Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:24:04.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private International Law and Companies' Freedom of Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Jan Wouters
Jan Wouters
Affiliation:
Professor of International Law and the Law of International Organisations, Leuven University
Get access

Extract

The present contribution looks at the private international law regimes of EU Member States with regard to companies and their relationship with the provisions of the EC Treaty (“the Treaty”) concerning freedom of establishment. After the Centros judgment of the European Court of Justice (hereinafter usually referred to as “the Court of Justice”) and the avalanche of comments on this case, this issue is more topical than ever. But it would be wrong to say that it is new: the controversy about the meaning of Articles 43 and 48 EC [ex Articles 52 and 58 ECT] for national conflict-of-law rules regarding companies has been dragging on for at least fifteen years and, if anything, the equally illustrious Daily Mail judgment of the Court of Justice only quietened it down for a very brief period.

Type
Articles
Information
European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 101 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2001

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 Case C-212/97 Centros Ltd v. Erhvervs- og Sehkabsstyrelsen, [1999] ECR I-1459.

2 See, inter alia, Behrens, , “Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Centros-Urteil des EuGH”, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1999) 323Google Scholar; Borges, , “Die Sitztheorie in der Centros-Ära: Vermeintliche Probleme und unvermeidliche Änderungen”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (2000) 167Google Scholar; Bungert, , “Konsequenzen der Centros-Entscheidung des EuGH für die Sitzanknüpfung des deutschen internationalen Gesellschaftsrechts”, Der Betrieb (1999) 1841Google Scholar; Cabral, and Cunha, , “‘Presumed innocent’: companies and the exercise of the right of establishment under Community law”, European Law Review (2000) 157Google Scholar; Cascante, , Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1999) pp. 450–451Google Scholar; De, Kluiver, “De wet formed buitenlandse vennootschappen op de tocht?”, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (1999) 527Google Scholar; De, Wulf, “Brievenbusvennootschappen, vrij vestigingsrecht en werkelijke zetelleer”, Vennootschapsrecht & Fiscaliteit (1999) 3Google Scholar; id., “Centros: vrijheid van vestiging zonder race to the bottom”, Ondernemingsrecht (1999) 318Google Scholar; Freitag, , “Der Wettbewerb der Rechtsordnungen im Internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht”, Europäisches Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (1999) 267Google Scholar; Geyrhalter, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit contra Sitztheorie – Good Bye ‘Daily Mail’?”, Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht (1999) 201Google Scholar; Höfling, , “Die Centros-Entscheidung des EuGH – auf dem Weg zu einer Überlagerungstheorie für Europa”, Der Betrieb (1999) 1206Google Scholar; Id., “Die Sitztheorie, Centros und der österreichische OGH”, Europäisches Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2000) 145Google Scholar; Kieninger, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit als Rechtswahlfreiheit”, Zeitschrift für Unternehmensrecht (1999) 724Google Scholar; Kindler, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit für Scheinauslandgesellschaften?”, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1999) 1993Google Scholar; Meilicke, , annotation, Der Betrieb (1999) 627Google Scholar; Menjucq, , annotation, Revue Dalloz (1999) 553Google Scholar; Parleani, , annotation, Revue des sociétés (1999) 391Google Scholar; Roth, , “Gründungstheorie: 1st der Damm gebrochen?”, Zeitschrift für Insolvent- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1999) 861Google Scholar; Roth, , annotation, 37 Common Market Law Review (2000) 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Puszkajler, , “Luxemburg locuta, causa non finita? Anmerkingen aus der Praxis zu dem Centros-Urteil des EuGH”, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (2000) 79Google Scholar; Sandrock, , “Centros: ein Etappensieg für die Überlagerungstheorie”, Betriebs-Berater (1999) 1337Google Scholar; Sedemund, and Hausmann, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit contra Sitztheorie – Abschied von Daily Mail?”, Betriebs-Berater (1999) 809Google Scholar; Sonnenberger, and Großerichter, , “Konfliktlinien zwischen internationalem Gesellschaftsrecht und Niederlassungsfreiheit”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1999) 721Google Scholar; Steindorff, , “Centros und das Recht auf die günstigste Rechtsordnung”, Juristenzeitung (1999) 1140Google Scholar; Timmermans, , annotation, Sociaal-Economische Wetgeving (2000) 221Google Scholar; Werlauff, , “Using a Foreign Company for Domestic Activities”, 10 European Business Law Review (1999) 306Google Scholar; Vlas, , annotation, Nederlandse Jurisprudence (2000) 338Google Scholar; Werlauff, , “Ausländische Gesellschaft für inländische Aktivität”, Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1999) 867Google Scholar; Wymeersch, , “Centros: A Landmark Decision in European Company Law”, in: Baums, , Hopt, and Horn, (eds.), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law. Liber Amicorum Richard M. Buxbaum (London: Kluwer Law International 2000) 629Google Scholar; Zimmer, , “Mysterium ‘Centros’. Von der schwierigen Suche nach der Bedeutung eines Urteils des Europäischen Gerichtshofes”, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (2000) 23Google Scholar. For the impact of Centros on international tax law, see, inter alia, Eilers, and Wienands, , “Neue steuerliche und gesellschaftsrechtliche Aspekte der Doppelansässigkeit von Kapitalgesellschaften nach der EuGH-Entscheidung vom 9.3.1999”, Internationales Steuerrecht (1999) 289Google Scholar; Fock, , “Sitztheorie im deutschen internationalen Steuerrecht nach der Centros-Entscheidung”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (2000) 42Google Scholar; Koblenzer, , “Die Auswirkungen der “Centros”-Entscheidung des EuGH auf das deutsche Körperschaftsteuerrecht”, Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht (2000) 418.Google Scholar

3 Case 81/87 The Queen v. H.M. Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, exparte Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, [1988] ECR 5483.

4 As is known, on the basis of this provision a treaty was concluded between the six original Member States which, due to the non-ratification by the Netherlands, never entered into force: Convention of 29 February 1968 between the High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on the mutual recognition of companies and bodies corporate (Bull. EC, Suppl. 2/69). See on this Convention and its flaws, inter alia, Drobnig, , “Das EWG-Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung von Gesellschaften und juristischen Personen” Aktiengesellschaft (1973) 90Google Scholar; Goldman, , “The Convention between Member States of the European Economic Community on the Mutual Recognition of Companies and Legal Persons”, 6 Common Market Law Review (1969) 104Google Scholar; Stein, , “Conflict-of-Laws Rules by Treaty: Recognition of Companies in a Regional Market”, 68 Michigan Law Review (1970) 1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Timmermans, , “Het Verdrag van 29 februari 1968 inzake de onderlinge erkenning van vennootschappen en rechtspersonen. Enkele europeesrechtelijke kanttekeningen”, in: Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht (1980) no. 81, 33Google Scholar; Wouters, , Het Europese vestigingsrecht voor ondernemingen, supra n. 1, paras. 572–591.Google Scholar

