The purpose of my thesis is to analyse the current legal situation, both from the Czech and European legislation point of view, concerning the transfer of the seat of a company within the area of the European Union. As evident from the title, the paper focuses on the topic from the European perspective primarily and the issue of the relocation of the seat from, or into, a non-member state is not dealt with in details. The thesis consists of four chapters. The first one introduces a necessary terminology connected with the relocation of the company's seat. Firstly the terms "personal status" on the one hand and "nationality" of the company on the other hand are compared. Then the incorporation theory and the real seat theory are briefly outlined, as well as the conflict that may arise between these doctrines. The second chapter relates to the relevant Czech legislation in this matter which is currently in force. The chapter is divided into three subchapters. The first one concerns the analysis of the important topic related paragraphs of the International Private Substantive and Procedural Law Act, the second one aims at interpreting the substantial provisions of the Commercial Code, finally the Conversion of the Companies and Cooperatives Act is reviewed with the special focus on the recent...

The trade today consist of global trade. Businesses are exercising cross-border activities and businesses tend to establish themselves in foreign markets. Many choices and factors affect a business choice of country to enter, and its choice of form of establishment in the new market. Therefore the thesis will examine the market entry strategy of the four Swedish businesses Lundalogik AB, Infobric AB, Funded-by-me AB, and PayEx AB in the information technology (IT) industry that have established their businesses in Norway. The authors believe that Norway is an interesting country to study as it is one of Sweden's most important ex-port markets and the IT-sector stands for approximately 13% of all Swedish exports towards the whole world. The purpose with the thesis is to explore and understand the market entry strategy used by the above mentioned four Swedish IT-businesses when entering the Norwegian market. With help of the purpose of the thesis the authors intend to answer what the underlying reasons for the four businesses were when entering the Norwegian market and its choice of form of establishment. As this is an explorative study the research method applied is an inductive approach with influences from the grounded theory. An inductive approach is when observations help to formulate a theory whereas the grounded theory is when a theory is discovered from social research. The reason why an inductive approach is better suited for the thesis is due to the flexibility in deciding which theory to choose after analyzing the primary data. After analyzing the four case studies it can be concluded that no pure internationalization strategy exists among the companies, instead a variety of customer follower and market seeker strategies are common. Moreover, the choice of form of establishment has many factors. Credibility, market knowledge, design of business and existing business relationships were the four most common factors identified by the authors affecting the case studies‟ choice of form of establishment.

