This final thesis deals with the issue of transfer of registered office within the EU law. The thesis follows three lines of legal regulations: harmonization of company law, rule-making in the field of European companies and case-law dealing with primary freedom of establishment. The goal of the thesis is to sum up possibilities of the transfer of registered office assured by current legal situation to both companies established according to intrastate legislation and European forms of companies. The thesis also deals with prospects of possible future development.

Les sociétés cotées constituent un monde à part. Il existe environ 5 000 sociétés cotées sur les marchés réglementés des bourses de l’UE. Même si elles représentent moins de 1 % des entreprises européennes, leur capitalisation boursière s’élève à plus de 70 % du PIB. Parce que ces sociétés ont une importance systémique pour l’économie, la compréhension de leur régime juridique s’avère cruciale. Nous traçons d’abord les contours du droit qui leur est applicable, en partant du niveau supranational parce que le droit européen est la plus importante source à la fois de convergence et de divergence. Cette approche nous permet de discuter si le niveau supranational devrait s’investir de nouveaux secteurs ou pousser l’harmonisation dans ceux déjà réglementés et de faire des prédictions quant à la direction probable ou souhaitable des réglementations. Nous analysons ensuite la causalité de la convergence, ce qui fait ressortir trois types de convergence : imposée, par pression et par rapprochement des circonstances factuelles dans lesquelles les sociétés cotées de l’UE exercent leurs activités. Nous concluons qu’il existe à présent une convergence en matière de droit applicable aux sociétés cotées de l’UE en dépit d’une harmonisation seulement partielle opérée au niveau supranational et que cette convergence s’approfondira sous l’impulsion des forces et des facteurs qui en servent de cause. Cette conclusion appuie la systématisation future des droits nationaux en fonction d’une nouvelle summa divisio entre sociétés cotées et sociétés non cotées. / Listed companies are a world apart. There are approximately 5 000 companies listed on the regulated markets of the EU stock exchanges. Although they represent less than 1 % of the European businesses, their market capitalization amounts to more than 70 % of GDP. Because they have a systemic importance for the economy, the comprehension of their legal regime is crucial. We first establish the boundaries of the applicable law, starting from the supranational level because EU law represents the most important source of both convergence and divergence. This method allows us to establish if the supranational level should extend to new areas of regulation or push for further the harmonization in the areas already regulated and to make predictions regarding the probable or desirable future directions of the regulations. We then analyze the causality of convergence, which shows three main types of convergence : imposed, by pressure and by approximation of the factual circumstances of the environment in which EU listed companies operate. We conclude that presently there is a convergence of national regulations applicable to EU listed companies despite only partial harmonization at the supranational level and that this convergence will deepen as a result of its forces and factors of causality. This conclusion reinforces the arguments for a reorganization of national laws based on a new summa divisio between listed companies and non-listed companies.

