Centros Ltd—A complete u-turn in the right of establishment for companies?

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 621-642

  Looijestijn Clearie, Anne ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872777567     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300064393     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. See E. Werlauff, “Using a Foreign Company for Domestic Activities”, (http://www.rws-verlag.de/volltext/centros4.htm) who regards the judgment in Centros as the Cassis de Djion in the field of the freedom of establishment of companies.
2. Case 79/85, Segers v. Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen [1986] E.C.R. 2375.
3. Case C-221/89 The Queen v. The Secretary of Slate for Transport, ex parte Factortamc Ltd and Others [1991] E.C.R. I-3905. This is one of a series of cases in which Spanish nationals and companies successfully invoked Article 43 and Article 221 (now Article 294) of the Treaty in order to gain access to the British fishing quota under the EC Common Fisheries Policy, a practice known as “quota hopping”.
4. See the related infringement proceedings in Case 246/89R Commission v. United Kingdom [1989] E.C.R. 3125
5. Case C-246/89 Commission v. United Kingdom [1991] E.C.R. I-4585.
6. The first case, Factortame I, Case C-213/89 The Queen v. The Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others [1990] E.C.R. I-2433, concerned a request for a preliminary ruling on the question put to the Court of Justice by the House of Lords as to whether the latter had the power to grant interim relief under Community law whereas as a matter of domestic law, it had no jurisdiction to award interim relief against the Crown. A positive answer was given by the Court of Justice.
7. The third case, Factortame III, Case C-48/93 The Queen v. The Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others [1996] E.C.R. I-1029, concerning state liability for damages, was decided by the Court of Justice on 5 March 1996 together with Case C-46/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Federal Republic of Germany.
8. Case C-221/89 Factortame II, note 7, E.C.R., para.20.
9. See Case 53/81 Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1982] E.C.R. 1035, para.21
10. Case C-55/94 Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Proairatori di Milano [1995] E.C.R. I-4165 where the Court stated in para.32 “(…) whether it is possible for a national of a Member State to exercise the right of establishment and the conditions for the exercise of that right must be determined in the light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the territory of the host Member State.” (Emphasis added).
11. See Case C-55/94 Cebhard, note 9, E.C.R., paras. 27 & 39.
12. See Case C-107/94 PH. Asscher v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën [1996] E.C.R. I-3089.
13. The term “effective seat” or “siègerél” refers to the office of a company at which the centre of management and control is located, i.e. the “brain or nerve centre” of the company. See, T. Tridimas, “The Case Law of the Court of Justice On Corporate Entities”, YEL, 1993, at 336.
14. See Peter Troberg in the chapters on the right of establishment in: H. von der Groeben, J. Thiesing and C.-D. Ehlermann, Kommentar zum EGW-Vertrag. Fünfte neubearbeitete Auflage, Baden-Baden, 1997, at 1/1313. (Hereinafter: Kommentar zum EGW-Vertrag).
15. Case 81/87 the Queen v. H.M. Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Daily Mail and General Trust PLC [1988] E.C.R. 5483.
16. Kommenlar zum EWG-Vertrag, at 1/1313.
17. O.J, English Special Edition, Second Series IX, at 7.
18. O.J., at 3.
19. S. van Thiel, “Daily Mail Case: Tax Planning and the European Right of Establishment. A Setback”, European Taxation, 1988, at 361
20. F. Woolridge, Company Law in the UK and the European Community. Its Harmonization and Unification, London, 1991, at 4.
21. Case 71/76 Jean Thieffry v. Conseil de l'ordre des avocats à la Cour de Paris [1977] E.C.R. 765, para.13–14.
22. Case 197/84 P. Steinhauser v. City of Biarritz [1985] E.C.R. 1819, para.15
23. Case 79/85 Segers, note 6, E.C.R., para.15.
24. Case C-56/96 VT4 Ltd and Vlaamse Gemeenschap [1997] E.C.R., para.22.
25. Directive 89/522/EEC on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member States concerning the pursuit of television activities, OJ, 1989 L298/23.
26. Amended by Directive 97/36/EC, OJ 1997 L202/60.
27. Case C-221/89, note 7, OJ.
28. Case C-55/94, note 9, OJ, paras29–31.
29. Case 270/83 Commission v. France (more commonly known as “Avoir fiscal”) [1986] E.C.R. 273, para.22
30. Case C-1/93 Halliburton Services v. Staaissecretaris van Financiën [1994] E.C.R. I-1137, para.19.
31. P. Behrens, “Niederlassnungsfreiheit und Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht”, RabetsZ, 1988, at 501
32. I. G. F. Cath, “Freedom of Establishment of Companies: a New Step Towards Completion of the Internal Market”, YEL, 1986, at 261
33. B. Knobbe-Keuk, “Umzug von Gesellschaften in Europa”, ZHR. 1990, at 325
34. G. van Solinge, “Vestigingsvrijheid van vennootschappen”, TVVS, 1991, nr.91/7, at 174
35. C. W. A. Timmermans, “Methods and Tools for Integration” in: European Business Law. Legal and Economic Analysis on Integration and Harmonisation, R. M. Buxbaum, G. Hertig & K. J. Hopt (Eds.), Berlin, New York, 1991, at 149.
36. W. Meilicke, DB, 1999, at 627–628.
37. Case 81/87, Daily Mail, note 15, DB, para.24.
38. See para.24 of the judgment in Centros. The Court refers here in particular to the following judgments: Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v. Bedrijfsvertniging Metaalnijverheid [1974] E.C.R. 1299, para.13
39. Case C-148/91 Veronica Omroep Organisalie v. Commissariaat voorde Media [1993] E.C.R. I-487, para.12
40. Case C-23/93 TV10 SA v. Commissariaat voor de Media [1994] E.C.R. I-4795, para.21 (all concerning the freedom to provide services)
41. Case 115/78 Knoors v. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs [1979] E.C.R. 399, para.25
42. Case C-61/89 Criminal Proceedings against Marc Gaston Bouchoucha [1990] E.C.R. I-3551, para.14 (both concerning the freedom of establishment).
43. Case 229/83 Leclerc and Others v. “Au Biè Vert” and Others [1985] E.C.R. I, para.27 (concerning the free movement of goods)
44. Case C-206/94 Brennet v. Paletta [1996] E.C.R. I-2357, “Paletta II”, para.24 (concerning social security)
45. Case 39/86 Lair v. Universität Hannover [1988] E.C.R. 3161, para.43 (concerning the free movement of workers).
46. Case C-8/92 General Milk Products v. Haupuollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1993] E.C.R. I-779, para.21 (concerning the common agricultural policy)
47. Case C-367/96 Kefalas and Others v. Greece [1998] E.C.R. I-2843, para.20 (concerning company law).
48. Case 81/87, Daily Mail, note 15, E.C.R., para.16.
49. See, Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ltd v. Grogan [1991] E.C.R. I-4685 concerning abortion
50. Case C-275/92 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Schindler [1994] E.C.R. I-1039 concerning the prohibition of large scale lotteries.
51. P. J. Wattel, Misbruik van Europees Recht, 1993, at 16
52. J. Wouters, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken, Leuven, 1996, at 737.
53. Case C-23/93, note 36, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken.
54. Numerous other examples are to be found in the case-law of the Court of Justice. See note 36, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken.
55. Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken., para.18.
56. Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen, note 36, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken, para.13.
57. P. J. Wattel, note 40, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken, at 25.
58. Case C-221/89, note 7, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken.
59. Case 81/87, note 15, Het Europese Vestigingsrecht voor Ondernemingen Herbekeken.