From centros to ueberseering: Free movement of companies, private, international law, and community law

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 177-208

  Roth, Wulf Henning ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248060207     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/52.1.177     Document Type: Article

References (152)

1. See, eg, WF Ebke, ‘Centros—Some Realities and Some Mysteries’ (2001) AJ Comp Law 48 623
2. C.C. von Halen, Das Gesellschaftsstatut nach der Centros-Entscheidung des EuGH (Heidelberg: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, 2001)
3. W.-H. Roth, ‘“Centros”: Viel Lärm um Nichts?’ (2000) ZGR 311
4. E. Wymeersch, ‘Centros: A Landmark Decision in European Company Law’, in T Baums, KJ Hopt, and N Horn (eds), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law—Liber Amicorum, RM Buxbaum (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2000), 629
5. D. Zimmer, ‘Mysterium “Centros”’ (2000) ZHR 164, 23—all with further references.
6. ECJ 9 Mar 1999—Case C-212/97—Centros Ltd v Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 ECR I-1459.
7. ECJ 30 Nov 1995—Case C-55/94—Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1995 ECR I-4165, 4197–4198, para 37.
8. For a comment on Centros in this journal see A Looijestijn-Clearie, ‘Centros Ltd—A Complete U-Turn in the Right of Establishment for Companies?’ (2000) 49 ICLQ 621.
9. eg BayObLG 26 Aug 1998, NJW-RR (1999), 401.
10. ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (n 2) I-1487 para 4: ‘Under Danish law, Centros, as a “private limited company”, is regarded as a foreign limited liability company.’
11. For the somewhat uncertain state of Danish international company law see PK Andersen and KE Soerensen, ‘Free Movement of Companies from a Nordic Perspective’ (1999) 6 MJ (1999) 47.
12. BGH 21 Mar 1986, ZIP (1986), 643, at 644.
13. Some courts have applied the presumption that the main centre of administration will coincide with the seat fixed by the charter; eg OLG München 6 May 1986
14. NJW (1986), 2197, at 2198
15. OLG Oldenburg 4 Apr 1989, NJW (1990), 1422, at 1422
16. cf also OLG Frankfurt/Main 23 June 1999, ZIP 1999, 1710, at 1710 (offshore company with no seat of administration).
17. Wymeersch, above n 1, at 652
18. E.-H. Kieninger, ‘Niederlassungsfreiheit als Rechtswahlfreiheit’ (1999), ZGR, 724, at 746
19. P. Behrens, ‘Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Centros-Urteil des EuGH’ (1999) IPRax 323.
20. ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (above n 2), I-1494, para 30.
21. See also Advocate General Colomer in his Opinion in C-208/00-Überseering BV, para 36.
22. Kieninger, above n 7, at 728
23. R. Freitag, ‘Der Wettbewerb der Rechtsordnungen im Internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht’ (1999) EuZW 267, at 268.
24. The German statute (Bundesgesetzblatt 1972 II, 370) ratifying the Brussels EEC-Convention on the Mutual Recognition of Companies of 29 Feb 1968 (which has never been put into effect) excludes in its Art 2 s 1 those companies from the application of the Convention that have their siège réel outside the Community. This explicit reference to the siège réel has to be taken as an indication that the legislator sticks to the siège réel as the decisive connecting factor of German conflicts law.
25. BGH 11 July 1957, BGHZ 25, 134, at 144
26. 30 Jan 1970, BGHZ 53, 181, at 183
27. 5 Nov 1980, BGHZ 78, 318, at 334
28. 21 Mar 1986, BGHZ 97, 269, at 271
29. BayObLG 7 May 1992, 842
30. 26 Aug 1998, NJW-RR 1999, 401.
31. L.G. München I 22 July 1999, ZIP 1999, 1680
32. OLG München 25 June 1999, ZIP 1999, 1558, at 1559.
33. eg WH Roth, ‘Der Einfluβ des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf das Internationale Privatrecht’ (1991) RabelsZ 55, 623, at 647–51.
34. This point is forcefully advanced by H Halbhuber, Limited Company statt GmbH? Europarechtlicher Rahmen und deutscher Widerstand (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl.-Gesellschaft, 2001)
35. H. Halbhuber, ‘National Doctrinal Structures and European Company Law’ (2001) 38 CML Rev 1385, at 1390–1395.
36. For references, see Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (P Kindler), 3rd edn, vol 11 (1999)-IntGesR, para 264 n 344, 345, para 288 n 422, para 292 n 436.
37. See references in n 9. For a description of the ‘seat theory’, see RR Drury, ‘The Regulation and Recognition of Foreign Corporations: Responses to the “Delaware Syndrome” ’ (1998) Cambridge Law Journal 165, at 174.