<p>Denna uppsats tar sikte på att utreda om det existerar fri rörlighet inom EU även för aktiebolag, d.v.s. om aktiebolag fritt kan flytta sitt säte mellan olika medlemsstater utan att problem uppstår. Dessutom undersöks vad som gjorts inom EU för att harmonisera reglerna på det bolagsrättsliga området. Slutligen och som huvudsyfte för uppsatsen görs en ansats att försöka ta reda på varför den övernationella bolagsformen europabolag inte blivit någon succé bland svenska företagare sedan den infördes i oktober 2004.</p><p>Beträffande den första frågan konstateras att aktiebolag inte har samma fria rörlighet som fysiska personer, trots att EGF föreskriver detta. Anledningen är att medlemsländerna tillämpar olika lagvalsprinciper som i många fall gör det omöjligt för bolag att byta nationalitet utan att först likvideras och sedan omregistreras. Detta har även konstaterats i ett antal rättsfall från EG-domstolen där domstolen ansett att rättsläget inte varit förenligt med EGF och att åtgärder bör vidtas.</p><p>Harmoniseringsarbetet på det bolagsrättsliga området inom EU har pågått sedan 1950-talet och har bl.a. bestått i att ta fram ett antal bolagsdirektiv för att uppnå en minimistandard i samtliga medlemsstaters lagstiftning. Det fjortonde och senaste i raden av dessa direktiv ämnar lösa den problematik som i dagsläget finns beträffande bolagsflytt. Direktivet har dock inte antagits ännu och ingen vet heller när eller om detta sker.</p><p>Utöver bolagsdirektiv finns tre olika övernationella bolagsformer – europeiska ekonomiska intressegrupperingar, europakooperativ och europabolag – vars syfte är att underlätta företagens samarbete över gränserna. Just europabolaget är något som kommissionen är mycket stolta över trots detta har inte många europabolag registrerats. I Sverige finns i maj 2007 endast fem europabolag registrerade och anledningen till detta tycks vara flera men ett svåröverskådligt regelverk och avsaknaden av en övernationell skattelösning verkar vara de största, åtminstone om man tolkar de svar som ett antal svenska företag lämnade på en konsultation från kommissionen våren 2006.</p><p>Mina egna åsikter om europabolag överensstämmer till stor del med de åsikter som finns hos svenska företag och jag skulle gärna se att regleringen om europabolag var mer enhetlig och inte styrs så mycket av nationell rätt, vilket är fallet i dagsläget. Jag är dessutom tämligen övertygad om att mängden europabolag kommer att öka i takt med att SE-förordningen justeras något och fler företag inser europabolagets fördelar.</p> / <p>This essay sets out to investigate if companies are entitled to free movement within the EU and if they without problem can move their residence from country to country. The essay also contains a report on what is done within the EU to harmonize company law. Finally, a study is made to investigate why the European company hasn’t been that successful among companies in Sweden.</p><p>Concerning the first question the answer is that companies in practice aren’t entitled to free movmenet even though it’s prescribed in the EC legislation. The reason to this is that the member states apply different principles that make it impossible for companies to move to another state without being liquidated in the first state and re-established in the second state. The EC court of justice has in several rulings stated that this problem has to be taken care of since it’s inconsistent with the EC legislation.</p><p>The work with harmonization of the company law within the EU has been going on for about fifty years and has consisted of different directives to reach a minimum standard in all members states. The fourteenth and last of these directives will make it easier for companies to move but no one knows when this directive will be adopted by the EC council.</p><p>Besides the directives there also exist three different types of companies that are common within the whole union. These companies are the European Economic Interest Grouping, the European Cooperative Society and the European company. The European company hasn’t been very successful and one reason for that is that the legislation is difficult to understand since it’s different in every member state, at least according to a couple of Swedish companies that participated in a consultation made by the European commission in spring 2006.</p><p>My own opinions on the European company are mostly the same as the Swedish companies and I would like to see an even more uniform legislation. I also think that we in a couple of years will see a lot more European companies as time goes by and the cracks in the legislation has been fixed.</p>

Denna uppsats tar sikte på att utreda om det existerar fri rörlighet inom EU även för aktiebolag, d.v.s. om aktiebolag fritt kan flytta sitt säte mellan olika medlemsstater utan att problem uppstår. Dessutom undersöks vad som gjorts inom EU för att harmonisera reglerna på det bolagsrättsliga området. Slutligen och som huvudsyfte för uppsatsen görs en ansats att försöka ta reda på varför den övernationella bolagsformen europabolag inte blivit någon succé bland svenska företagare sedan den infördes i oktober 2004. Beträffande den första frågan konstateras att aktiebolag inte har samma fria rörlighet som fysiska personer, trots att EGF föreskriver detta. Anledningen är att medlemsländerna tillämpar olika lagvalsprinciper som i många fall gör det omöjligt för bolag att byta nationalitet utan att först likvideras och sedan omregistreras. Detta har även konstaterats i ett antal rättsfall från EG-domstolen där domstolen ansett att rättsläget inte varit förenligt med EGF och att åtgärder bör vidtas. Harmoniseringsarbetet på det bolagsrättsliga området inom EU har pågått sedan 1950-talet och har bl.a. bestått i att ta fram ett antal bolagsdirektiv för att uppnå en minimistandard i samtliga medlemsstaters lagstiftning. Det fjortonde och senaste i raden av dessa direktiv ämnar lösa den problematik som i dagsläget finns beträffande bolagsflytt. Direktivet har dock inte antagits ännu och ingen vet heller när eller om detta sker. Utöver bolagsdirektiv finns tre olika övernationella bolagsformer – europeiska ekonomiska intressegrupperingar, europakooperativ och europabolag – vars syfte är att underlätta företagens samarbete över gränserna. Just europabolaget är något som kommissionen är mycket stolta över trots detta har inte många europabolag registrerats. I Sverige finns i maj 2007 endast fem europabolag registrerade och anledningen till detta tycks vara flera men ett svåröverskådligt regelverk och avsaknaden av en övernationell skattelösning verkar vara de största, åtminstone om man tolkar de svar som ett antal svenska företag lämnade på en konsultation från kommissionen våren 2006. Mina egna åsikter om europabolag överensstämmer till stor del med de åsikter som finns hos svenska företag och jag skulle gärna se att regleringen om europabolag var mer enhetlig och inte styrs så mycket av nationell rätt, vilket är fallet i dagsläget. Jag är dessutom tämligen övertygad om att mängden europabolag kommer att öka i takt med att SE-förordningen justeras något och fler företag inser europabolagets fördelar. / This essay sets out to investigate if companies are entitled to free movement within the EU and if they without problem can move their residence from country to country. The essay also contains a report on what is done within the EU to harmonize company law. Finally, a study is made to investigate why the European company hasn’t been that successful among companies in Sweden. Concerning the first question the answer is that companies in practice aren’t entitled to free movmenet even though it’s prescribed in the EC legislation. The reason to this is that the member states apply different principles that make it impossible for companies to move to another state without being liquidated in the first state and re-established in the second state. The EC court of justice has in several rulings stated that this problem has to be taken care of since it’s inconsistent with the EC legislation. The work with harmonization of the company law within the EU has been going on for about fifty years and has consisted of different directives to reach a minimum standard in all members states. The fourteenth and last of these directives will make it easier for companies to move but no one knows when this directive will be adopted by the EC council. Besides the directives there also exist three different types of companies that are common within the whole union. These companies are the European Economic Interest Grouping, the European Cooperative Society and the European company. The European company hasn’t been very successful and one reason for that is that the legislation is difficult to understand since it’s different in every member state, at least according to a couple of Swedish companies that participated in a consultation made by the European commission in spring 2006. My own opinions on the European company are mostly the same as the Swedish companies and I would like to see an even more uniform legislation. I also think that we in a couple of years will see a lot more European companies as time goes by and the cracks in the legislation has been fixed.

