The development within the European Union is that we are heading towards a common internal market. The law has during the year become more harmo-nized within the Union in many areas. The company law within the European Union has become harmonized through several company law directives and the freedom of establishment, which is included in the EC Treaty. The aim of an internal market is about to be achieved, but there are still differences between the systems of law within the Member States. To avoid these differences within the area of company law a common European company type became reality in 2004, the European public limited-liability company. Companies within the European Union have the possibility to create a Euro-pean public limited-liability company (SE Company). The SE Company is mainly governed by the SE Regulation. The SE company has advantages like the possibility to move the registered office from one Member State to another without losing its legal personality. It can also make the company structure easier and relief administrative costs for a company with activity in the European Union. The company was supposed to be governed by one single set of rules, the SE Regulation, no matter where in the Union the company has its registered of-fice. This has not become reality since the SE Regulation on several occasions refers back to the national company law. The SE Company has not been a success, only a few SE companies have been created. The advantages do not seem to be that important reasons, the companies do not seem to think that it is worth the cost and the trouble to change type of company.

<p>The development within the European Union is that we are heading towards a common internal market. The law has during the year become more harmo-nized within the Union in many areas.</p><p>The company law within the European Union has become harmonized through several company law directives and the freedom of establishment, which is included in the EC Treaty.</p><p>The aim of an internal market is about to be achieved, but there are still differences between the systems of law within the Member States. To avoid these differences within the area of company law a common European company type became reality in 2004, the European public limited-liability company.</p><p>Companies within the European Union have the possibility to create a Euro-pean public limited-liability company (SE Company). The SE Company is mainly governed by the SE Regulation.</p><p>The SE company has advantages like the possibility to move the registered office from one Member State to another without losing its legal personality. It can also make the company structure easier and relief administrative costs for a company with activity in the European Union.</p><p>The company was supposed to be governed by one single set of rules, the SE Regulation, no matter where in the Union the company has its registered of-fice. This has not become reality since the SE Regulation on several occasions refers back to the national company law.</p><p>The SE Company has not been a success, only a few SE companies have been created. The advantages do not seem to be that important reasons, the companies do not seem to think that it is worth the cost and the trouble to change type of company.</p>

Due to constant expansion of the European Community, the harmonization in the fields of European company law and development of internal European market have emerged into considerably bigger and more complex issues. Aspects of corporate mobility, having a direct simultaneous connection to the right of freedom of establishment, have been one of the most problematic spheres for reaching international consensus. Despite numerous directives adopted by Member States (MS) European undertakings continue to be regulated by national legislations. The idea of a common European limited liability company, sc. Societas Europaea (SE), was put into process of realization in order to facilitate the internal trade and to help multinational companies to obtain legal certainty and trans-European character by rising above the variety of national legislations. Furthermore, the SE was to make cross-border enterprise management more flexible and less bureaucratic and to help improving the general competitiveness of Community enterprises. The process of formation of the European Company Statue took over forty years and the result of the final adoption turned out to be something completely different from the es-sential idea of the European Company. Due to the historical, socio-political and legal dif-ferences MSs had difficulties with compromising on the majority of aspects and instead of one common SE form, the Community had basically adopted 28 different alternatives, loosing the original valuable supranational character. The strongest advantage of the SE are the rights conferred to it by the Regulation. The frequent use of renvoi technique undermines this aspect of SE’s precedence over national legislation. The true potential of the European Company remains thus highly theoretical and the current shape of the SE presents only a weak alternative to the national corporate forms of the MSs. A European Company cannot be freely incorporated solely by investment of private capi-tal. There is a need for existence of at least two legal enterprises which furthermore must fall under the scope of different national legislations. In other words in order to create an SE, the definite cross-border element between companies at hand must be visible or can be identified. It can be formed by means of merger, creation of a holding, incorporation of a subsidiary or conversion. The subscribed capital for the SE shall at its minimum equal €120 000. The Council Regulation on SE provides a flexible management regime, permit-ting companies to choose between two administration systems (one-tier/two-tier) that exist in the Community. The issues of employee involvement are regulated in separate directive that is a supplement to the Regulation. Despite the recent developments of freedom of establishment through the case-law, the matter remains utterly complicated. The SE may seem on one hand as a logical solution, being able to incorporate in different MSs, to merge or to form a holding without burden-some processes of winding-up and re-incorporation. On the other hand the Regulation re-stricts the mobility of the SE by provisions prohibiting location of registered and head of-fice of the company in different MSs, depriving it thus from one of the basic Community freedoms. Prudent attitude to mobility and aspiration to protect national interests have partly diminished essential advantages of the SE. It appears to be impossible to conduct business in one MS while being registered in another. Possible amendments are awaited shortly, but so far the SE has definitely not achieved many of practical goals considering mobility and has fulfilled very few of its important theoretical expectations. National perspective on the adoption of the SE seems to be relatively positive, accepting the theoretical advantages of corporate mobility, options of structure and management and possibility to obtain an essentially European trademark. However, there is also an amount of skepticism addressed to deficient practical functioning due to the lack of uniform legislation. European organizations and companies tend to have a slightly more cautious and restrained approach. The idea of a European Company is praised more for its genuinely European character. Representatives for established SEs prefer to talk about internationalization of trade, European recognition, enhanced competitiveness and market integration, while very little speaks about the true practical potential. The SE is furthermore often observed as a useful but still mainly theoretical legal instrument, playing an indispensable part in the overall development of European company law. Political motives seem to be considerably heavier while discussing the question of necessity of adoption that later attracted so little interest. Additionally, the basic idea of the SE also seems to include definite measures for general European unification, granting SE the symbolic value of commonly European enterprise. Consequently, failing in purely practical application in the absence of a clear need for common limited liability company, the SE has its theoretical and crucially important socio-psychological purposes.