Inom EU upprätthålls en inre marknad där fri rörlighet för varor, personer, tjänster och kapital säkerställs. Friheterna innebär att all diskriminering på grund av nationalitet i med-lemsstaternas nationella lagstiftning ska avskaffas, vilket följer av EU-rättens företräde framför nationell lagstiftning när regelverken kolliderar. Om en lagstiftning verkar begränsande för någon av dessa friheter måste reglerna rättfärdi-gas eller ändras. Rättfärdigande kan ske genom de fördragsstadgade undantagen eller ge-nom ett undantag som accepterats i EU-domstolens rule of reason-doktrin. De svenska reglerna för uttagsbeskattning har under de senaste åren utvecklats efter EU-rättens praxis. Senast i november i fjol meddelade EU-domstolen ett avgörande som änd-rade förutsättningarna för rättfärdigandet av begränsningar av etableringsfriheten. Den 1 januari i år uppdaterades anståndsreglerna för inbetalningen av uttagsskatten. Frågan är nu huruvida den svenska uttagsbeskattningen är förenlig med etableringsfriheten. Enligt min bedömning verkar den svenska uttagsbeskattningen begränsande för utövandet av etableringsfriheten. Det beror på att det finns en diskrepans för hur bolag beskattas be-roende på om de flyttar eller behåller sin hemvist inom Sverige. Begränsningen kan dock motiveras enligt rule of reason-doktrinens rättfärdigandegrund om fördelningen av be-skattningsrätten mellan medlemsstaterna i enlighet med territorialitetsprincipen. I stort kan jag inte anse annat än att lagstiftningen även är proportionerlig mot detta syfte, men det finns situationer som aktualiserar ett krav på att den skattskyldige ska ställa säkerhet för in-betalningen av skatten, vilket jag anser är ett strängare krav på den skattskyldige än vad som kan anses vara motiverat. / Within EU an internal market is maintained where free movement of goods, people, ser-vices and capital are ensured. These freedoms mean that all discrimination on grounds of nationality in domestic laws should be abolished, which is a result of EU’s superiority which cannot be overridden by domestic law. If a law seems limiting of any of these freedoms, the rules must be justified or changed. The limitation can be justified by either the exceptions enacted in the Treaty or by the prin-ciple of rule of reason. The Swedish rules of exit-taxation have during the last years been developed after EU law practice. In November last year the Court of Justice of the European Union announced a preliminary ruling which changed the conditions for justifications of restrictions on the freedom of establishment. On January first this year, the domestic rules of granting of de-ferment of the payment of the exit-tax were renewed. The question now is whether the Swedish exit-taxation is compatible with the freedom of establishment. In my opinion the Swedish exit-taxation can have a restricting effect for the use of the freedom of establishment. This is because there is an inconsistency on how companies are taxed, depending on whether they move or keep their habitual residence in Sweden. The restriction may however be justified by the principle rule of reason by the purpose of en-suring the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the Member States, in accor-dance with the principle of fiscal territoriality. Generally I cannot consider otherwise than that the legislation also is proportionate to that purpose, but there are situations when the taxpayer is required to provide a bank guarantee to secure the payment of the tax, which I think is a more stringent requirement on the taxpayer than can be justified.

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...

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the current legal issue concerning the corporate mobility within the European Union. The main focus is placed, in particular, on the analysis of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Other parts of this thesis will give an overview of cross border mergers and supranational forms of companies including their ability to transfer their seat to other member states without being wound up in liquidation before the transaction within the area of the European Union. As evident from the title, the paper focuses on the topic from the European perspective only and the issue of the mobility from, or into, a non-member state is not dealt with. The first chapter provides a brief definition of the basic legal concepts that are crucial to this thesis. The definition of freedom of establishment in the context of the common market of the EU is given and also the incorporation theory and the real seat theory are briefly outlined, as well as the conflict that may arise between these two doctrines. The second chapter, the most extensive chapter which represents the core of this thesis, describes and analyzes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union law relating to the freedom of establishment. This chapter is divided into two...

Corporate Mobility in European Union Law The thesis deals with the latest developments in corporate mobility in the light of the recent CJEU decisions and its inherently formulated doctrine. After a brief introduction of the discussed general concepts, a dissection of previous case law and relevant legislation, the author explores the ways in which the current changes in the conception of cross-border conversions have influenced corporate mobility as a whole and the perception of freedom of establishment in particular. The question whether further legislative actions have to be taken in order to enable companies to take advantage of these developments is debated. The thesis is divided into five logical clusters which are structured in the following manner. Firstly, I analyze the fundamental pillars of corporate mobility, liability and capital protection doctrines that serve as the tangential object of interest to the actual subject matter as they represent the wider legal framework of European company law. Secondly, a comprehensive summary of the preceding case law of the Court on the issue of freedom of establishment is presented, providing an insight on the current issues, which are thoroughly discussed and analyzed in the remainder of the thesis. In Chapter four, the VALE case is further...

This work deals with freedom of establishment of legal entities inside EU. It focuses on evaluation of EU Court judicature. Inside thesis work are described basic terms connected with freedom of establishment including personal status determination and procedure of preliminary ruling.

