Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is a Directive on Corporate Mobility Needed?

  • Articles
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After a short historical introduction, this paper argues that corporate mobility remains a real political issue. To clarify matters, it proposes to distinguish between a formal seat transfer, being the choice of a different legal regime, and a de facto seat transfer that would not affect the applicable company law, the host State not being entitled to apply its company law rules. A future directive should be based on this distinction, prescribing the formalities for the former and stating clearly the consequences of the latter, thereby also defining the limits within which the ‘general good’ can be invoked.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Convention on Mutual Recognition of Companies and Legal Persons (1968). The text may be found in Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen (1968) p. 400; an English version appears in EC Bull. Suppl. 2, 1969.

  2. Art. 44 (2)(g) of the EC Treaty, latest consolidated version published in OJ 2002 C 325/33-184.

  3. See Arts. 7 and 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE), OJ 2001 L 294/1-21; Art. 7 of the Regulation states that the registered office shall be located in the same State as the head office. The provision has been criticised as incompatible with the Court’s holding on free establishment: see E. Wymeersch, ‘The transfer of the company’s seat in European company law’, 40 CMLR (2003) p. 661; also in Liber Amicorum Jean-Pierre de Bandt (Brussels, Bruylant 2004) p. 767; C.P. Schindler, ‘#x00DC;berseering und Societas Europaea: Vereinbar oder nicht vereinbar, das ist die Frage’, RdW (2003) pp. 122–125; but compare F. Blanquet, ‘La société européenne n’est plus un mythe’, 78 Rev. Dr. Int. Comp. (2001) p. 155, mentioning the problem of letter box companies, and G. Keutgen and C. Darville-Finet, ‘La société européenne: Les règles de fonctionnement’, 13 Actualités du Droit (2003) p. 129. Art. 8(1) states that the transfer of the seat does not create a new legal person. Although the rules applicable to the legal person would be the rules of the transferee State, the person would remain the same, hence without effectuating a transfer of assets or liabilities.

  4. See Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, OJ 2005 L 310/1-9.

  5. See ECJ, Case C-212/97 Centros Ltd and Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen [1999] ECR I-1459; Case C-208/00 Überseering BV and Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement (NCC) [2002] ECR I-9919; Case C-167/01 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd [2003] ECR I-10155; Case C-411/03 Sevic Systems AG [2005] ECR I-10805.

  6. M. Becht, C. Mayer and H. Wagner, Corporate Mobility and the Costs of Regulation, ECGI Law Working Paper No. 70 (May 2006).

  7. See Art. L. 223–2 C. Com., as amended by Art. 1 of the Loi pour l’initiave économique no 2003–721 du 1er août 2003, Journal Officiel, 5 August 2003.

  8. See Report on the ‘Conference on Efficient Creditor Protection in European Company Law’, Ludwig Maximilians Universität München, Munich, 1–3 December 2005, in 7(1) EBOR (2006).

  9. Call for tender MARKT/2006/7/F, ‘Feasibility study on alternative to capital maintenance regime as established by the Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC of 13.12.1976 and the examination of the implications of the new EU accounting regime on profit distribution’, second publication, 14 March 2006.

  10. ECJ, Case C-101/94 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (SIM case) [1996] ECR I-02691.

  11. The original proposal was published in 1985, COM (94) 727 final, OJ 1985 C 23/11.

  12. See press statement of 26 February 2004, ref. IP/04/270, and the positive response in ‘Summary Report on the Consultation and Hearing on Future Priorities for the Action Plan on Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union’ (2006), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/consultation/frnal_report_en.pdf.

  13. See para. 92 of Übersee ring.

  14. See the approach in Art. 23 of the Second Directive in the case of a reduction of the capital, Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976, OJ 1977 L 26/1.

  15. See Art. 10 et seq. of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968, OJ 1968 L 65/8-12. Art. 17 of the Cross-Border Mergers Directive (see n. 4 supra) contains a stronger provision excluding any nullity.

  16. Several of the issues mentioned here have been dealt with in the Cross-Border Mergers Directive, see n. 4 supra.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ghent, Belgium

    Eddy Wymeersch

Authors
  1. Eddy Wymeersch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper is based on a presentation the author gave at a hearing before the European Commission.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wymeersch, E. Is a Directive on Corporate Mobility Needed?. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 8, 161–169 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752907001619

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752907001619

Keywords

Search

Navigation