Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T06:25:03.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognition Of Companies Incorporated In Other EU Member States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Eva Micheler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few decisions of the European Court of Justice have received as much attention as the 1999 judgement in Centros.1 This decision provided private international lawyers with an opportunity to examine choice of law in relation to companies against the background of European law. It also caused company lawyers to re-examine their national legislation in the light of foreign rules.

Type
Current Developments: Private International Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 521 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Centros Ltd v Erhvervsog Selskabsstyrelsen C-212/97 [1999] ECR I-1459.

2 Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) C-208/00 ECJ 5 Nov 2002 (not yet reported, available from www.curia.eu.int); Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd C-167/01 Opinion of Advocate General Siegbert Alber 30 January 2003 (not yet reported, available from www.curia.eu.int).

2a Roth, W-H, ‘From Centros to Überseering: Free Movement of Companies, Private International Law, and Community Law, and Community Law, (2003) 52 ICLQ 180–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 To take into account the terminology used in the official translation of Überseering, this case note will use the term ‘real seat principle’.

4 For an overview see Rammeloo, , Corporations in Private International Law (2001) 20–41.Google Scholar

5 R v HM Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex p Dailey Mail and General Trust Plc 81/87 [1988] ECR 5483.

6 See paras 20–5 of the judgment.

7 OGH 15 July 1999, 6 Ob 124/99z & 6 Ob 123/99b [2001] 1 CMLR 38; OGH 11 Nov 1999, 6 Ob 122/98f [2000] Richterzeitung decision no 28.

8 An attempt was also made to test the compatibility of the Dutch recognition theory against European Law (Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken Groningen v Vennootshap naar buitenlands recht Challenger Trading Co Ltd C-410/99). The proceedings were cancelled because the company ceased to be registered.

9 HSB Wohnbau, C-86/00 [2001] ECR-I 5353; Holto Ltd, C-447/00 [2002] ECR-I 735.

10 See also paras 42–3 of the Opinion of AG Colomer.

11 Para 54.

12 Centros Ltd v Erhvervsog Selskabsstyrelsen C-212/97 [1999] ECR I-1459; Imperial Chemical Industries plc(ICI) v Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) C-264/96 [1998] ECR I-4695; Segers v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Banken Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen 79/85 [1986] ECR 2375; Commission of the European Communities v French Republic 270/83 [1986] ECR 273; The Queen v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Commerzbank AG C-330/91 [1993] ECR I-4017.

13 Para 59.

14 Paras 70–3.

15 Paras 62–70; see also the opinion of AG Alber in Inspire Art (n 2 above) paras 105–106.

16 Paras 78–82.

17 Para 92.

18 Para 93.

18a Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd C-167/01 opinion of Advocate General Siegbert Alber (not yet reported, available from www.curia.eu.int).

18b The opinion was released after the case note had been typeset. The author is therefore unable to provide a more detailed analysis of the reasoning adopted by AG Alber.

19 Para 65–6.

20 Para 46, 55.

21 See paras 22, 62, 73, 78, 82, and 93

22 This is confirmed by AG Alber in Inspire Art (n 22) paras 95–104, 107–122.

22a n 2 above, paras 128–140.

22b Roth (n 2a above) (2003) 52 ICLQ 196–198 and 207, albeit written before the opinion in Inspire Art Came out, seems to think otherwise.

23 Council Regulation 44/2001 [2001] OJ L 12/1.

24 The German term for such a loan is ‘eigenkapitalersetzende Gesellschafterdarlehen’.

25 1986 c 45.

26 Shadow directors are persons in accordance with whose instructions directors are accustomed to act (CA 1985 s 741). Any person, in particular shareholders, directors of parent companies, but also creditors can fall within the definition of a shadow director.

27 Brussels I Regulation Art 22 (2) & Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c 27) s 43(2)b.

28 Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (c 36) Schedule 1.

29 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c 46) S 22(2).