The freedom of establishment is considered to be one of the essential freedoms in establishing the European internal market. Article 49 and 54 in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) grants persons and companies the right to set up establishments and pursue economic activity within the Member States of the European Union, the articles are however complicated and the Court of Justice has in many case explained how these articles are to be interpreted. A company is free to establish itself through a primary establishment in any Member State and has the right to open up secondary establishment in another Member State. This can be done regardless if this is done just the take advantage of the more favourable legislation in the first state. The transfer of the entire or parts of a company´s establishment fall  outside the scope of freedom of establishment, then national legislation determine if transfer is allowed or not. The outcome of a transfer varies widely because of the differences in national law. In some cases a company is forced to wind-up and liquidate while in other cases the transfer is allowed.  This shows that there is a need for harmonisation in the freedom of establishment for companies. A new distinction of transfer was introduces in the latest ruling in the Cartesio case. A company can transfer from one Member State to another if it intends to convert to a company form of the new state, however, only if the legislation of new state allows it. The Court of Justice allowed a new kind of transfer and it must now be regulated in order for companies to be able to take advantage of this increase in corporate mobility.

Abstract The freedom of establishment in Articles 43 and 48 EC is a fundamental freedom within the EU meaning that companies are free to set up secondary establishments in any other Member State. The freedom of establishment is an important means to achieve the com-pletion of the internal market and therefore it is important that this freedom is protected. Member States are obliged to legislate in accordance with the objectives of the fundamental freedoms, still Member States are restricting Articles 43 and 48 EC by applying discrimina-tory national legislation regarding direct taxation. In the Cadbury Schweppes judgment from September 2006 the ECJ found the British CFC legislation to be contrary to Community law. The purpose of CFC legislation is to prevent tax avoidance by conferring additional tax upon companies having subsidiaries in low tax states. According to the judgment in Cadbury Schweppes, if the CFC rules are too general in its application they are violating the freedom of establishment. Hence, the CFC legislation must be aimed specifically at “wholly artificial arrangements” aimed at circumventing national tax normally payable. Therefore it is of importance, in the context of applying CFC rules, to clarify the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment. It is also important to note that the CFC rules ap-ply even when a subsidiary is established outside the EU. The concept of abuse of Community law has been developed through case law and prohib-its companies to improperly use the provisions of Community law in order to circumvent national legislation. Even if an establishment in another State is made to avoid tax in the State of origin, it is not necessarily abuse of the freedom of establishment since companies are allowed to choose to establish subsidiaries in the Member States with least restrictive rules. The ECJ stated that establishing subsidiaries with the sole purpose to benefit from the lower tax regime do not constitute an abuse of the freedom of establishment as long as the subsidiaries pursue genuine economic activity. The criteria for what is regarded as eco-nomic activity has been discussed in both value added tax and direct tax cases. The re-quirements so far is that the subsidiary established has to be physically present in the host State on a durable basis and have staff and equipment to a certain degree. The ECJ has as-sessed the criteria similarly in value added tax and direct tax cases and stated that the activ-ity has to be considered per se and without regard to its purpose or result. The activity also has to be based on objective factors and be ascertainable by third parties. The Cadbury Schweppes case is the first case in the area of CFC legislation and the Court has provided little guidance regarding what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement”. As a consequence of this judgement some Member States have already changed their CFC legis-lation to comply with Community law. Nevertheless, there are cases pending before the ECJ that are further questioning the application of CFC rules and how to define a “wholly artificial arrangement”. The judgement of these cases may result in more changes in the na-tional legislation of the Member States. The future development of the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment is important for the protection of the principle of legal certainty. A clarification of what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement” will improve the foreseeability for companies and their cross-border transactions will be more efficient. / Sammanfattning Etableringsfriheten i artiklarna 43 och 48 EG är en av de grundläggande friheterna inom EU som innebär att företag är fria att etablera dotterbolag i andra medlemsländer. Etable-ringsfriheten är ett viktigt medel för att uppnå målen med den gemensamma marknaden och därför är det viktigt att denna frihet respekteras. Medlemsländerna är skyldiga att lag-stifta i ljuset av de grundläggande friheterna, trots det finns diskriminerande skattelagstift-ning som strider mot artiklarna 43 och 48 EG. I Cadbury Schweppes domen från september 2006 fann EG-domstolen att de brittiska CFC reglerna strider mot gemenskapsrätten. Syf-tet med CFC regler är att förhindra skatteundandragande genom att löpande beskatta in-komster från dotterbolag etablerade i lågbeskattade länder. CFC regler som tillämpas gene-rellt är enligt Cadbury Schweppes domen i strid med etableringsfriheten. Därmed måste CFC reglerna tillämpas specifikt på ”konstlade upplägg” som har som enda syfte att undvika na-tionell skatt. Det är därför viktigt att klargöra skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av eta-bleringsfriheten. I detta sammanhang är det viktigt att poängtera att CFC reglerna är till-lämpliga även på dotterbolag som är etablerade i ett icke-medlemsland. Konceptet om missbrukande av EG-rätten har utvecklats i praxis och förbjuder företag att missbruka bestämmelserna i gemenskapsrätten för att kringgå nationell lagstiftning. Även om ett dotterbolag har etablerats i ett medlemsland enbart för att utnyttja den låga skatteni-vån är det nödvändigtvis inte missbruk av etableringsfriheten eftersom företag har rätt att etablera dotterbolag i det land som är mest fördelaktigt ur skattehänseende. EG-domstolen har fastställt att etablering av dotterbolag enbart för att utnyttja en mer fördelaktig skattere-gim inte utgör missbruk av etableringsfriheten om dotterbolaget bedriver verklig ekono-misk verksamhet. Kriterierna för vad som anses utgöra verklig ekonomisk verksamhet har diskuterats i såväl mervärdesskatterättsliga som företagsskatterättsliga mål. Hittills uppställ-da krav är att det etablerade dotterbolaget måste vara varaktigt fysiskt närvarande i värdsta-ten samt till en viss grad ha personal och utrustning så att tredje part kan förvissa sig om dess ekonomiska verksamhet. Utvärderingen av den ekonomiska verksamheten måste ske självständigt utan hänsyn till dess syfte och resultat. Cadbury Schweppes är det första målet angående CFC lagstiftning och EG-domstolen har endast tillhandahållit begränsad vägledning om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg”. Som en konsekvens av denna dom har några medlemsländer redan ändrat sin CFC lagstiftning så att den överensstämmer med EG-rätten. Icke desto mindre finns det en del oavgjorda mål som ytterligare ifrågasätter CFC reglernas tillämpning och definitionen av ”konstlade upplägg”. Avgöranden i dessa mål skulle kunna resultera i att medlemsländerna måste göra ytterligare ändringar i sin lagstiftning. Den framtida utvecklingen av vad som är skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av etableringsfriheten är viktig för rättssäkerheten. Ett klargö-rande om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg” kommer att öka förutsebarheten för före-tag vilket leder till en effektivisering av deras gränsöverskridande transaktioner.