5 Both in Dutch literature and case-law defendants of the siège réel and of the incorporation doctrine could be found, and the Dutch Supreme Court's case-law was not conclusive in this regard: see Rammeloo, , “Recognition of Foreign Companies in ‘Incorporation’ Countries: A Dutch Perspective”, in: Wouters, and Schneider, (eds.), Current Issues of Cross-Border Establishment of Companies in the European Union (Antwerp: Maklu 1995) 47, at pp. 52-53Google Scholar; Vlas, , Rechtspersonen, 2nd ed. (Deventer: Kluwer 1999) pp. 23–27, paras. 57-63.Google Scholar

6 The lex societatis governs the constitution of the company, its legal and acting capacity, external representation, functioning, issue of securities, relations between the company and its members and organs, duration and dissolution: see, extensively, inter alia, Großfeld, , “Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht”, in: J. Von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen (Berlin: de Gruyter 1998) 68, paras. 239-389Google Scholar; Kegel, , Internationales Privatrecht, 7th ed. (München: Beck 1995) pp. 417–421Google Scholar; Loussouarn, and Bourel, , Droit international prive, 4th ed. (Paris: Dalloz 1993) pp. 658–659, para. 708Google Scholar; Mayer, , Droit international privé, 4th ed. (Paris: Montchrestien 1991) pp. 616–617, para. 1033Google Scholar; Rabel, , The Conflict of Laws. A Comparative Study, Vol. II, 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor: Michigan 1960) pp. 69–88Google Scholar; Rigaux, and Fallon, , Droit international privé, Vol. II, 2nd ed. (Brussels: Larcier 1993) pp. 745–756, paras. 1591-1606Google Scholar; Vlas, , Rechtspersonen in het internationaal privaatrecht (Deventer: Kluwer 1982) pp. 103–141.Google Scholar

7 See Article 7 of the Law of 16 December 1997, the so-called Wet conflictenrecht corporaties (Staatsblad, 699). Article 2 of this law contains the main rule. The law entered into force on 1 January 1998 (Royal Decree of 18 December 1997, Staatsblad, 743). See Vlas, supra n. 5, at pp. 20-23, paras. 49-55.

8 See Article 56 of the new Companies Code (Law of 7 May 1999, Moniteur beige, 6 August 1999), pursuant to which a company the real seat of which is located in Belgium, is governed by Belgian law, even if its act of incorporation has been passed abroad. The new provision is clearer than the old Article 197 of the Co-ordinated Laws on Commercial Companies, which used the term principal établissement, i.e., principal establishment. See on the previous provision Erauw, , Beginselen van internationaal privaatrecht (Ghent: Story 1985) pp. 256–257Google Scholar; Rigaux and Fallon, supra n. 6, at pp. 731-732, para. 1574; Van, Hecke and Lenaerts, , Internationaal Privaatrecht, 2nd ed. (Ghent: Story 1989) pp. 347–348, paras. 750-752Google Scholar; Van, Ryn and Heenen, , Principes de droit commercial, Vol. II (Brussels: Bruylant 1957) pp. 144–145, paras. 1125-1126.Google Scholar

9 In Germany, the real seat has been used by the courts as a connecting factor since the beginning of the twentieth century, but this has never been laid down in a legislative act: Reichsgericht, 9 March 1904, (1904) Juristische Wochenschrift, 231. See, for more recent confirmations, inter alia, Bundesgerichtshof, 11 July 1957, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 25, 134, at p. 144; Bundesgerichtshof, 30 January 1970, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 53, 181, at p. 183; Bundesgerichtshof, 5 November 1980, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 78, 318, at p. 334; Bundesgerichtshof, 21 March 1986, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 97, 269, at p. 271; Bundesgerichtshof, 8 October 1991, Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1991) 1582 = Juristenzeitung (1992) 579, annotated by Von Bar. For applications by lower courts, see the references with Großfeld, supra n. 6, at pp. 6-7, para. 26; see also, with a statement of the policy reasons underlying the siège réel theory which will be reproduced below, Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 1 May 1992, Juristenzeitung (1993) 372 = Recht der International Wirtschaft (1992) 675 = Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (1992) 1371 = Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1992) 842 = Common Market Law Reports (1993) 801 (English translation). The real seat theory has been multilateralised (allseitige Kollisionsnorm): see, e.g., Oberlandesgericht Frank-furt-am-Main, 24 April 1990, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1991) 403, annotated by Großfeld and König, 379 = Der Betrieb (1990) 1224, annotated by Ebenroth; Ebenroth, and Eyles, , “Die Beteiligung ausländischer Gesellschaften an einer inländischen Kommanditgesellschaft. Komplementäreigenschaft ausländischer Kapitalgesellschaften und europarechtliche Niederlassungsfreiheit”, Der Betrieb (1988) Beilage 2, 6Google Scholar; Grothe, , Die “aus-ländische Kapitalgesellschaft & Co.” Zulässigkeit grenzüberschreitender Grundtypvermischun-gen und Anknüpfung des Gesellschaftsstatuts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts (Cologne: Heymann 1989) p. 42.Google Scholar

10 See Article 1837 Code civil and, for commercial companies, Article 3 Loi N° 66-537 du 24 juillet 1966 sur les sociétés commerciales. These are unilaterally formulated conflict rules which have been rendered bilateral by the courts: Courde cassation (1re Ch. civ.), 30 March 1971, II Jurisclasseur Périodique (1972) 17101, annotated by Oppetit = Journal de droit international (1972) 834, annotated by Loussouarn; Courde cassation (Ire Ch. civ.), 18 April 1972, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1972) 672, annotated by Lagarde; Cour de cassation (com.), 21 December 1987, II Jurisclasseur Périodique (1988) 21113, with opinion of Advocate General Montanier. See, with further references, Audit, , Droit international privé, 2nd ed. (Paris: Economica 1997) pp. 886–887, para. 1085Google Scholar; Batiffol, and Lagarde, , Droit international privé, 8th ed. (Paris: Librairie générale de jurisprudence 1993) pp. 333–337, para. 193Google Scholar. For a recent application, see Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civ.), 8 December 1998, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1999) 284, annotated by Menjucq.

11 See Article 25 Legge N° 218 di 30 maggio 1995 (Gazzetta Ufficiale delta Repubblica Italiana, 3 June 1995), which provides as the general rule that legal persons are subject to the law of the state in which incorporation took place, but which adds that Italian law is applicable if the administrative seat or principal activity of these entities is located in Italy. Compare the former Article 2505 Codice civile (repealed by the aforementioned act), which for the applicability of Italian law does not only use the criterion of the real seat (la sede della amministrazione), but also of the principal establishment (l'oggetto principale dell'impresa). See on the old and new con-flict-of-law rules, Broggini, , “Sulle società nel diritto internazionale privato”, in: Gaja, (ed.), La riforma del diritto internazionale privato e processuale. Raccolta in ricordo di Edoardo Vitta (Milan: Giuffre 1994) 283Google Scholar, also published in Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (1992) 30; Id., “La nouvelle loi italienne de droit international privé”, Schweizerisches Zeitschrift für Internationales und europäisches Recht (1996) 1, at pp. 29-33Google Scholar; Stelé, and Cerina, , “La réforme du droit international privé en Italie: loi n° 218 du 31 mai 1995”, Revue de Droit des Affaires Internationales (1996) 11, at pp. 15-16.Google Scholar

12 See Article 159 Loi du 10 août 1915 concernant les sociétés commerciales. See Schockweiler, , Les conflits de lois et les conflits de juridictions en droit international privé luxembourgeois, 2nd ed., updated by Wiwinius (Luxemburg: Bauler 1996) pp. 139–140, paras. 596-599Google Scholar. See, for an application by the courts, Tribunal Luxembourg, 21 April 1971, Pasicrisie Luxembourgeoise (1971) 22, at p. 63.