<p>Due to constant expansion of the European Community, the harmonization in the fields of European company law and development of internal European market have emerged into considerably bigger and more complex issues. Aspects of corporate mobility, having a direct simultaneous connection to the right of freedom of establishment, have been one of the most problematic spheres for reaching international consensus. Despite numerous directives adopted by Member States (MS) European undertakings continue to be regulated by national legislations. The idea of a common European limited liability company, sc. Societas Europaea (SE), was put into process of realization in order to facilitate the internal trade and to help multinational companies to obtain legal certainty and trans-European character by rising above the variety of national legislations. Furthermore, the SE was to make cross-border enterprise management more flexible and less bureaucratic and to help improving the general competitiveness of Community enterprises.</p><p>The process of formation of the European Company Statue took over forty years and the result of the final adoption turned out to be something completely different from the es-sential idea of the European Company. Due to the historical, socio-political and legal dif-ferences MSs had difficulties with compromising on the majority of aspects and instead of one common SE form, the Community had basically adopted 28 different alternatives, loosing the original valuable supranational character. The strongest advantage of the SE are the rights conferred to it by the Regulation. The frequent use of renvoi technique undermines this aspect of SE’s precedence over national legislation. The true potential of the European Company remains thus highly theoretical and the current shape of the SE presents only a weak alternative to the national corporate forms of the MSs.</p><p>A European Company cannot be freely incorporated solely by investment of private capi-tal. There is a need for existence of at least two legal enterprises which furthermore must fall under the scope of different national legislations. In other words in order to create an SE, the definite cross-border element between companies at hand must be visible or can be identified. It can be formed by means of merger, creation of a holding, incorporation of a subsidiary or conversion. The subscribed capital for the SE shall at its minimum equal €120 000. The Council Regulation on SE provides a flexible management regime, permit-ting companies to choose between two administration systems (one-tier/two-tier) that exist in the Community. The issues of employee involvement are regulated in separate directive that is a supplement to the Regulation.</p><p>Despite the recent developments of freedom of establishment through the case-law, the matter remains utterly complicated. The SE may seem on one hand as a logical solution, being able to incorporate in different MSs, to merge or to form a holding without burden-some processes of winding-up and re-incorporation. On the other hand the Regulation re-stricts the mobility of the SE by provisions prohibiting location of registered and head of-fice of the company in different MSs, depriving it thus from one of the basic Community freedoms. Prudent attitude to mobility and aspiration to protect national interests have partly diminished essential advantages of the SE. It appears to be impossible to conduct business in one MS while being registered in another. Possible amendments are awaited shortly, but so far the SE has definitely not achieved many of practical goals considering mobility and has fulfilled very few of its important theoretical expectations.</p><p>National perspective on the adoption of the SE seems to be relatively positive, accepting the theoretical advantages of corporate mobility, options of structure and management and possibility to obtain an essentially European trademark. However, there is also an amount of skepticism addressed to deficient practical functioning due to the lack of uniform legislation. European organizations and companies tend to have a slightly more cautious and restrained approach. The idea of a European Company is praised more for its genuinely European character. Representatives for established SEs prefer to talk about internationalization of trade, European recognition, enhanced competitiveness and market integration, while very little speaks about the true practical potential. The SE is furthermore often observed as a useful but still mainly theoretical legal instrument, playing an indispensable part in the overall development of European company law.</p><p>Political motives seem to be considerably heavier while discussing the question of necessity of adoption that later attracted so little interest. Additionally, the basic idea of the SE also seems to include definite measures for general European unification, granting SE the symbolic value of commonly European enterprise. Consequently, failing in purely practical application in the absence of a clear need for common limited liability company, the SE has its theoretical and crucially important socio-psychological purposes.</p>

