O objeto de estudo desta dissertação é a abrangência subjetiva da cláusula compromissória, especificamente daquela celebrada por sociedades pertencentes a grupos societários. O problema, ainda novo no Brasil devido ao desenvolvimento recente da arbitragem em nosso país, já foi objeto de muito debate na Europa e nos Estados Unidos, onde a arbitragem é usada há muitos anos como método alternativo de resolução de conflitos. No âmbito da arbitragem comercial internacional, consolidou-se, tanto na jurisprudência como na doutrina, a teoria da unidade econômica dos grupos societários. Ela reconhece a especificidade do problema que a presença de agrupamentos de sociedades suscita na arbitragem, devido, essencialmente, à dupla realidade que eles representam unidade diretiva e econômica e diversidade jurídica. Nesta dissertação, procuramos expor as bases sobre as quais essa teoria, consolidada na prática comercial internacional, se assenta. Se no Brasil o tema não foi suficientemente discutido, podemos aprender as lições daqueles que não só já debateram exaustivamente a questão como, também, parecem já ter encontrado uma solução, ainda que ela não seja indene de críticas e ainda mereça ser aperfeiçoada. De início, tentamos conceituar e caracterizar os grupos societários. Em seguida, fizemos um apanhado de casos emblemáticos da jurisprudência arbitral e estatal, de diversos países, que recorreram à teoria da unidade econômica do grupo. Nosso intuito foi verificar a solução conferida ao problema por aqueles que se depararam com ele no caso concreto. Depois, procuramos expor a visão da doutrina sobre a teoria da unidade econômica do grupo, para podermos concluir onde reside o problema central da questão. Ao fim, discutimos o possível obstáculo, apontado por alguns autores, à aplicação da teoria no Direito brasileiro. / The purpose of this paper is to discuss who are the parties to the arbitration agreement, especially regarding the convention executed by companies that form part of a group. The issue, still topical in Brazil due to the recent development of the arbitration in our country, has already been subject to much debate in Europe and in the United States, where arbitration has been used for years as an alternative dispute resolution method. In international arbitration, the group of companies theory has been restated, both within the legal authorities and in case law. Such theory acknowledges the specificity of the issue raised by the presence of groups of companies in arbitration, especially due to their dual characteristics managerial and economical unit and legal diversity. In this paper, we have sought to settle the basis over which such theory, already settled in the international commercial arbitration practice, is construed. Since in Brazil the subject hás been scarcely discussed, we may learn lessons from those who have not only exhaustively debated it but who also seem to have found a way to solve it, even if it is not immune to criticism and still ought to be improved. We have initially tried to clarify the notion and the characteristics of the groups of companies. We have subsequently gathered a number of illustrative arbitral and state case law, from different countries, which have made use of the group of companies theory. Our aim was to verify the solution given to the issue by those who have actually been faced with the problem. Then, we have tried to present the legal authoritys view on the group of companies theory in order to conclude where the issue is in fact centered. In the end, we have discussed a possible obstacle, which certain authors have raised, as to the application of the theory in the Brazilian Law.