38. BGH 21 Mar 1986
39. BGHZ 97, 269, at 272.
40. The issue is discussed by Zimmer, ‘Von Debraco bis DaimlerChrysler: Alte und neue Schwierigkeiten bei der internationalgesellschaftsrechtlichen Sitzbestimmung’, in Baums et al. (eds) (above n 1), 655.
41. Cf. OLG München 6 May 1986, NJW (1986), 2197, at 2198
42. OLG Oldenburg 4 Apr 1989, NJW (1990), 1422, at 1422.
43. BayObLG 7 May 1992, ZIP 1992, 842, has stressed the point that it is the economic and social environment at the centre of administration that is affected most by the activities of the company.
44. Roth, ‘“Centros”: Viel Lärm um Nichts?’ (2000) ZGR 311, at 333–4.
45. R.A. Leflar, American Conflicts Law, 3rd edn (Indianapolis/New York/Charlottesville: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1977), s 91 (pp 182).
46. American Conflicts Law
47. E.F. Scoles, P Hay, PJ Borchers, and SC Symeonides, Conflict of Laws, 3rd edn (St Paul, Minn.: West Group, 2000), s 2.14, discussing s 6 of the 2d Restatement; the most significant relationship test appears in Art 4 s 1 of the Rome Convention and in s 1, subsection 1 of the Austrian Law on Private International Law of 15 June 1978.
48. OLG Hamburg 21 Jan 1987, RIW (1988), 816, at 816
49. OLG Frankfurt/Main 24 Apr 1990, DB (1990), 1224, at 1224.
50. See Dicey & Morris on The Conflict of Laws, 13th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000), vol 2, rule 152 (2), at 1101
51. G.C. Cheshire and PH North, Private International Law, 13th edn (London: Butterworths, 1999), at 173.
52. Cheshire and North (above n. 29), at 175
53. see also Dicey & Morris (above n 29), at 1101, rule 152–1.
54. If it is a corporation, it can be so only by virtue of the law by which it is incorporated (Dicey & Morris, at 1102).
55. OLG Frankfurt/M. 4 Dec 2001, NJW-RR (2002), 605, at 606.
56. German partnership law does, however, not provide for a one-member-partnership. As a consequence, a one-man-company, registered in another State, will be treated simply as a natural person (Einzelkaufmann); see BGH 30 Jan 1970, BGHZ 53, 181, at 184.
57. In contrast to English company law (see eg J Charlesworth and G Morse, Company Law, 15th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1995), at 96), the pre-incorporation company is accepted as a legal entity of its own in German company law.
58. For references see JV Staudinger (B Groβfeld), Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen,—Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht, Neubearbeitung 1998 (Berlin: Sellier-de Gruyter, 1998), paras 440–8.
59. See the reaction of Advocate General Colomer in his Opinion (n 12), para 46.
60. For references see Staudinger (Groβfeld) (n 35), para 427–30.
61. P. Behrens, ‘Identitätswahrende Sitzverlegung einer Kapitalgesellschaft von Luxemburg in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ (1986) RIW 590
62. Roth, ‘Die Freiheiten des EG-Vertrages und das nationale Privatrecht’ (1994) ZEuP, 5, at 18–22
63. K. Schmidt, ‘Sitzverlegungsrichtlinie, Freizügigkeit und Gesellschaftspraxis’ (2000) ZGR, 20, at 23.
64. eg WF Ebke (1999) JZ 204 (case note)
65. but see V Kruse, Sitzverlegung von Kapitalgesellschaften innerhalb der EG (Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München: Heymann, 1997), at 37–40.
66. In accord with J Wouters, ‘Private International Law and Companies’ Freedom of Establishment’ (2001) EBORev 2 101, at 107.
67. Münchner Kommentar zum BGB (Kindler) (above n 19), para 393.
68. Münchner Kommentar zum BGB, with references to authorities in n 856.
69. Münchner Kommentar zum BGB, para 400.
70. See Cheshire and North (above n 28), at 175 (domicile cannot be changed).
71. The German Umwandlungsgesetz of 1995 provides for a reorganisation of companies (transformation into a partnership and vice versa), thereby upholding legal personality, however restricts its scope of application to companies with their seat of administration in Germany (s 1 sub-section 1). The present author has argued for an application of the Umwandlungsgesetz by analogy, see Roth, ‘Recognition of Foreign Companies in Siège Réel Countries: A German Perspective’, in J Wouters and H Schneider (eds), Current Issues of Cross-Border Establishment of Companies in the European Union (London: Blackstone, 1995), 29, at 40. The issues discussed in the text will, nevertheless, arise as long as the transfer has not been accompanied by a transformation procedure according to the Umwandlungsgesetz.