European company is a supranational form of public limited company. The aim of European Union was to make unified legal form for enterprises. The aim was not very successful because of disagreement of member states on employee participation. Also the fragmentation of legal frame of European company is too deep. The thesis analyse legal basis of European company and ways of its establishment. Examples from practice of Court of Justice of the European Union show difficulties in seat transfer before European company existed. Statistics and charts demonstrate unique position of Czech Republic. It is because of the absolutely highest number of established European companies, which is caused by trading trend with ready-made companies.

This DPhil thesis analyses the Takeover Bid Directive in the light of EU Law and examines the extent to which this Directive facilitates the exercise of the fundamental freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital in the internal market. Since the Directive is based on the EC Treaty chapter on freedom of establishment (Articles 43 and 44(2)(g) EC Treaty), it should in principle contribute to cross frontier corporate mobility in the internal market through takeover bids; this was the aim of the Commission in its various proposals. Takeover bids and the EC Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment are closely related. The Directive forms part of the EU company law harmonization programme whose weaknesses and limits are also explored. However, the Takeover Bid Directive is an EU company law instrument with strong links to EU capital market law. The initial aims of the EU legislature were to establish an internal market for companies and to achieve market integration in the field of EU company law. However, the Takeover Bid Directive is a compromise and watered down version of a proposal which the Commission envisaged would lead to a more effective pan-European takeover regime than that which actually proved possible. The need for compromise was the result of the very different legal and policy approaches of the Member States in the field of takeover regulation. Some provisions of the Directive are obligatory for all Member States. These provisions include the mandatory bid rule, the squeeze-out right, and the sell-out right. All these obligatory provisions of the Directive are in their present form open to criticism. The two key provisions of the Directive have been made optional for Member States. These are the non-frustration rule, requiring the board to obtain the prior authorization of the general meeting of shareholders before taking any action which could result in the frustration of the bid; and the breakthrough rule, requiring that any restrictions on the transfer of securities or voting rights provided for in the articles of association of the offeree company or in contractual agreements between the offeree company and the holders of its securities or in contractual agreements between holders of the offeree company’s securities shall not apply vis-à-vis the offeror during the time allowed for acceptance of the bid. Nevertheless, Member States, which opt out, are obliged to allow individual companies to opt in. Moreover, a reciprocity rule was also adopted, which allows Member States to permit those companies, which apply these provisions, to opt out again if they are the target of a bidder, which does not itself apply the same takeover provisions. Additionally, the non-frustration and the breakthrough rule are not fully comprehensive and even when a company applies them, it might still be able to evade their application since some corporate and financial structures remain outside the Directive’s scope. Finally, this thesis discusses the extent to which obstacles to cross border takeovers addressed by the Directive, or indeed left intact by the Directive, are to be regarded as restrictions on the right of establishment stricto sensu, or simply as obstacles in practice to making a successful takeover bid. More specifically, it scrutinizes the horizontal direct effect of the EC fundamental freedoms and seeks to analyze the extent to which conduct of the board and articles in the corporate constitution might be said to constitute restrictions on the freedom of establishment and on the free movement of capital.