Indivisaires, concubins, membres d'une même famille, copropriétaires siégeant à une même assemblée, sociétés d'un même groupe, adhérents à un même parti politique, salariés d'une même unité économique et sociale, couple d'époux ou de partenaires, personnels de direction d'une même clinique... aucun lien ne semble rapprocher ces situations. Pourtant, toutes ont pu être qualifiées de "communautés d'intérêts". Hasard du langage ou, à l'inverse, signe de l'émergence d'une véritable notion ? Quels enseignements peuvent être tirés de l'emploi récurrent de l'expression "communauté d'intérêts" en droit positif ? Approfondissement minutieusement l'état de notre droit, cet essai s'applique à démontrer l'existence de la nation de communauté d'intérêts, ses spécificités et tout l'intérêt de sa consécration. Appréhendant la communauté d'intérêts comme un ensemble de personnes unies par des liens particuliers, l'étude menée ici s'avère audacieuse. Elle met à la disposition du juge et du législateur des outils de protection adaptés aux particularités de cette entité juridique et requise par celle-ci. D'une utilité pratique indéniable, l'étude répond également à une nécessité théorique. Elle propose de combler un vide juridique, celui qui existe au sein des groupements de personnes, et situe ainsi les diverses communautés d'intérêts entre les ensembles dépourvus de toute cohésion et ceux qui sont dotés de la personnalité morale ou qui en sont privés pour des raisons formelles. / Interest owners, cohabitees, members of a same family, co-owners at a same general assembly, subsidiairies of a same company, members of a same political party, employees of a same economic and social entity, spouses or life partners, management staff of a same clinic... these appear as unrelated and dissimilar simulations. Yet, all qualify as "communities of interests". Is this a mere vocabulary coincidence or the indication that a genuine concept is emerging ? What lessons can we learn from the recurring use of the term "communities of interest" in positive law ? Thoroughly researching the state of our law, this essay demonstrates the concept of "community of interest", its specificities and why it should be legally anchored. Apprehending the community of interest as a group of people united by special ties, the study undertaken here appears bold. It provides the judge and the legislator with protection tools adapted to the particularities of this legal entity and required by it. The study answers a theoretical necessity, and demonstrates its undeniable practical use. It proposes to fill a legal vacuum that exists within groups of people, and thus places the different communities of interest between the entities without any cohesion at all and those with legal personality or who are deprived of legal personality for formal reasons.

This thesis analyzes the consolidated financial statements for a selected group of companies, through Saarbruck model and financial analysis. The theoretical part deals with the concepts related to the consolidated financial statements and analyzes used to assess the financial situation of enterprises. The following section is on the practical application of theoretical knowledge to the consolidated financial statements, as well as focusing on the comparison of the financial results achieved by the individual companies and groups of companies as a whole. At the end of this work focuses on the final evaluation of the performance and financial position of the group of companies to which the proposals are processed to changes that could in the future lead to an improvement of their situation.

Conçu pour organiser les rapports de travail au sein d'une entreprise simple, constituée d'une seule unité de direction et de travail, et caractérisée par son autonomie économique et juridique, le droit du travail rencontre, aujourd'hui, des difficultés pour encadrer ces rapports au niveau du groupe de sociétés. L'origine de ces difficultés provient du fait que la société employeur se soumet à une domination exercée par une société dite société mère, ou société dominante du groupe. Du fait de cette domination, l'identification de l'employeur, débiteur des obligations imposées par le Code du travail, et l'articulation des rapports collectifs de travail au sein du groupe de sociétés suscitent des difficultés. Au sujet de l'identification de l'employeur, la question qui se pose est de savoir si la qualité d'employeur est accordée uniquement à la société contractante des salariés, ou bien cette qualité se voit attribuée également aux autres sociétés du groupe et notamment à la société dominante de celui-ci? Concernant l'articulation des rapports collectifs de travail, on se demande si les régimes collectifs propres à ces sociétés se substituent-ils au régime collectif spécifique au groupe dont elles relèvent ? Dans le même esprit, le droit du travail rencontre des difficultés pour protéger les salariés à ! 'intérieur du groupe de sociétés. Une interrogation se pose relative à la prise en considération du groupe pour la protection des salariés. Cette thèse se fixe comme objectif l'analyse de la réception du groupe de sociétés par le droit du travail. Il s'agit de déchiffrer, d'un côté, la position du droit du travail à l'égard de la structuration des rapports de travail à l'intérieur du groupe de sociétés et, d'autre côté, sa position à l'égard de la protection des salariés au niveau de cette structure économique. / Conceived to organize the reports of work within a simple company, the labor law meets, today, difficulties to frame these reports on the level of the group of companies. Origin of these difficulties comes owing to the fact that the company employer subjects to a domination exerted by a company known as parent company of the group. Because of this domination, identification of employer and articulation of the collective reports of work within the group of companies cause difficulties. In the same spirit, the labor law encounters difficulties to protect the employees with interior of the group of companies. An interrogation is posed relating to the catch in consideration of the group for the protection of the employees. This thesis is fixed like objective, analysis of the reception of the group of companies by the labor law. It's a matter of decipher, a side, the position of the labor law with regard of the structuring of the reports of work to interior of the group of companies (First part), and, another side, its position with regard of the protection of the employees on the level of this economic structure (Second part).