European Private Company (function, state of preparation of European legislation and perspectives) The European Private Company is to become a new company form based on European law. The proposal for a Regulation regarding the European Private Company Statute (hereinafter: Regulation) presented by the European Commission aims at improving conditions for small and medium enterprises (hereinafter: SME's) in the European Single Market by providing them with the same, flexible and uniform set of company law rules across European Union. The European Company Statute is expected to reduce complying costs and remove some obstacles SME's are now facing when conducting cross-border business. The aim of my thesis is to identify the objectives of the proposal and to illustrate the state of discussion on European Private Company among Member States. It seeks to describe the reasons and the approach of European Commission when drafting provisions on some core issues of the proposal and to address the changes these provisions have been subjected to during the discussion in European Council. This paper attempts to outline the perspectives of European Private Company Statute proposed by Commission compared with the perspectives of Compromise proposals introduced by Presidency of European Council. The thesis is...

Main purpose of this thesis is an assessment of the possibility of companies to transfer their seat from several points of view. It is distinguished between situations of companies with regard to the relocation of head office contrary to the relocation of registered office. At first, the migration issue is analyzed in general, then from the perspective of EU law. Due to insufficiently resolved scope of the freedom of establishment, especially with respect to the transfer of registered office, the thesis focuses on the European Company. For the time being, it can be considered as the most advanced result of the common effort of EU member states to achieve a supranational company form. It was not a random choice to dedicate part of this thesis to the European Company since the possibility to move its registered office freely across the EU is one of the main attributes granted to the European Company form. The analysis of relocation process, including consideration of potential difficulties results in comparison with actual opportunities of "national"companies in this respect. With regard to the structure of thesis it is divided into four parts and a separate conlusion. First part deals with the matter of the EU common market, with an emphasis on each of four freedoms. Especially the primary and...

In 2008, the European Commission proposed a regulation for a new European private company, called the Societas Privata Europeaea. This proposal did not get unanimous approval and was therefore withdrawn after five years of attempt to find a compromise. In 2014, the European Commission proposed a directive on single-member private limited liability companies, called the Societas Unius Personae. The aims of the new proposal have a few similarities as the European private company, as will be mentioned in the introduction. However, the proposed directive introduces a few changes, which the European Commission hopes will make this proposal successful. The purpose with this thesis is mainly to examine whether there is a need of a new European company form on the market today. The conclusion is taken by examining who would benefit the most with this company form. This thesis contains an explanation of the proposed directive, a comparison between this new company form and the corresponding Swedish company, as well as opinions on this directive. In the end there is a discussion regarding this subject and lastly my conclusions. The result has shown that there are still great amount of uncertainties that are in need of further discussion in order for this proposal to eventually pass unanimous consent. My conclusions are that there is not an urgent need of a new European company form on the market right now. However, it is a work in progress, and I believe a European company form like this one is a good way towards the aim of uniting the Member States of the European Union.

Tillit är en viktig del av ett bra samspel i mellanmänskliga relationer. Tillit har inte minst en betydelse irelationen och samarbetet mellan arbetsgivare och arbetstagare, som ju för många är en stor del av livet.Skribenterna till denna studie undersökte vilka faktorer som kan påverka graden av tillit mellan arbetstagare ocharbetsgivare samt vilka konsekvenser det kan få. Metoden som skribenterna använde sig av är en kvantitativansats med data från European Company Survey 2019. Materialet bestod av svar från två separata enkäter därena enkäten avser arbetstagarrepresentanternas åsikter respektive arbetsgivarnas åsikter. Det resoneras kring attarbetstagarrepresentanter och övriga arbetstagare tillhör en enhetlig arbetstagarsida då det i tidigare forskningkonstaterades att arbetstagarnas tillit till stor del hänger ihop med representantens förmåga att utföra sinauppgifter. Deras resultat visar att arbetstagarsidans tillit påverkades till stor del av deras möjlighet till inflytande,tillgång till information och upplevelsen av stöd från chefer. Arbetsgivarnas tillit grundades till stor del påorganisationens storlek, arbetstagares inflytande och den grad de på egen hand organiserar sitt arbete. En ökadtillit mellan parterna medförde flera olika positiva konsekvenser. Några av faktorerna som hade en inverkan påtillit är även en konsekvens därav. Det lyfter fram reciprociteten mellan arbetstagare och arbetsgivare som ensjälvförstärkande spiral, på både gott och ont.