1 The European Private Company Dissertation thesis Mgr. et Mgr. Igor Augustinič Abstract Supranational corporate forms as a means for supporting cross-border entrepreneurial activities on the internal market of the European Union are in the centre of interest of legislation and legal doctrine almost from the beginning of the European integration. However, a full-function corporate form oriented above all to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) cannot be found among the existing European corporate forms. It was this primary target group, the overwhelming majority of enterprises in Europe belongs to, and the project of the European private company - societas privata europaea - should be aimed at. The origins of the SPE project can be seen in academic debates on which supranational corporate form would be the most suitable for SMEs going back to the seventies of the twentieth century. Under the auspices of CREDA, Centre for Research of Commercial Law by the Paris Chamber of Commerce, the discussions were taken up again in the nineties of the twentieth century and led to the first Draft SPE Regulation being prepared by CREDA in 1997. It was a private draft that has served as a basis for further discussions on the SPE project. Since 2001, the initiative regarding the project has been taken over by the...

The diploma thesis deals with a one-tier (monistic) board structure of a European company (Societas Europaea) which has its registered seat in the Czech Republic. The governance of a European company is largely dependent on the national legislation, which has been in the Czech Republic significantly amended by a substantial recodification of private law. The thesis focuses on some of the interpretative difficulties that the new legislation has brought to the regulation of the monistic European Company, and presents some possible solutions thereto. In addition the statistical overview over the current state of European companies within Europe is included and commented upon. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

La soutenance de thèse proposée est une soutenance sur travaux qui portent sur des questions de droit comparé des sociétés, de droit européen des sociétés et de l'arbitrage international. Les travaux portant sur le droit des sociétés s'interrogent sur les développements récents en matière de liberté d'établissement des sociétés en Europe suite à la jurisprudence rendue par la Cour européenne de justice et sur l'opération des Limited liability company de droit anglais en Allemagne et des questions de droit international privé que cela soulève. Le travail sur le droit de l'arbitrage s'interroge sur le sort des traités bilatéraux d'investissement conclus entre Etats devenus Etats membres de l'Union européenne face à la politique menée par la Commission Européenne qui vise leur annulation. / The papers submitted for the viva deal with various comparative company law, European company law and international arbitration related issues. The company law papers look at the recent developments in the freedom of establishment of companies in Europe resulting from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and at the operation of English law limited liability companies in Germany and certain of the private international law questions that arise in that context. The paper on international arbitration discusses the future of bilateral investment treaties concluded between EU member states in light of the European Commission's hostile approach to such treaties aiming at obtaining their annulment.

« L’Europe ne se fera pas en un jour, ni sans heurts.», dixit Monsieur Robert Schuman. Tel est le constat qui peut encore être fait à l’heure actuelle avec l’adoption, après trente ans d’intenses débats au niveau européen, de la Societas Europaea, introduite en droit français avec la loi du 26 juillet 2005 pour la confiance et la modernisation de l’économie, complétée par les décrets du 14 avril 2006 et du 9 novembre 2006. La même analyse peut s’appliquer à la proposition du règlement de la commission européenne relatif au statut de la société privée européenne faite le 25 juin 2008, en cours d’examen devant le Parlement Européen. Il s’agit de démontrer l’existence de normes communautaires flexibles propices au développement des normes statutaires, à l'image de celles applicables à la société privée européenne (SPE) d'origine communautaire et d'essence contractuelle. La SPE doit être analysée comme structure sociétaire, symbole de l’émancipation du droit communautaire et vecteur du principe de libre établissement des sociétés, à la fois par rapport à sa « grande cousine », la société européenne, et à travers l’étude des normes communautaires comme éléments nécessaires au bon fonctionnement des structures européennes.La question est enfin de savoir si le recours à la SPE constitue un instrument pertinent dans les opérations de restructuration intra-communautaire. Deux axes de réflexion semblent s’imposer : l’aménagement des relations contractuelles intragroupe via le modèle de la SPE et la SPE comme élément moteur dans le cadre des opérations de fusion intracommunautaire. / “Europe will not be made in a day, nor without any clashes,” according to Mr Robert Schuman. The statement proved to be true with the adoption, after thirty years of intense debates at the European level, of Societas Europaea, introduced into French law with the bill of July 26, 2005 for the confidence and modernization of the economy, supplemented by the decrees of April 14, 2006 and November 9, 2006. The same analysis can be made of the European Commission proposals for the regulations relating to the statute of the European private company made on June 25, 2008, and now under consideration before the European Parliament. The question is to show the existence of flexible Community standards favourable to the development of statutory standards, in the image of those applicable to the European Private Company of Community origin and which is contractual in essence. The European Private Company should be analysed as a member structure and a symbol of the emancipation of Community legislation as well as a vector of the principle of free establishment of companies both in relation to its “big cousin,” the European Company, and through the study of Community standards as necessary elements to the correct operation of European structures. The next step is to question if resorting to the European Private Company constitutes a relevant instrument in the operations of intracommunitarian reorganization following two main lines of investigation: the adjustment of contractual intragroup relations via the model of the European Private Company and the European Private Company as a mainspring within the framework of intracommunitarian fusion operations.