72. OLG Nürnberg 7 June 1984, RIW 1985, 494
73. OLG Hamburg 20 Feb 1986, NJW (1986), 2199
74. Kammergericht 13 June 1989, NJW (1989), 3100, at 3101 (analogy to s 11 sub-section 2 GmbH-Gesetz).
75. See OLG München 6 May 1986, NJW (1986), 2197, at 2198 (discussing nullity).
76. OLG Düsseldorf 10 Sept 1998, JZ (1999), 203.
77. BGH 30 Mar 2000, DB (2000), 1114, at 1115.
78. The BGH (above n 52), at 1115, did not decide the question whether the German regulations concerning the transformation of companies could have been applied, as the parties had not taken the appropriate steps to start such a procedure.
79. BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763 (2nd Senate).
80. U. Forsthoff, Rechts- und Parteifähigkeit ausländischer Gesellschaften mit Verwaltungssitz in Deutschland?—Die Sitztheorie vor dem EuGH, DB 2000, 1109
81. Kindler, ‘Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht am Scheideweg’ (2000) RIW 649, at 650, 652
82. Roth, ‘Die Sitzverlegung vor dem EuGH’ (2000) ZIP 1597, at 1600
83. Zimmer, ‘Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht und Niederlassungsfreiheit: Das Rätsel vor der Lösung?’ (2000) BB 1361, at 1365.
84. To be more precise: that the formerly foreign company has been transformed into a partnership governed by German law. BGH 21 Mar 1986, BGHZ 97, 269, at 271–2, has held that a transformation from a foreign company into a partnership under German law may take place.
85. In the light of Centros, the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH) 15 July 1999, EuZW (1999), 156, has held that the seat doctrine, as formulated in s 10 IPRG, runs counter Arts 43, 48 EC
86. for a comment, see B Höfling, ‘Die Sitztheorie, Centros und der österreichische OGH’ (2000) EuZW 145
87. J. Zehetner, Niederlassungsfreiheit und Sitztheorie, Ecolex (Wien: HANZ, 1999), 771.
88. ECJ 27 Sept 1988—Case 81/87—The Queen v HM Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, 1988 ECR 5483.
89. ECR 27 Sept 1988 (above n 61), at 5511, para 20.
90. ECR, at 5512, para 23.
91. This obiter dictum in Daily Mail has given rise to quite diverging interpretations and conclusions drawn therefrom; Brödermann in Brödermann and Iversen, Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (Tübingen: Hohr, 1994), 119–44
92. Halbhuber (above n 18), 27–56 (strongly criticising the prevailing reception of Daily Mail in German academic quarters).
93. In accord, eg, Schwarz, Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl-Geselleschaft, 2000), para 177–9.
94. Eg E Steindorff, ‘Centros und das Recht auf die günstigste Rechtsordnung’ (1999) JZ 1140, at 1141.
95. W. Schön, ‘Die Niederlassungsfreiheit von Kapitalgesellschaften im System der Grundfreiheiten’, in Gedächtnisschrift für Brigitte Knobbe-Keuk (Köln: Verlag Dr Otto Schmidt, 1997), 685, at 702.
96. Eg Behrens (above n 1), at 330.
97. In accord: Advocate General Colomer (above n 12), para 26.
98. OJ (1990) C 189/2.
99. The text appears in the UK as the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
100. OJ (2001) L 12/1.
101. OJ (1985) L 199/1.
102. OJ (2001) L 294/1.
103. Published, eg, in ZIP (1997), 1721
104. for comments of the proposal see eg RR Drury, ‘Migrating companies’ (1999) Eu L Rev 24, 354, 362–8
105. W. Meilicke, ‘Zum Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für die 14. EU-Richtlinie zur Koordinierung des Gesellschaftsrechts-Sitzverlegungs-Richtlinie’ (1998) GmbHRdsch 1053
106. J. Hoffmann, ‘Neue Möglichkeiten zur identitätswahrenden Sitzverlegung in Europa?’ (2000) ZHR 164, 43.
107. For a general discussion of the issue whether secondary Community law has to be in accordance with the basic freedoms, see eg UTM Scheffer, Die Marktfreiheiten des EG-Vertrages als Ermessensgrenze des Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebers (Frankfurt aM: Lang, 1997)
108. R.O. Schwemer, Die Bindung des Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebers an die Grundfreiheiten (Frankfurt aM: Lang, 1995)
109. see also Roth, ‘Einlagensicherung im Binnenmarkt’ (1997) ZBB 373, at 379
110. from the case law of the Court of Justice concerning Art 28 ECT, see, eg, ECJ 9 Aug—Case C-51/93-Meyhui NV v Schott Zwiesel Glaswerke AG, 1994 ECR I-3879, at 3898 para 11 (‘It is settled law that the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and of all measures having equivalent effect applies not only to national measures but also to measures adopted by the Community institutions …’)
111. ECJ 25 June 1997—Case C-114/96—R Kieffer and R Thill, (1997) ECR I-3629, at 3655 para 27, 3656, para 33
112. dealing with Art 43 ECT, see ECJ 22 Jan 2002—Case C-31/00—Conseil national de l'ordre des architects v Nicals Dreessen, para 26.