13 See, with numerous references to case-law, North, and Fawcett, (eds.), Cheshire and North's Private International Law, 13th ed. (London: Butterworths 1999) pp. 897–899Google Scholar; Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (Collins, (ed.)), Vol. II, 13th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 2000) pp. 1101–1116.Google Scholar

14 See Binchy, , Irish Conflicts of Law (Butterworth Ireland 1988) p. 484.Google Scholar

15 See Nielsen, , International privat- og procesret (Copenhagen: Jurist- og Okonomforbundets Forlag 1997) p. 631.Google Scholar

16 Article 10 Greek Civil Code. See, with references to case-law and exceptions based on bilateral treaties, Kozyris, , “Conflict of Laws, Nationality, International Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments and Awards”, in: Kerameus, and Kozyris, (eds.), Introduction to Greek Law, 2nd ed. (Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation 1993) 301, at pp. 307-308.Google Scholar

17 The application of the siège réel doctrine flows from Article 28 Código civil, Article 15 Código de comercio and from Article 5 Ley de sociedades anónimas (the same provision applies to private limited companies pursuant to Article 4 of the Law of 17 July 1953). See, also in the light of EU law, Blanco, Fernández, “La nacionalidad de la sociedad en la Ley de Sociedades Anónimas”, Revista de Derecho Mercantil (1992) 245.Google Scholar

18 See Article 3 Código das Sociedades Commerciais, introduced by Law Decree no. 262/86 of 2 September 1986. See Jayme, , “Neues Gesellschaftsrecht in Portugal – Internationales Privatrecht und Fremdenrecht”, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1987) 46.Google Scholar

19 § 10 Bundesgesetz vom 15. Juni 1978 über das Internationale Privatrecht (IPR-Gesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt, no. 304/1978. See Schwind, , Internationales Privatrecht. Lehr- und Handbuch für Theorie und Praxis (Vienna: Manz 1990) pp. 104–105, paras. 220-221.Google Scholar

20 This appears, for example, from the commentary to the bill of the Finnish government for the implementation of the Lugano Treaty: “Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle tuomioistiuimen toimivaltaa seka tuomioiden täytantöönpanoa yksityisoikeuden alalla koskevan yleissopimuksen ja siihen liityvien pöytäkirjojen eräiden määräysten hyväksymisesta”, HE 177/1992, p. 50 (commentary to Article 53(1) of the treaty).

21 See Bogdan, , Svensk internationell privat- och processrätt, 4th ed. (Stockholm: Liber Malmo 1992) p. 141Google Scholar; Eek, , The Swedish Conflict of Laws (The Hague: Nijhoff 1965) pp. 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 106, paras. 427-430.

23 Indeed, it is only in the latter hypothesis that the problem of continuity of the legal personality depends on the host state. This is still the prevailing view in Germany: see Bundesgerichtshof 21 March 1986, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachenn 97, 269, and the other case-law referred to in Großfeld, supra n. 6, at pp. 154-155, paras. 641-642. See also Knobbe-Keuk, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit: Diskriminierungs- oder Beschränkungsverbot?”, Der Betrieb (1990) 2573, at p. 2578Google Scholar; Sack, , “Auswirkungen der Art. 52, 58 EWGV auf das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht”, Juristische Schulung (1990) 352, at p. 353Google Scholar; Schnichels, , Reichweite der Niederlassungsfreiheit. Dargestellt am Beispiel des deutschen Internationalen Gesellschaftsrechts (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1995) pp. 149–150Google Scholar. Under Belgian law, this aspect of the real seat theory has been undone by the Courde cassation in its Lamot judgment: infra n. 44.

24 Eyles, , Das Niederlassungsrecht der Kapitalgesellschaften in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1990) p. 313Google Scholar; Roth, , “Der Einfluß des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf das Internationale Privatrecht”, Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht (1991) 623, at pp. 648-649Google Scholar; Schnichels, supra n. 23, at p. 150.

25 This has been rightly observed by Roth, , “Die Freiheiten des EG-Vertrages und das nationale Privatrecht”, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (1994) 5, at p. 20Google Scholar, who criticises the neglect of this point by, inter alia, Schmidt, , “Grenzüberschreitende Sitzverlegung innerhalb der EG”, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (1992) 448, at p. 449.Google Scholar

26 See, inter alia, Brood, , De vestigingsplaats van vennootschappen. Enige privaatrechtelijke en fiscaalrechtelijke aspecten (Deventer: Kluwer 1989) pp. 20–21Google Scholar; Großfeld, supra n. 6, at pp. 9-10, paras. 39-40; see also the opinion of Advocate General Dumon to the Lamot judgment of the Belgian Cour de cassation, Rechtskundig Weekblad (1965-66) 883.

27 Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 7 May 1992, Common Market Law Reports (1993) 801, at p. 804.

28 See, for the Netherlands, Van der, Heijden and Grinten, , Handboek voor de naamloze en de besloten vennootschap, 12th ed. (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink 1992) p. 101, para. 80Google Scholar; Van der, Grinten and Maeijer, , Vertegenwoordiging en rechtspersoon. De rechtspersoon, 7th ed. (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink) p. 54, para. 57Google Scholar. Both under UK and Irish law an important distinction applies between “domicile” (or “domicil”) and “residence” of a company. The first-mentioned element serves as a connecting factor to establish the lex societatis; the second mainly as connecting factor for tax purposes. See North and Fawcett (eds.), supra n. 13, at pp. 171-176; Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, supra n. 13, at pp. 1101-1104, rule 152 (1).

29 See, inter alia, Feliciano, , “Legal problems of private international business enterprises: an introduction to the international law of private business associations and economic development”, II Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international de la Haye (1966) 209, at p. 281Google Scholar; Stein, supra n. 4, at pp. 1332-1333; Wiedemann, , “Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht”, in: Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung im Ausgang des 20. Jahrhunderts. Bewahrung oder Wende? Festschrift für Gerhard Kegel (Frankfurt: Metzner 1977) 187, at p. 196.Google Scholar

30 Fredericq, , “De onderlinge erkenning van vennootschappen en rechtspersonen in de Europese Economische Gemeenschap”, in: Recht in beweging. Opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. Mr. Ridder René Victor, Vol. II (Antwerp: Kluwer 1973) 501, at pp. 502-503 and pp. 508-509Google Scholar. See also the thorough discussion of these advantages with Grasmann, , System des internationalen Gesellschaftsrechts. Auβen- un Innenstatut der Gesellschaften im Internationalen Privatrecht (Berlin: Herne 1970) pp. 272–286, paras. 470-506.Google Scholar

31 See, inter alia, Ebenroth, , “Nach Art. 10. Handels- und Gesellschaftsrecht”, in: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. VII, 2nd ed. (München: Beck 1990) pp. 464–466, paras. 146-149Google Scholar; Großfeld, supra n. 6, at pp. 7-8, paras. 31-33; Vlas, supra n. 6, at p. 50.