Groups of companies offer considerable economic and practical advantages over other forms of business organizations. However, the phenomenon creates a long list of problems in terms of antitrust law, tax law, labour law, corporate law, and in the case of international companies, conflict of laws. National laws do not provide a complete solution to these problems because groups of companies are still governed by traditional corporate law, which is designed to govern single independent companies. On the other hand, harmonization of the law of corporate groups across Common legal systems is neither feasible not advisable. The most important problem which has not yet been completely solved by Common law systems is the liability of groups of companies for the debts of their subsidiaries. This has been described as "one of the great unsolved problems of modern company law". The present study aims to analyse the solutions provided by Common law systems to this problem and evaluate if they provide a solid settlement or whether further safeguards are needed for those dealing with corporate groups, namely minority shareholders and outsiders including creditors. By using a comparative approach with the Islamic law system, the study evaluates if the Common law solutions are also applicable in such a religious system or whether, due to its unique character Islamic law needs to create its own solution. This comparative approach assesses the possibilities of harmonization between Common law and Islamic law systems and promotes the Islamisation of modern laws in Islamic countries.

Cette thèse a pour objectif de convaincre de la nécessité d’introduire des règles applicables aux groupes de sociétés au sein du règlement, et d’analyser, au moyen du droit comparé, les résistances que cette position impliquent et d’en tirer les conséquences qui lui sont attachées au regard de la sécurité juridique au sein de l’Union européenne.Alors que le texte prohibe - implicitement - l’application du règlement au groupe de sociétés, le juge anglais, inspiré par un certain pragmatisme, a très vite considéré que le renversement de la présomption en faveur du siège social statutaire des filiales permettrait la centralisation des procédures principales au sein d’un seul État membre pour le traitement unitaire des difficultés des groupes de sociétés (« la jurisprudence Daisytek »). La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a dans son célèbre arrêt Eurofood tenté de limiter les interprétations extensives des critères de compétence dont les juridictions nationales s’étaient vite accommodées. Les jurisprudences nationales se sont ensuite diversifiées. Si certains juges ont accordé un poids déterminant à la présence d’une activité dans l’État membre sur le territoire duquel est situé le siège social statutaire des sociétés membres d’un groupe, d’autres juges ont tout simplement résisté à l’arrêt Eurofood. Examinant ensuite les propositions des institutions européennes visant à modifier le règlement 1346/2000, cette thèse souligne la volonté des autorités européennes d’insérer des règles applicables aux groupes de sociétés pour la mise en oeuvre du règlement. Au terme de cette étude de droit comparé, des solutions sont proposées pour favoriser un traitement transfrontière efficace des difficultés au sein d’un groupe de société tout en garantissant la sécurité juridique des tiers au sein de l’Union européenne. / On 12 December 2012, the European Commission published its proposals for the revision of the Insolvency Regulation which were followed by a draft Legislative Resolution from the European Parliament (20th December 2013). While these proposals’ main objective is to create a specific legal framework for corporate group insolvencies, this thesis aims to demonstrate that they are unlikely to achieve their goal because of the requirement of legal certainty requirement within the EU.Adopted on 29 May 2000, the Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the « Insolvency Regulation ») aims at establishing a uniform set of private international law rules on insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects within the EU. Since its entry into force (31 May 2002), its application by national courts has created debate, in particular with regard to its application to corporate groups. In order to maximise the value of groups’ assets or to achieve a global restructuration of groups, the national courts broadened the scope of the Insolvency Regulation by an extensive interpretation of the centre of main interest (« COMI ») criterion. In such a context, the Court of Justice of the European Union (« CJEU ») reinforced the rule that each legal entity should be treated separately (in its 2006 Eurofood case).However, the CJEU’s ruling did not solve the legal issues that national courts were facing when applying the Insolvency Regulation in respect of corporate groups insolvencies.In spite of the fact that the creation of rules for groups of companies has always raised complex legal (and political) issues, the European’s proposals constitute surely a solid basis for discussion and a great opportunity for European academics and practitioners to make their voices heard as well as to propose further amendments to the current Insolvency Regulation. This thesis aims to demonstrate that several issues are unresolved with regard to the whole structure of the revised Insolvency Regulation (e.g. no specific definition of COMI with regard to corporate groups) as well as with regard to the special regime introduced for corporate groups (e.g. no clear choice on the coordination system to be favoured for insolvent groups of companies).

