Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:05:58.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Private Company: A Supranational Company Form for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Susanne Braun

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
European & International Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 11 , 01 November 2004 , pp. 1393 - 1408
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See point (1) of Council Regulation of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), 2001 O.J., (L 294) 1.Google Scholar

2 Report on the implementation of the European Charter for small enterprises, 13 February 2003, Com (2003) 21 final/2; Report on the implementation of the European Charter for small enterprises in the candidate countries for accession in the European Union, 21 January 2003, SEC (2003) 57, 1.Google Scholar

3 Id.Google Scholar

4 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe, 4 November 2002, 1, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/report_de.pdf Google Scholar

5 Id. at 27.Google Scholar

6 Boucourechliev, European Perspectives: Initiatives in Favour of a European Law Company, 1 (1999) at http://www.creda.ccifr/colloque/13spe/13-04aspdf Google Scholar

7 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21 May 2003, COM (2003) 284, 6, at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar

8 Council Regulation No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Group, 1985 O.J. (L 199) 1.Google Scholar

9 Council Regulation No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company, 2001 O.J. (L 294) 1, Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 Supplementing the Statute for a European Company with Regard to the Involvement of Employees, 2001 O.J. (L 294) 22.Google Scholar

10 Council Regulation No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society, 2003 O.J. (L 207), 1, Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, 2003 O.J. (L 207) 1.Google Scholar

11 For an account of the legislative history and the final scope of the SE, see Teichmann, 4 German L. J. No. 4, 309 (1 April 2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=259.Google Scholar

12 Orgalime, Creation of a European Private Company – Position Paper, 24 October 2002, available at http://www.orgalime.org/positions/epc.htm; Helms, Die Europäische Privatrechtsgesellschaft 11 (1998).Google Scholar

13 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21 May 2003, COM (2003) 284, 21, at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar

14 Community guidelines on State aid to SMEs, 1992 O.J. (C 213) 2.Google Scholar

15 Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (1996/280/EC), 1996 O.J. (L 107) 4: as of 1 January 2005 this Recommendation will be replaced by Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC), 2003 O.J. (L 124) 36 and the Ecu will be replaced by Euro.Google Scholar

16 Drury & Hicks, The Proposal for a European Private Company, in The Journal of Business Law 436 (1999): In France and in Germany internal company law developments aimed at increasing flexibility by introducing a new and supple form or by making existing forms less rigid, ex. “Société par actions simplifiées” in France, “Kleine Aktiengesellschaft” in Germany.Google Scholar

17 Boucourechliev, supra note 6, at 3.Google Scholar

18 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe, 13 (2002) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/report_de.pdf Google Scholar

19 Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 26) 1.Google Scholar

20 See Art. 9 of the Council Regulation on the Statute for a European company; Kübler, Leitungsstrukturen der Aktiengesellschaft und die Umsetzung des SE-Statuts, in: ZHR 222, 224 (2003) speaks of nine levels.Google Scholar

21 Drury & Hicks, supra note 16.Google Scholar

22 Id.Google Scholar

23 Id.Google Scholar

24 Id.Google Scholar

25 Propositions Pour Une Societe Fermee Europeenne (Boucourechliev ed., 1997).Google Scholar

26 European Commission, A modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe – A consultative document of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/1_en.htm Google Scholar

27 Helms, supra note 12, at 105; Drury/Hicks, supra note 16.Google Scholar

28 First Directive 68/151/EEC, 1968 O.J. (L 65) 8.Google Scholar

29 Third Directive 78/855/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 295) 36.Google Scholar

30 Helms, supra note 12, at 126-127; Drury/Hicks, supra note 16, at 441: But the provisions of a minimum capital has not always the effect of providing any sort of guarantee that the business is sufficiently capitalised to protect third parties dealing with it.Google Scholar

31 Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC, 1977 O.J. (L 26) 1.Google Scholar

32 Drury & Hicks, supra note 16, at 448: This was one of the most difficult and pressing problems connected with the project.Google Scholar

33 Helms, supra note 12, at 142.Google Scholar

34 ECJ Case C-167/01, 48 AG 680 (2003); English version available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html; see the comments by Erich Schanze & Andreas Jüttner, Die Aktiengesellschaft 661 (2003); Maul, Silja, 58 BetriebsBerater 2297 (2003); Kersting, Christian & Schneider, Clemens Philipp“ 4 German L.J. 1277 (1 December 2003), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=344 Google Scholar

35 The Anglo-American countries followed this approach. See Lüdertz, in Soergel, Kommentar zum BGB, (12th ed. 1992), Art. 10, annotations 9, 13.Google Scholar

36 This approach was respected in Germany, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, Spain, Portugal, Greece. See Id. at Art. 10, annotation 4.Google Scholar

37 Kindler in Münchener Kommentar, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht para. 312 (1999); GRoßfeld in Staudinger, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht para 20, 26 (1998).Google Scholar