32 See inter alia, for the phenomenon of “pseudo-foreign corporations” and the actions taken against it by certain states of the US, Latty, , “Pseudo-Foreign Corporations”, 65 Yale Law Journal (1955) 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaplan, , “Foreign Corporations and Local Corporate Policy”, 21 Vanderbilt Law Review (1968) 433Google Scholar; Block, Baraf, “The Foreign Corporation - A Problem in Choice-of-Law Doctrine”, 33 Brooklyn Law Review (1967) 219.Google Scholar

33 See especially the critique of the incorporation theory by a number of German authors: Ebke, , “Die ‘ausländische Kapitalgesellschaft & Co. KG’ und das europäische Gemeinschaftsrecht”, Zeitschrift für Unternehmensrecht (1987) 249Google Scholar; Grobfeld, , “Die Entwicklung der Anerkennungstheorien im internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht”, in: Hefermehl, et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Harry Westermann zum 65. Geburtstag (Karlsruhe: Müller 1974) 199, at p. 202Google Scholar; Id., Internationales Unternehmensrecht. Das Organisationsrecht transnationaler Unternehmen (Heidelberg: Müller 1986) p. 30Google Scholar; Ebenroth, supra n. 31, at pp. 464-466, paras. 146-151; Großfeld, supra n. 6, at pp. 12-14, paras. 52-57; Sack, supra n. 23, at p. 353.

34 By way of illustration reference can be made to a colloquium report by Demogue in 1910, who at that time already spoke of “un débat ancien”: “Du changement de nationalité des sociétés”, in: Documents du Congrès Juridique International des sociétés par actions et des sociétés coopératives. Vol. I (Leuven: Van Linthout 1910) 21, at p. 22.Google Scholar

35 Wiedemann, supra n. 29, at p. 196.

36 Grasmann, supra n. 30, at p. 346, para. 623; see, for a discussion of the international criticism of Grasmann's theory, Vlas, supra n. 6, at pp. 55-57.

37 See, inter alia, Sandrock, , “Die Multinational Korporationen im internationalen Privatrecht”, in: Internationalrechtliche Probleme multinationaler Korporationen, Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Volkerrecht, Heft 18 (Karlsruhe: Müller 1978) 169Google Scholar; Id., “Die Konkretisierung der Überlagerungstheorie in einigen zentralen Einzelfragen. Ein Beitrag zum internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht”, in: Festschrift für G. Beitzke zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin: De Gruyter 1979) 669Google Scholar; Id., “Sitztheorie, Überlagerungstheorie und der EWG-Vertrag: Wasser, ÖI und Feuer”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1989) 505, at pp. 512-513.Google Scholar

38 See more recently for instance the “Kombinationslehre” of Zimmer, , Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht. Das Kollisionsrecht der Gesellschafien und sein Verhältnis zum Internationalen Kapitalmarktrecht und zum Internationalen Unternehmensrecht (Heidelberg: Recht und Wirtschaft 1996) p. 232.Google Scholar

39 Vlas, supra n. 6, at p. 47. See also in this sense Timmermans, supra n. 4, at p. 38.

40 Article 30, para. 1 (société en commandite simple). Article 60, para. 1 (société a responsabilité limitée) and Article 154 (société anonyme) Loi n° 66-537 du 24 juillet 1966 sur les sociétés commerciales.

41 Article 25, para. 3, Legge n° 218 di 30 maggio 1995 (supra n. 11).

42 See, respectively, Articles 67, para. 2 (société anonyme) and Article 199 (société de personnes à responsabilité limitée) Loi du 10 aôut 1915 concernant les sociétés commerciales.

43 See Article 3, paras. 2 and 5, Còdigo das Sociedades Commercials (supra n. 18).

44 Cour de cassation, 12 November 1965, Rechtskundig Weelcblad (1965-66) 911, extensively discussed by Wouters, supra n. 4, paras. 622-631.

45 See especially Behrens, , “Niederlassungsfreiheit und Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht”, Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht (1988) 498, at pp. 512-517Google Scholar; Id., “Die GmbH im internationalen Recht”, in: Ulmer, (ed.), Hachenburg. Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG). Groβkommentar, 8th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter 1992) 52, paras. 126-128Google Scholar; Drobnig, , “Kritische Bemerkungen zum Vorentwurf eines EWG-Übereinkommens über die Anerkennung von Gesellschaften”, Zeitchrift für das Gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1967) 93, at p. 115 and p. 119Google Scholar; Grasmann, supra n. 30, at pp. 470 et seq.; Koppensteiner, , Internationale Unternehmen im deutschen Gesellschaftsrecht (Frankfurt: Athenaeum 1971) p. 105 and pp. 121 et seq.Google Scholar; Neuhaus, , Die Grundbegriffe des internationalen Privatrechts, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr 1976) p. 207Google Scholar; Neumayer, , “Betrachtungen zum internationalen Konzernrecht”, Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (1984) 129, at pp. 137 et seqGoogle Scholar. See already Beitzke, , Juristische Personen im Internationalprivatrecht und Fremdenrecht (München: Beck 1938) pp. 92–99.Google Scholar

46 See the German contributions mentioned supra n. 2.

47 With regard to seat transfers, the idea has been suggested by Behrens, , “Identitätswahrende Sitzverlegung einer Kapitalgesellschaft von Luxemburg in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland”, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1986) 590, at p. 593Google Scholar; with regard to seat transfers and mergers, it has been further elaborated by Großfeld, and Jasper, , “Identitätswahrende Sitzverlegung und Fusion von Kapitalgesellschaften in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland”, Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht (1989) 52.Google Scholar

48 Pending Case C-208/00 Überseering BV v. NCC Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (preliminary reference order of 30 March 2000).

49 Pending Case C-86/00 Firma HSB-Wohnbau GmbH (preliminary reference order of 3 March 2000).

50 Oberstes Gerichtshof, 15 July 1999, Europäisches Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (2000) 156, annotated by Höfling, supra n. 2 = Juristenzeitung (2000) 199, annotated by Mäsch. See on this judgment, the preliminary reference order of the Bundesgerichtshof and the preliminary reference order of the Amtsgericht of Heidelberg, Behrens, , “Reaktionen mitgliedstaatlicher Gerichte auf das Centros-Urteil des EuGH”, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (2000) 384.Google Scholar

51 See, for a number of illustrations, Cohen, Enriquez, “Nederlandse ondernemingen in de vorm van buitenlandse rechtspersonen”, Tijdschrift voor Vennootschappen, Verenigingen en Stichtingen (1982) 265Google Scholar; Roelvink, , “Misbruik van buitenlandse rechtspersonen”, in: De nieuwe misbruikwetgeving (Deventer: Kluwer 1986) 83, at p. 84Google Scholar; Siemer, and Helmig, , “Een onderzoek naar de omvang van fraude door keuze van een buitenlandse rechtspersoon”, Tijdschrift voor Vennootschappen, Verenigingen en Stichtingen (1987) 41Google Scholar. In the words of Struycken, , “Les conséquences de l'intégration européenne sur le déVeloppement du droit international privé”, I Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international de la Haye (1992) 257, at p. 360: “La doctrine néerlandaise du siège statutaire est toujours une vache sacrée, mais un peu moins sacrée qu' auparavant, sous la pression du phénomène de sociétés de statut étranger douteuses et qui établissent leur siège réel aux Pays-Bas.”Google Scholar

