or block the future evolution in the context of a continuous pressure coming from the development of the digital framework and online contracts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document