113. BGH 30.3.2000, DB (2000), 1114, at 1115, the Court states that for the ability to bring a claim it is of importance whether the company is being wound up according to its former law, or not, and whether, on the basis of the applicable German law, it has acquired legal personality (as a prerequisite for the capacity to bring a claim–Parteifähigkeit).
114. BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763.
115. ZIP.
116. In this sense, see also BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763.
117. The present author has argued to this end before; see Roth (above n 46), at 38
118. id (above n 38), at 20.
119. In accord: Wouters (above n 40), at 135.
120. Umwandlungsgesetz (UmwG), 28 Oct 1994, Bundesgesetzblatt (1994), I, 3210.
121. OLG Zweibrücken 27 June 1990, DB (1990), 1660 (the judgment concerned the pre-1995 conversion regulations contained in the Aktiengesetz).
122. Roth (above n 46), at 38.
123. ECJ 27 Sept 1988 (above n 61) I-5511, para 19.
124. In accord: Wouters (above n 40), at 135.
125. In this sense now BGH 1 July 2002, ZIP (2002), 1763.
126. Sections 76 and 77 Law of 11 Oct 1952 (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt (1952), I, 681.
127. Section 1 Law of 4 May 1976 (Mitbestimmungsgesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt (1976), I, 1153.
128. The social protection of the work force has been accepted as a general good justification: ECJ 27 Mar 1990—Case C-113/89—Rush Portuguesa (1990) ECR I-1417, at 1445 para 18 (without explicit reference to the ‘public interest’)
129. ECJ 23 Nov 1999—Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96—Jean-Claude Arblade (1999) ECR I-8453, at 8514, para 36 (with explicit reference to the ‘mandatory requirements of the public interest’).
130. For workers' codetermination as part of the German ‘identity’: Steindorff (above n 66), at 1142
131. Kieninger (above n 13), at 745
132. rightly points to the case law of the Court with regard to regulations that ‘reflect certain political and economic choices’, citing ECJ 23 Nov 1989—Case C-145/88—Torfaen, ECR (1989), 3851, at 3889, para 14
133. contra: H Hammen, Zweigniederlassungsfreiheit europäischer Gesellschaften und Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer auf Unternehmensebene, WM (1999), 2487, at 2493–2495
134. Zimmer (above n 54), at 1365–1366.
135. See Roth (above n 46), at 42.
136. M. Terlau, Das Internationale Privatrecht der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), at 181.
137. For an overview see Zimmer, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht (1996), 273.
138. See Zimmer (above n 106), at 275.
139. AB1. (1977) L 26/1
140. But see the Opinion of Advocate General LaPergola in the Centros proceedings, I-1481, para 21.
141. In case that the applicable company law does not provide for an equivalent degree of protection.
142. ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (n. 2), at 1496, para 37, 1492, para 24.
143. For a short discussion of this aspect related to insurance contract law, see Roth, Internationales Versicherungsvertragsrecht (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), at 383–4.
144. Cf Steindorff, EG-Vertrag und Privatrecht (1996) 250.
145. eg, ECJ 20 Feb 1979—Case 120/78—Rewe-Zentral-AG (1979) ECR, 649 (‘Cassis-de-Dijon’).
146. For a discussion of conflict-of-policies in general, see L Brilmayer, ‘The Role of Substantive and Choice of Law Policies in the Formation and Application of Choice of Law Rules’ (1995) Recueil des Cours 252, 9
147. G. Kegel and K Schurig, Internationales Privatrecht, 8th edn (München: CH Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2000), 114–32
148. Roth (above n 114), at 110–24, at 151–60.
149. Art 12 EGBGB (Art 11 Rome Convention of 1980) when applied by analogy may lead to additional protection to business partners when a localised contract has been concluded; see BGH 23 Apr 1998, NJW (1998), 2452 (2453)
150. Zimmer (above n 106), 251.
151. See Steindorff (above n 116), 250, who makes the point.
152. ECJ 9 Mar 1999 (above n 2).