En raison de la fragmentation du processus productif et de la concentration des entreprises, des tiers sont susceptibles de s’immiscer dans l’exécution du contrat de travail. Le droit du travail en tient compte partiellement, en leur octroyant des prérogatives et en leur imposant des obligations semblables à celles de l’employeur. Au fil de l’analyse, émergent deux figures aux fonctions distinctes : le tiers utilisateur et le tiers organisateur. Ils ont la faculté d’établir une relation de travail avec un salarié sans qu’aucun contrat de travail ne les lie à celui-ci. Ils sont en outre amenés à préserver et protéger une relation de travail à laquelle ils ne sont pas parties grâce à des mécanismes de garantie ou de responsabilité. En découle une dispersion des droits et obligations de l’employeur ; l’idée d’un employeur unique est même remise en cause. N’est-ce pas le signe d’un dépassement du contrat de travail ? Sont-ce les prémices de relations non-contractuelles de travail ? Est-on à l’orée d’un changement de paradigme en droit du travail ? À ces multiples interrogations, la présente étude tente d’apporter des réponses. / Due to the fragmentation of the production process and corporate concentration, third parties are likely to interfere with the performance of the employment contract. The labor law take them partially into account by granting them prerogatives and imposing them similar obligations to those of the employer. Throughout this analysis, two figures emerge with distinct functions: the “user” third party and the “organizer” third party. They are able to establish a working relationship with an employee without any labor contract that binds them to him. They can also preserve and protect a working relationship in which they are not parties through mechanisms of guarantee or liability. As a result, the rights and obligations of the employer are dispersed; the idea of a single employer is even questioned. Isn’t it the sign that the employment contract is overwhelmed? Is it the beginning of non-contractual labor relations? Are we on the edge of a change of paradigm in labor law? To these many questions, this study attempts to provide answers.

La globalisation de l’économie a fortement contribué à la constitution de groupes de sociétés dans le cercle national et au-delà. La reconnaissance de l’accord collectif de groupe par le juge, puis par la loi du 4 mai 2004, a permis une adaptation partielle du droit du travail français à cette réalité. Instrument d’harmonisation des normes sociales en vigueur dans les diverses entités composant le groupe, il contribue à forger son identité. Même à ne considérer que les accords conclus dans le cadre national, maintes difficultés subsistent, qu’il s’agisse de la conclusion de l’accord (quel périmètre ? quelles parties ? quel contenu ?...) ou de son régime juridique (quelle force normative ? quelle portée ?...). Au-delà du cercle national, les accords de dimension transnationale emportent un lot d’interrogations plus vives encore, tant font défaut les éléments permettant d’en fixer, de manière sûre, le régime juridique. Des réponses doivent être proposées, dans le respect de la liberté et de l’autonomie des partenaires sociaux. / The globalisation of the economy has greatly contributed to the creation of groups of companies both nationally and internationally. The recognition of the group collective agreement by the judge, followed by the law of May 4th, 2004, has effected a partial adaption of French employment and labour law to its reality. In harmonising the employment standards and methodology enforced in the various entities composing the group, it has contributed to forging its identity. Even in considering only the agreements signed in France, many difficulties remain, whether about the conclusion of the agreement (scope? parties? content?) or its legal framework (enforcement and impact?). More so than strictly-national agreements, transnational ones give rise to complex questions, due to the difficulty in clearly defining their legal framework. Proposals herein are made in respect to the liberty and autonomy of the social partners.

