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>

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.