52 Timmermans, supra n. 4, at p. 80; Cohen, Enriquez, “Misbruik van buitenlandse vennootschappen”, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (1982) 213, at p. 215.Google Scholar

53 Vlas, , “Methoden ter bestrijding van misbruik van buitenlandse rechtspersonen in Nederland”, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (1984) 601, at p. 606Google Scholar; Id., supra n. 6, at pp. 65 et seq. See also, for the possibility to complement the incorporation theory with priority rules vis-à-vis non-EU companies, Van den, Braak and Huiskes, , “De Dela-ware-constructie onder vuur?”, Nederlands Juristenblad (1992) 1165, at p. 1169.Google Scholar

54 See, forcefully, Hoge Raad, 11 November 1988 (Texelse visser case), Nederlandse Jurisprudent (1989) no. 606, annotated by Maeijer, according to whom the application by the judiciary of provisions of Book 2 of the Dutch Civil Code {in casu Articles 69 and 180, concerning the obligation for a naamloze vennootschap and a besloten vennootschap to enroll in the commercial register and the penalty of joint and several liability) is not permissible. Van der Grinten and Maeijer, supra n. 28, at p. 55, see diis judgment as a rejection – in their view, rightly so – of the theory of Vlas. The aforementioned judgment rejected “free exercises in the area of international company law” (to use the expression of Roelvink, supra n. 51, at p. 90) and put the ball squarely in the Dutch legislator's court.

55 Although a corresponding provision is lacking for the besloten vennootschap in Article 248, the rule is also applicable to foreign companies of the type of a private limited company since it applies generally to a “legal person set up pursuant to foreign law”: Maeijer, , Vertegenwoordiging en rechtspersoon. De naamloze en de besloten vennootschap (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink 1994) p. 437, para. 344.Google Scholar

56 Staatsblad, 697. The Law is largely in line with a preliminary draft concerning this issue which the Adviescommissie Vennootschapsrecht (Advisory Committee on Company Law) drew up in 1992. This preliminary draft formed part of an advisory opinion of said committee of 29 October 1992 “on private international law relating to legal persons”, which was published in Staatscourant, 23 November 1992, no. 227, 6-8. See on this advisory opinion especially Bellingwout, , “Het euvel van de puur formeel buitenlandse rechtspersonen. Enige kanttekeningen bij het advies van de Commissie Vennootschapsrecht d.d. 29 oktober 1992”, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (1993) 680Google Scholar, who criticises the proposals as creating legal uncertainty and going into “overkill”; Uniken, Venema, “Pseudo-buitenlandse vennootschappen in Nederland; een advies van de Adviescommissie Vennootschapsrecht”, Naamloze Vennootschap (1992) 266Google Scholar; Vlas, , “Paal en perk aan ‘puur formeel buitenlandse kapitaalvennootschappen’”, Tijdschrift voor Vennootschappen, Verenigingen en Stichtingen (1993) 57Google Scholar; Id., “The fight against pseudo foreign corporations in the Netherlands”, in: Boele-Woelki, , Grosheide, , Hondius, and Steenhoff, (eds.), Comparability and Evaluation. Essays on comparative law, private international law and international commercial arbitration in Honour of Dimitra Kokkini-Iatridou (Dordrecht: Nijhoff 1994) 307, who strongly opposes the criticism of Bellingwout.Google Scholar

57 In these terms Vlas, supra n. 56, at p. 57.

58 See especially Behrens, supra n. 45, at p. 501; Grothe, , Die “ausländische Kapitalgesellschaft & Co.” Zulässigkeit grenzüberschreitender Grundtypvermischungen und Anknüpfung des Gesellschaftsstatuts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts (Cologne: Heymann 1987) pp. 77 et seq. and pp. 164 et seq.Google Scholar; Niessen, , “Niederlassungsrecht von Gesellschaften nach den Regeln des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts”, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1986) 1408Google Scholar; Von, Bar, Internationales Privatrecht, Vol. I (München: Beck 1987) p. 158, para. 170Google Scholar; see also the doubts expressed concerning the compatibility of the real seat theory with the freedom of establishment by Bayerische Oberstes Landesgericht, 18 September 1986 (Landshuter Druckhaus III case), Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (1986) 1557.

59 Timmermans, supra n. 4, at pp. 48-50; Id., “Die Europäische Rechtsangleichung im Gesellschaftsrecht”, Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht (1984) 1, at p. 39.Google Scholar

60 Drobnig, , “Gemeinschaftsrecht und internationales Gesellschaftsrecht. ‘Daily Mail’ und die Folgen”, in: Von, Bar (ed.), Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (Cologne: Heymann 1990) 185Google Scholar, at pp. 193-196.

61 Behrens, , “Die Umstrukturierung von Unternehmen durch Sitzverlegung oder Fusion über die Grenze im Licht der Niederlassungsfreiheit im Europäischen Binnenmarkt (Art. 52 und 58 EWGV)”, Zeitschrift für Unternehmensrecht (1994) 1, at p. 17.Google Scholar

62 Roth, supra n. 24, at p. 631; Kreuzer, , “Die Europäisierung des Internationalen Privatrechts - Vorgaben des Gemeinschaftsrechts”, in: Müller-Graff, (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1993) 373, at p. 423Google Scholar; Ebenroth, supra n. 31, at pp. 481-482, para. 201; Schnichels, supra n. 23, at pp. 175-176; Sonnenberger, , “Europarecht und Internationales Privatrecht”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (1996) 3, at p. 20.Google Scholar

63 It can be pointed out that secondary Community law does not provide decisive arguments in favour of the incorporation theory or the real seat theory. It is true that the real seat is used in a variety of EU legal provisions as a criterion, but a number of EU provisions, on the other hand, refer to the registered office. Typically, these criteria are not used here in the context of conflict rules but for substantive law purposes. See the overview of these provisions in Wouters, supra n. 4, para. 599. It can be added that the EC Treaty in other provisions (Articles 194 and 195(1)) only uses the registered office of companies as a connecting factor, but these provisions (which relate to the right to address petitions to the European Parliament or to submit complaints to the European ombudsman) are not relevant to the present subject-matter.

64 Daily Mail, para. 21.

65 Daily Mail, para. 23.

66 See extensively Wouters, supra n. 4, paras. 340-346.

67 See also Beitzke, Legal opinion on Article 220, third indent, of the Treaty of Rome. Part I: Recognition, 4958/IV/62,85, who, inter alia, for this reason, was of the opinion that the Treaty of the Hague of 1 June 1956 on the recognition of foreign companies, associations and foundations did not go far enough: Article 1 of this treaty subjects recognition to the condition that the registered office be located within the territory of the state under the legislation of which legal personality has been acquired.

68 See, for a critique of the impossibility to change a company's domicile, Binchy, supra n. 14, at p. 484.

69 The same applies for companies from an EFT A country pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

70 See supra n. 11.

71 For a closer analysis, with attention to rules of secondary EU law which directly or indirectly make use of the control theory, Wouters, supra n. 4, paras. 122-129.