Nouvelle forme d’organisation de l’entreprise au sein d’un marché commun, la société commerciale supranationale peut relever de plusieurs ordres juridiques. En ce qui concerne, brevitatis causa, son « statut personnel », deux méthodes de rattachement législatif s’opposent. La méthode du rattachement unique lie la société au seul ordre juridique dont elle est issue, celle du rattachement opère une complémentarité entre l’ordre juridique supranational et celui du siège social. Les deux méthodes reconnaissent une marge de liberté statutaire. Le choix du rattachement juridique constitue enjeu crucial pour l’adoption du statut de ce type de société et, in fine, pour la réalisation des objectifs lui sont assignés. Seule l’Union européenne connaît de telles structures sociétaires et a choisi la méthode de la pluralité. Pour déterminer la pertinence de ce choix, la problématique est transposée au Mercosur qui envisage d’instituer une société supranationale et doit donc choisir son rattachement juridique. La méthode de l’unicité s’avère alors être la seule à pouvoir répondre aux exigences d’unité, d’uniformité et de cohérence du régime juridique de la société commerciale supranationale. Opposée à la méthode jusqu’ici privilégiée, la méthode du rattachement unique implique une indépendance du statut de cette société par rapport aux sources nationales. Ce choix de l’autonomie participe à l’édification d’un véritable droit des sociétés supranationales. Dans le contexte du Mercosur, ce changement de paradigme peut de surcroît contribuer à bâtir un ordre juridique mercosurien plus efficace dans ses rapports avec les systèmes étatiques. Ces mêmes conclusions autorisent alors à se demander in fine s’il ne faut pas effectuer en Europe un retour à la solution de principe envisagée jadis tant pour la société anonyme européenne que pour la société privée européenne et oser l’unicité du rattachement de ces sociétés à l’ordre juridique européen. / As a new corporate structure within a common market, the supranational trading corporation can be subjected to several legal systems. With respect, brevitatis causa, to its “personal status”, two legislative connecting methods oppose each other. The single connecting method links the company only to the legal system from which it originates, whereas the multiple connecting method leads to a complementarity between the supranational legal system and the legal system of the registered office. Both methods allow some leeway for statutory freedom. The choice of the legislative connection is a crucial issue in adopting the statute of this type of corporation, and, in fine, for the fulfillment of its assigned goals. Only the European Union adopts such corporate structures and it has chosen the multiple connecting method. In order to assess the pertinence of this choice, the problematic is transposed to the Mercosur which is considering to establish a supranational corporation form and is therefore facing the choice between those two connecting methods. The method of a single connection proves to be the only one to ensure unity, uniformity and coherence for the supranational company’s legal regime. As opposed to the preferred method up to now, it implies an independence of the company’s statute from national sources. This choice of autonomy contributes to building a true Law of Supranational Companies. In the context of Mercosur, this change in paradigm may furthermore contribute to creating a more efficient Mercosur’s legal order in relation to the national legal systems. These same conclusions allow us to question ourselves in fine if Europe should not consider returning to its first methodological approach envisaged formerly for both, the European Company and the European Private Company, in this sens daring to link these companies fundamentally to the European legal order.

Title: Marketing research of the participant's satisfaction European Company Sport Games 2013 in Prague Objectives: Finding out the participant's satisfaction with European Company Sport Games 2013 in Prague. On the basis of results will be done evaluation and will be proposed possibilities for improvement. Methods: In work uses quantitative marketing research. For the primary data collection from participants of European Company Sport Games in Prague is used electronic questioning. Results: All results are in the practical part. The results are in the graphs and tables and they are described in detail. The participants were generally satisfied with the event, the most with the flooding communication and accommodation. On the other side were dissatisfied with the event at Meeting Point. The research also find out at which sport facilities were the biggest organization and technical problems. At the end part is written the proposal and recommendation for improvement. Keywords: Marketing, marketing research, participant's satisfaction, sport, European Company Sport Games, ECSG.