38 Kindler, supra note 37, at para. 256; Großfeld Großfeld, supra note 37, at para. 20, 22.Google Scholar

39 Behrens, Die grenzüberschreitende Sitzverlegung von Gesellschaften in der EWG, 9 IPRax 354 (1989); Knobbe-Keuk, Umzug von Gesellschaften in Europa, 154 ZHR 325 (1990); Ulmer, Schutzinstrumente gegen die Gefahren aus der Geschäftstätigkeit inländischer Zweigniederlassungen von Kapitalgesellschaften mit fiktiven Auslandsitz, 54 JZ 662 (1999).Google Scholar

40 Case C-167/01, Inspire Art, in: 48 AG 680, 683 (2003).Google Scholar

41 Case C-81/87, Daily Mail, 1988 E.C.R. I – 5483.Google Scholar

42 See for a comprehensive discussion, Halbhuber, Limited Company statt GmbH? (2001); see National Doctrinal Structures and European Company Law, 38 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1385 (2001); see also Ebke, Centros – Some Realities and Some Mysteries, 48 Am. J. Com L. 623 (2000).Google Scholar

43 Case C-212/97, Centros, 1999 E.C.R. I – 1459.Google Scholar

44 See Halbhuber and Ebke, supra, note 42.Google Scholar

45 Case C-208/00, Überseering, 2000 E.C.R. I – 9919. See, e.g., the comments by Bälz & Baldwin, The End of the Real Seat Theory (Sitztheorie): the European Court of Justice Decision in Überseering of 5 November 2002 and its impact on German and European Company Law, 3 German L.J. No 12 (2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.phd?id=214; Mock, Harmonization, Regulation and Legislative Competition in European Corporate Law, 3 German L.J. No 12 (2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.php?id=216; Behrens, Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Überseering-Urteil des EuGH und den Schlussanträgen zu Inspire Art, 193 IPRax (2003); Wymeersch, , The Transfer of the Company's Seat in European Company Law, ECGI Law Working Paper N°. 08/2003 and CMLR 2003 (40), 661.Google Scholar

46 See Bälz & Baldwin, supra note 45; see also Wooldridge, Überseering: Freedom of Establishment of Companies Affirmed, 14 European Business Law Review [EBLR] 227 (2003); Roth, , From Centros to Ueberseering: Free Movement of Companies, Private International Law, and Community Law, 52 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 177 (2003).Google Scholar

47 Questions concerning the freedom of establishment of companies have always been both a central and controversial area of Community law.Google Scholar

48 See Kersting & Schindler, The ECJ's Inspire Art Decision of 30 September 2003 and its Effects on Practice, 4 German L.J. No 12, 1277 (2003) at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol04No12/PDF_Vol_04_No_12_1277-1291_Privat_Kersting_Schindler.pdf Google Scholar

49 Schanze & Jüttner, Kollisionsrecht und Gesellschaftsrecht nach „Inspire Art“, 48 AG 661, 663 (2003).Google Scholar

50 Id.Google Scholar

51 Case C-167/01, 48AG 680 (2003).Google Scholar

52 See Inspire Art, supra note 40.Google Scholar

53 See Bayer, Die EuGH-Entscheidung “Inspire Art” und die deutsche GmbH im Wettbewerb der europäischen Rechtsordnungen, 58 BB 2357 (2003); Ziemons, , Freie Bahn für den Umzug der Gesellschaften nach Inspire Art?, 42 ZIP 1913 (2003); Wachter, , Errichtung, Publizität, Haftung und Insolvenz ausländischer Kapitalgesellschaften nach Inspire Art, GmbHR 1254 (2003): arguing to the contrary.Google Scholar

54 Großerichter, Ausländische Kapitalgesellschaften im deutschen Rechtsraum: Das deutsche Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht und seine Perspektiven nach der Entscheidung „Überseering“,169 DStR 159 (2003).Google Scholar

55 Diego, Gemeinschaftsrechtskonformität mitgliedstaatlicher Reglementierungen des Wettbewerbs der Gesellschaftsrechtsordnungen in der EG, 6 JURA 400, 401 (2004).Google Scholar

56 Forsthoff, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht im Umbruch, DB 979, 981 (2003).Google Scholar

57 Boucourecheliev, supra note 6.Google Scholar

58 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21.05.2003, COM (2003) 284, 8, 9, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar

59 Nagel, Wirtschaftsrecht der Europäischen Union, 4. Auflage 338 (2003).Google Scholar

60 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a modern regulatory framework for company law in Europe, 2002, 113, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/company/company/modern/consult/report_de.pdf Google Scholar

61 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border mergers of companies with share capital, 18.11.2003, Com (2003) 703 final.Google Scholar

62 Id.Google Scholar

63 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward, 21.05.2003, COM (2003) 284, 21, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/eng/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0284de01.pdf Google Scholar

64 Hulle, Van & Maul, , Aktionsplan zur Modernisierung des Gesellschaftsrechts und Stärkung der Corporate Governance, 33 ZGR 484, 501 (2004).Google Scholar

65 Drury, & Hicks, , supra note 16, at 451: “… the European Private Company could become the corporate vehicle of first resort and a familiar feature of our common company laws in the next century.”Google Scholar

66 Id. at 448-449: One aim of the EPC proposal was to keep it as simple as possible, not to go in for over-regulation and to end up with an enormous statute.Google Scholar