72 This development has been thoroughly examined in Wouters, supra n. 4, paras. 277-435. Landmark judgments in this regard were Case C-19/92 Kraus v. Land Baden-Württemberg, [1993] ECR I-1663 and Case C-55/94 Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, [1995] ECR I-4165. This case-law was explicitly confirmed in Centros, para. 34.

73 Centros, para. 27.

74 Steindorff, supra n. 2, at p. 1142; see also Kieninger, supra n. 2, at p. 745. See, before Centros, the more general analysis of the relationship between the freedom of parties to choose the applicable law and the EC Treaty with Von, Wilmowsky, “EG-Vertrag und kollisionsrechtliche Rechtswahlfreiheit”, Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausldndisches und Internationales Privatrecht (1998) 1.Google Scholar

75 See, inter alia, in this sense, on the basis of Centros, Meilicke, supra n. 2, at p. 628; Sedemund and Hausmann, supra n. 2, at p. 810; as far as recognition is concerned, Van den, Braak, “Het Centros-arrest en het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht betreffende vennootschappen”, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (2000) 347, at p. 350.Google Scholar

76 With the important caveat that, during the negotiations which led to the EEC Treaty, Member States such as France made this choice subject to a political quid pro quo, namely the harmo-nisation of company law: see, with further references, Wouters, , “European Company Law: Quo Vadis?, 37 Common Market Law Review (2000) 257, at p. 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 For this reason, it is submitted that Centros does not contain fundamental new developments for the issue of intra-Community seat transfers as compared to the impact which Article 43 EC already had on this matter pursuant to the Court's previous case-law: see infra 4.2.1 and 4.3.

78 See, with a discussion of the points of view of Basedow, Wolf, and Von, Wilmowsky, Wouters, , “Conflict of Laws and the Single Market for Financial Services”, 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (1997) 161, at pp. 284-288.Google Scholar

79 See the criticism vis-à-vis the theory of the versteckte KolHsionsnormen in: Sonnenberger, supra n. 62, at pp. 11-12. See also the just criticism of Sonnenberger and Großerichter, supra n. 2, at p. 728, on the point of view that Centros requires the abolition of the real seat theory: “Man kann sich nicht aufgrund einer Einzelentscheidung eines Teilaspekts von einer zusammenhängenden Gesamtkonzeption verabschieden, ohne daβ Klarheit besteht, was an ihre Stelle treten soll” [One cannot dismiss a coherent total concept on the basis of a single decision concerning a specific aspect, without it being clear what should come in its place].

80 Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou v. Land Baden-Württemberg, [1991] ECR 1-2357, which meanwhile is part of the Court's well-established case-law. See recently judgment of 14 September 2000 in Case C-238/98 Hocsman v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité, not yet published in the ECR, paras. 21-24 and the references to case-law there; in the latter paragraph the Court confirms that its Vlassopoulou case-law is “merely the expression in individual cases of a principle which is inherent in the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty”.

81 See recently, inter alia, Case C-120/95 Decker v. Caisse de maladie des employés privés, [1998] ECR I-1831, para. 23 (social security); Case C-264/96 Imperial Chemical Industries v. Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), [1998] ECR I-4695, para. 19 (direct taxes); Case C-274/96 Bickel and Franz, [1998] ECR 1-7637, para. 17 (criminal law and criminal procedure).

82 Timmermans, supra n. 4, at pp. 49-50.

83 Case 79/85 Segers v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen, [1986] ECR 2375.

84 See the advice and report of the Council of State to the proposed “Formally Foreign Companies Law”, Tweede Kamer 1994-95, no. 24.139/2, in particular on p. 5 (addition between brackets by the author).

85 Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ (1978) L 378,47, as amended).

86 This is very clear from Timmermans, supra n. 4, at p. 52.

87 See, for the point of view that the EC Treaty's freedoms are in essence indifferent vis-à-vis national conflict rules, the analysis (which concentrates on the free movement of goods) of Duintjer, Tebbens, “Les conflits de lois en matière de publicité déloyale a l'épreuve du droit communautaire”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1994) 451, at pp. 476-478Google Scholar; Kohler, , “La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes et le droit international privé”, communication of 25 March 1994 for the Comité français de droit international privé, Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé (1993) 75Google Scholar. See my own critical reflections in this respect: Wouters, supra n. 78, at pp. 288-290.

88 Case C-165/91 Van Munster v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen, [ 1994] ECR I-4661, para. 34 and point 2 of the operative part. See also Case 157/86 Murphy and Others v. An Bord Telecom Eireann, [1988] ECR 673, para. 11.

89 See already, concerning the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with the EC Treaty in a situation in which the Treaty provisions do not operate directly, Steindorff, , “Dienstleistungsfreiheit und Versicherungswirtschaft - Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Direktwirkung des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts”, Zeitschrift für das Gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1975) 249, at p. 255.Google Scholar

90 Cf. Van Munster, paras. 32-33. See also in this sense Behrens, , “Sind Gesellschaften Niederlassungsberechtigte minderen Rechts?”, Europäisches Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (1991) 97.Google Scholar

91 Zweigert, , “Einige Auswirkungen des Gemeinsamen Marktes auf das Internationale Privatrecht der Mitgliedstaaten”, in: Von, Caemmerer, Schlochauer, and Steindorff, (eds.), Probleme des Europäischen Rechts. Festschrift für Walter Hallstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Frankfurt-am-Main: Klostermann 1966) 555, at p. 567.Google Scholar

92 Tribunal de commerce Brussels, 4 February 1938, Journal des tribunaux (1939) 173.

93 Cour d'appel Paris, 21 December 1962 (Labadie/Royal Dutch case), I Gazette du Palais (1963) 99, with opinion of Advocate-General Desangles = II Jurisclasseur Périodique (1963) no. 13447, annotated by Mazeaud = Journal de droit international (1963) 424, annotated by Bredin = Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial (1963) 956, annotated by Loussouarn.

94 The case concerned a procedure which a French shareholder had started against the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij (Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, Royal Dutch for short). The Netherlands had introduced a verification procedure for the reparation of legal relations by means of Royal Decree no. E 100 of 17 September 1944. Pursuant to this Royal Decree all securities of Dutch companies had to be notified within a certain period of time to the Ministry of Finance in order to verify them. Non-notification within that period (which was extended various times) caused the lapse of the rights and the transfer of the security to the Dutch State. The Cour d'appel deemed the latter rules to be an infringement of Article 545 Code civil and therefore “essentiellement contraires à l'ordre public français”. It held that the applicant continued to be a shareholder and that he could exercise all the rights attached to this capacity, and condemned Royal Dutch, on penalty of damages imposed on a daily basis in case of non-compliance, to the immediate delivery of new shares and the granting of boni, subscription rights and dividends.

95 Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civ.), 25 January 1966 (Labadie/Royal Dutch case), Revue Dalloz (1966) 390, annotated by Loussouarn = Journal de droit international (1966) 631, annotated by Bredin = Revue critique de droit international privé (1966) 238, annotated by Francescakis. In this judgment the Cour de cassation held that the Dutch rules in question did not violate the French ordre public. From the point of view of international company law, a more interesting judgment is Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civ.), 17 October 1972 (Audouze/Royal Dutch case), Revue critique de droit international privé (1973) 520, annotated by Batiffol. The case concerned the question of the applicability of Dutch law to bearer securities which were located in France. The Cour de cassation held that the question under which conditions the capacity of shareholder is acquired, maintained and lost, is governed by the lex societatis, i.e., in this case, by Dutch law.