Establishment in foreign countries can be achieved through a subsidiary company or a permanent establishment. Profit of a subsidiary company is normally taxed in accordance with the law of the country of where it is established, since a subsidiary company constitutes a separate legal entity. A permanent establishment on the other hand is not a separate legal entity, therefore profit in a permanent establishment is usually added on to the company’s total profit and taxed in accordance with the law of the country of where the company is established. Establishing business activities in foreign countries do normally not create problems, unless the business is carried on in a low tax jurisdiction. If that is the case, unlimited opportunities are created for companies to circumvent domestic taxation by transferring profit to the low tax jurisdiction, which in turn decreases the domestic tax base. In Sweden this kind of circumvention is precluded by chapter 39a ITA, in the meaning that a shareholder in a foreign company can be tax liable of low taxed profit in a foreign. The question that arises is whether chapter 39a ITA infringes on freedom of establishment. The outcome in the analysis is that there is a likeliness that chapter 39a ITA constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment. The escape provided in article 52 TFEU cannot justify the measure. Nor is it likely that the measure can be justified by the rule of reason. In the light of the assessment done in the analysis, it can be concluded that the chapter 39a ITA is applied in a non-discriminatory manner, satisfies a mandatory requirement (prevention of tax avoidance) and is regarded as appropriate in securing the achievement of the objectives. But there is a potential risk that measure will fail in the proportionality test.