En principe, les sociétés intégrées à un groupe sont juridiquement indépendantes et sont des sociétés comme d’autres, jouissant de la personnalité morale, et participant à la vie juridique comme tout sujet de droit. Cette indépendance juridique de principe concorde mal avec la réalité caractérisée par le contrôle exercé par la société mère, chef de groupe, et qui est dicté par la communauté d'intérêts qui cimente le groupe, il y a une asymétrie entre la situation de fait et la situation de droit. La responsabilité du groupe ne pouvant, de fait, pas être engagée, l’autre option est la recherche de la responsabilité de la mère, en sa qualité de société contrôlante, lorsqu’un acte dommageable a été commis par sa filiale. Toutefois, la notion d’autonomie pose un écran juridique très résistant qui protège la mère de toute action menée à son encontre du fait de ses filiales. Par principe, la responsabilité de la société-mère pour les faits de sa fille ne peut donc être recherchée.Par ailleurs, les groupes de sociétés présentent généralement la particularité d’être marqués par le sceau de l’extranéité, en raison de leurs activités qui se déploient bien souvent au-delà des seules frontières nationales, ce visage transnational de l’activité des sociétés rend plus difficile la responsabilisation de la société mère pour les actes commis par ses filiales, il faut, effectivement, dire que le droit international public, n’est pas en mesure de développer un système de responsabilité globale pour des cas de dommages trans-frontières. / In principle, a company incorporated in a group is legally independent and is a company like others, having its own legal personality, and participating in the legal life as any entity. This legal principle of independence hardly consistent with the reality characterized by the control exercised by the parent company, Group Head, which is dictated by the community of interest that binds the group, there is a mismatch between the actual situation and the legal situation. Responsibility for the group that can, in fact, not be engaged, the other option is to search the responsibility of the mother, in her capacity as controlling company, where a tort was committed by its subsidiary. However, the concept of autonomy is a very strong legal shield that protects the mother of any action taken against him because of its subsidiary. In principle, the responsibility of the parent to the facts of his daughter cannot be sought.In addition, groups of companies generally have the distinction of being marked by the seal of the foreign element, because of their activities which often deploy beyond national boundaries, this transnational face of corporate activity complicates accountability of the parent for the acts of its subsidiaries, it must indeed say that international law is not able to develop a system of global liability for transboundary damage.

A prática da arbitragem comercial internacional tem se deparado, há pelos menos quatro décadas, com a problemática da extensão da cláusula compromissória a uma parte não-signatária, integrante do mesmo grupo de sociedades a que pertence uma das partes integrantes da convenção, em razão do comportamento adotado pela parte não-signatária nas fases de negociação do contrato, execução ou extinção. Nesse sentido, a prática da Corte Internacional de Arbitragem da Câmara de Comércio Internacional dos últimos trinta anos e reiteradas decisões judiciais em países de diferentes tradições jurídicas como a França, Suíça e Estados Unidos têm se manifestado favoravelmente a essa extensão subjetiva da convenção de arbitragem. O estudo da doutrina nacional e da jurisprudência do Superior Tribunal de Justiça sobre os grupos de sociedades e seus efeitos, e a análise detida de diversos precedentes do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre a homologação de sentenças arbitrais estrangeiras, revelam a compatibilidade da referida prática arbitral internacional com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. / The possibility of extending an arbitration clause so that it binds a non-signatory company which is a member of the same corporate group as one of the signatories, on the basis of the conduct of said non-signatory during the negotiation, performance and termination of the contract, has been an issue in international commercial arbitration for the past three decades. The precedents of the International Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce during the past thirty years, and judicial decisions in countries such as France, Switzerland and the United States have been favorable to the extension of the arbitral convention to non-signatories. Analysis of the work of Brazilian legal commentators and the case law of the Superior Court of Justice relating to the group of companies doctrine [teoria dos grupos de sociedades], as well as analysis of several precedents of both the Superior Court of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court on the recognition of foreign arbitral awards, indicates that the international arbitration practice of the ICC on the extension of the arbitral agreement to non-signatories is compatible with the Brazilian legal system.