96 Case 15/78 Koestler v. Générate Alsacienne de Banque, [1978] ECR 1971.

97 [1978] ECR, at pp. 1987-1988 (number of the Treaty provision adapted by the author).

98 Samtleben, , “Das internationale Privatrecht der Börsentermingeschäfte und der EWG-Vertrag - Zum Urteil des europäischen Gerichtshofs vom 24.10.1978”, Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht (1981) 218, at p. 245.Google Scholar

99 Steindorff, , “Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und deutsches Internationales Privatrecht”, Europarecht (1981) 426, at p. 433 and p. 439Google Scholar. In this contribution Steindorff already notices the transition in the case-law of the Court of Justice to a broader reading of Article 49 EC and he notes the importance of this development for national conflict-of-law rules.

100 Fletcher, , Conflicts of Laws and European Community Law. With special reference to the Community Conventions on private international law (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company 1982) p. 50.Google Scholar

101 Brödermann, , “Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht versus IPR: Einfliisse und Konformitätsgebot”, Monatschrift für Deutsches Recht (1992) 89, at p. 90Google Scholar; Id., “Das Europäische Gemeinschaftsrecht als Quelle und Schranke des Internationalen Privatrechts (Primärrecht, Verordnungen, Richterrecht)”, in: Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (Tübingen: Mohr 1994) 3, at pp. 212 et seq.Google Scholar

102 Brödermann 1992, supra n. 101, at p. 91; the same author has further expanded his views, while paying attention to the different steps in the conflict-of-law process, in Brödermann 1994, supra n. 101, at pp. 222-246. See also the application to conflict rules of the obligation to interpret in conformity with EU law in Sonnenberger, supra n. 62, at pp. 44-47; Sonnenberger, , “Einleitung”, in: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. VII, at p. 45, para. 110.Google Scholar

103 See also De, Page and Van de Walle de, Ghelcke, “Les personnes morales étrangères et l'ordre public international beige”, Revue pratique des sociétés (1979) 1, at pp. 16–17, which already come to such a restrictive interpretation of this notion on the basis of the distinction, under Belgian law (see infra n. 104), between internal and private international law ordre public. See also Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 47, para. 172.Google Scholar

104 See the well-established case-law of the Belgian Cour de cassation, e.g., in its judgment of 24 March 1960, I Pasicrisie (1960) 860.

105 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, 21 January 1987, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1988)816.Google Scholar

106 At the time of the judgment of the Oberlandesgericht this was Article 30 Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch; at present, this is Article 6 of that Law which, in spite of its different wording, fulfils the same function (and incorporates at the same time Article 16 of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations): Sonnenberger, , “Article 6”, in: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. VII, at p. 314, para. 1Google Scholar. Both under the old and the new version of the ordre public exception a foreign rule may not be applied if the result thereof would go against public morals or the objective of a German law; as far as the new version is concerned, it appears from the preparatory works that this is captured by the notion of being “mit wesentlichen Grundsätzen des deutschen Rechts offensichtlich unvereinbar” [manifestly incompatible with fundamental principles of German law] (Sonnenberger, , “Article 6”, in: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vol. VII, at p. 318, para. 15)Google Scholar. According to Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 48, para. 173 and p. 53, para. 202, who was quoted approvingly by the Oberlandesgericht in the present case, an appeal to ordre public vis-à-vis a foreign company is possible “wenn die Vermögenssphären nicht getrennt sind und die Erhaltung des Gesellschqftskapitals nicht gesichert isi” [when the property spheres are not separated and the maintenance of the company's capital is not safeguarded].

107 Compare Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 Bordessa and Others, [1995] ECR I-361, para. 21, in which the Court accepts that Member States may take measures restricting the free movement of capital in order “to prevent illegal activities (…) such as money laundering, drug trafficking or terrorism”.

108 Supra n. 4.

109 One could also think of the hypothesis of a cross-border Gewinnabführungsvertrag under German law, but according to Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 136, para. 567, such cross-border contracts are not used in practice for tax reasons (even though the author refers to the Parent-Subsidiary Directive 90/435/EEC, OJ (1990) L 225, 6). See also Vlas, supra n. 6, at p. 130.

110 Vlas, supra n. 5, at p. 160, para. 353, is – in my view, correctly – of the opinion that, in the light of Article 1(2)(e) of the Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations, the conflict rules of this Convention are not applicable to such an agreement. There is, however, disagreement about the applicable category of conflict rules: according to several authors, this type of agreements is, as far as its legality, legal consequences and limitations are concerned, governed by the lex societatis of the dependent company: Kropholler, , Internationales Privatrecht, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr 1994) 473Google Scholar; Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 138, para. 575, and p. 139, para. 577; Van Hecke and Lenaerts, supra n. 8, at p. 343, para. 737 (admittedly, concerning shareholder agreements); Van, Ommeslaghe, “Communication”, in: Colloque international sur le droit international privé des groupes de sociétés, Etudes suisses de droit européen (Geneva: Georg 1973) 54, at p. 57Google Scholar. Other authors are of the opinion that these agreements are subject to the lex contractus: see Goldman, , “La protection des actionnaires minoritaires des sociétés filiales”Google Scholar, in: ibid., 7, at p. 17, para. 8; Vlas, supra n. 5, with the addition that the mandatory provisions of the law of incorporation of the dependent company (in particular those relating to the protection of minority shareholders and creditors) remain applicable.

111 Einsele, , “Kollisionsrechtliche Behandlung des Rechts verbundener Unternehmen”, Zeitschrift für Unternehmensrecht (1996) 40Google Scholar. See also, against non-recognition of a control contract governed by the law of another EU Member State since this would amount to a violation of Article 12 EC, Emmerich, and Sonnenschein, , Konzernrecht, 5th ed. (München: Beck 1993) p. 170.Google Scholar

112 See the case-law of the Belgian Cour de cassation quoted supra n. 104.

113 Cour de cassation, 13 January 1978, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie (1978) 568, annotated by A.T.Google Scholar

114 I.e., the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBGB), in: Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 123, para. 510.

115 Gesetz über die Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer vom 4. Mai 1976 (I Bundesgesetzblatt 1153).Google Scholar

116 Großfeld, supra n. 6, at pp. 131-132, para. 550.

117 Schmidt-Hermesdorf, , “Internationale Personengesellschaft im internationalen Arbeitsrecht. Gestaltungsform zur Vermeidung deutschen Mitbestimmungsrechts?”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1988) 938, at p. 944Google Scholar. The objective reasons [sachliche Gründe] mentioned by this author fit perfectly in an assessment of business decisions from the perspective of the right of establishment: “vor allem die Ausnutzung von Standortvorteilen, wie z.B. die Marktnähe beim Ein- und Verkauf, der erleichterte Zugang zum ausländischen Kapitalmarkt, günstigere Kontaktmöglichkeiten potentieller Kunden aus Drittländern, etc.” [above all the exploitation of advantages of the place of establishment, such as, for example, the proximity of the market for buying and selling, the easier access to the foreign capital market, more favourable possibilities for contacting potential clients from third countries and so on]. See, in the same sense as this author, Landgericht Stuttgart, 11 May 1993, Betriebs-Berater (1993) 1541.Google Scholar

118 This obligation to engage in an examination of each individual case has also been stressed by the Court of Justice in Case C-28/95 Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingsdienst/Onderne-mingen Amsterdam 2, [ 1997] ECR I-4161, para. 41. In para. 44 of this judgment, the Court makes clear that a general presumption of fraud or evasion of the law would be disproportionate. Such a general presumption would a fortiori be disproportionate when it seriously affects the exercise of a fundamental Treaty freedom: judgment of 26 September 2000 in Case C-478/98, Commission v. Belgium, not yet published in the ECR, para. 45.

119 Von Bar, supra n. 58, Vol. II, at p. 455, para. 626.

120 See, for a (failed) attempt of the Dutch Public Prosecutor, Rechtbank Amsterdam, 6 April 1982, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (1985)817Google Scholar, with discussion by Vlas.

121 See Vlas, supra n. 5, at p. 31, para. 72, who rightly observes that it is difficult to apply the doctrine of evasion of the law within the context of a system which gives a company's founders exactly the freedom to set up a legal person in the legal system of their choice. Incidentally, the same author observes that the Dutch courts have never, as of yet, disapplied the law of the state of incorporation on the basis of evasion of the law.

122 See, in the same sense, Roth, supra n. 25, at p. 19. However, in an earlier publication, supra n. 24, and in a more recent contribution (in: Wouters and Schneider (eds.), supra n. 5, at pp. 41-45, though here in the hypothesis that the Court of Justice would “overrule” Daily Mail) this author subjects the conflit mobile which follows from the real seat theory in case of a seat transfer, to a justification and proportionality test.

123 See Bundesgerichtshof, 21 March 1986, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 97, 269Google Scholar; Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 18 July 1985Google Scholar, Aktiengesellschaft (1986) 45, at p. 47; Kammergericht, 13 June 1989, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1989) 3100.Google Scholar

124 See Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, 20 February 1986, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1986) 2199Google Scholar. Landgericht Stuttgart, 31 July 1989, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1991) 118Google Scholar, applies this judgment obediently.

125 Roth, supra n. 24, at pp. 648-649.

126 Eyles, supra n. 24, at p. 314; Knobbe-Keuk, , “Umzug von Gesellschaften in Europa”, Zeitschrift für das Gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (1990) 325, at pp. 327–328Google Scholar; Schnichels, supra n. 23, at p. 150.

127 Knobbe-Keuk, supra n. 126, at p. 328; Schnichels, supra n. 23, at p. 150. See, for an illustration, Bundesgerichtshof, 30 January 1970, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 53, 181.Google Scholar

128 Großfeld, supra n. 6, at p. 10, para. 43, and p. 14, para. 60.

129 Behrens, supra n. 45, at p. 518.

130 This has been rightly observed by Schnichels, supra n. 23, at p. 177.

131 See, implicitly, Centros, para. 35. See also Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer, [1999] ECR I-1661, para. 30.

132 Another illustration of the sometimes unexpected creditor-unfriendly consequences of the real seat theory is discussed by Knobbe-Keuk, supra n. 126, at pp. 328-329, on the basis of Bundesgerichtshof, 30 January 1970, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen 53, 181.Google Scholar

133 See Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg, 7 June 1984, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1985) 342Google Scholar, as annotated by Rehbinder, , “Sitzverlegung ins Inland und Rechtsfähigkeit ausländischer juristischer Personen”Google Scholar, ibid.

134 Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 concerning the formation of public limited companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital (OJ (1977) L 26, 1, as amended).

135 See Roth, in: Wouters and Schneider (eds.), supra n. 5, at pp. 44-45.

136 See already Case 279/80 Webb, [1981] ECR 3305, para. 19.

137 See also Roth, in: Wouters and Schneider (eds.), supra n. 5, at pp. 42-43.

138 See already the proposal in this sense of Beitzke, , “Kollisionsrecht von Gesellschaften und juristischen Personen”, in: Lauterbach, (ed.), Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen Personen- und Sachenrechts (Tübingen: Mohr 1972) 94, at p. 118Google Scholar: “Nimmt eine juristische Person ausländischen Rechts ihren Sitz im Inland, so sollte ihr vom zuständigen Registergericht oder einer sonstigen Stelle eine Frist zur Umorganisation nach inländischem Recht gegeben werden und der Wegfall der Anerkennung erst nach dieser Frist eintreten” [If a legal person established under foreign law moves its seat inside the country, then it should be allowed time for its conversion to becoming established under domestic law by the competent registration court or another competent authority. The loss of recognition should only take effect after the expiration of this period].

139 See Articles 2 to 6 of the First Company Law Directive, i.e., Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 (OJ (1968) L 65, 8, as amended) and Articles 2 to 3 of the Second Company Law Directive.

140 Supra n. 80.

141 Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (OJ (1989) L 395,36, as amended). Compare the criticism of the Dutch Council of State and the – in my view, unconvincing – reply to this of the Minister of Justice: Tweede Kamer, 1994-95, no. 24.139/2, p. 7, para. 3. Incidentally, the provision would also lead to overlapping controls vis-à-vis companies from other Member States which do not fall within the scope of application of the Fourth (supra n. 85) and Seventh Directive (Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 on consolidated accounts, OJ (1983) L 193, 1, as amended), but whose Member State of origin has voluntarily rendered the regimes of these Directives applicable to them.

142 Behrens, , “Identitätswahrende Sitzverlegung einer Kapitalgesellschaft von Luxemburg in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1986) 590Google Scholar; Id., Europäisches Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (1991) 97Google Scholar; Roth, , “Niederlassungs- und Dienstleistungsfreiheit”, in: Dauses, (ed.), Handbuch des EG-Wirtschaftsrechts (München: Beck 1994) E.I., pp. 28–29, para. 92Google Scholar; Knobbe-Keuk, supra n. 126, at p. 334; Reindl, , “Companies in the European Community: are the conflict-of-law rules ready for 1992?”, 11 Michigan Journal of International Law (1990) 1270, at p. 1290Google Scholar; see also Großfeld and Jasper, supra n. 47, at pp. 52-71. But see, for a different view, Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken, 21 April 1989, Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1990) 324Google Scholar, annotated by Großfeld, and Strottmann, , “Ausländische juristische Person aus Nicht-EG-Staat als Komplementär einer KG”Google Scholar, ibid., at pp. 298-301.

143 Roth, supra n. 142, at pp. 29-30, para. 92; for a contrary view, see Bayerisches Oberlandesgericht, 7 May 1992, supra n. 9.

144 Großfeld, and König, , “Das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft”, Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (1992) 433, at p. 437.Google Scholar

145 In this sense Großfeld and König, supra n. 144, at p. 433, themselves; this contradiction is also rightly observed by Roth, supra n. 142, at p. 29, n. 229.

146 See also the references to the Court's judgments supra n. 118.

147 See supra n. 48.

148 More recently, similar questions have been referred to the Court by the Landesgericht Salzburg: see pending Case C-447/00 Holto Limited.