European Company Law in 2020: Mobility and Sustainability

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Company Law Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.54648/eucl2020001
M. A. Verbrugh
{"title":"European Company Law in 2020: Mobility and Sustainability","authors":"M. A. Verbrugh","doi":"10.54648/eucl2020001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. 2019: AN IMPORTANT YEAR FOR COMPANY LAW Looking back at the end of December 2019 I conclude that this year was an important year for European company law. After publication of the EU Company Law Package in April 2018, the Directive on the use of digital tools and processes and the Directive on cross-border operations were adopted in 2019. As stated in other Editorials in this journal, the first proposal with its narrow definition of ‘digitalization’ was not ambitious enough whereas the second proposal could in some respects be characterized as overambitious. That surely does not relate to one missing topic in the Company Law Package, i.e. conflict of law rules, which has been described as ‘a big hole, rendering it incomplete in a very important aspect.’ However, I believe the European Commission made a wise decision not to include these rules in the package. Not only would adoption then have become evenmore difficult and probably impossible, applying ECJ-case law on freedom of establishment uncertainty in practice is nowadaysmostly the result of uncertain national laws and less because of lack of harmonization. Member States are free to determine the connecting factors and should respect each other’s choices. Since it will be more and more difficult to determine where the real seat of an internationally operating company is located, harmonization will probably follow bottom-up over time into the direction of the incorporation theory. After Überseering, e.g. Germany changed to the incorporation theory and Belgium followed in 2019. In any case, in light of the topic – cross border conversions, mergers and divisions all in one directive – and the numerous weaknesses, e.g. the provision on ‘artificial arrangements’, especially the adoption of the proposal for cross-border operations the next year is a big achievement of the European legislator. After – too – many years, the internal market will finally have harmonized and similar rules for the three operations. For Member States 2019 also meant the deadline for implementing the Revised Shareholder Rights Directive and the impact on national laws was in many cases probably bigger than the implementation of the original Directive. Although I have put forward some criticism on the three proposals on several occasions (mainly in Dutch journals), as a European law professor I am happy that after years of lack of ambition from the European Commission in the field of company law, the train is finally running again!","PeriodicalId":11843,"journal":{"name":"European Company Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Company Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eucl2020001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. 2019: AN IMPORTANT YEAR FOR COMPANY LAW Looking back at the end of December 2019 I conclude that this year was an important year for European company law. After publication of the EU Company Law Package in April 2018, the Directive on the use of digital tools and processes and the Directive on cross-border operations were adopted in 2019. As stated in other Editorials in this journal, the first proposal with its narrow definition of ‘digitalization’ was not ambitious enough whereas the second proposal could in some respects be characterized as overambitious. That surely does not relate to one missing topic in the Company Law Package, i.e. conflict of law rules, which has been described as ‘a big hole, rendering it incomplete in a very important aspect.’ However, I believe the European Commission made a wise decision not to include these rules in the package. Not only would adoption then have become evenmore difficult and probably impossible, applying ECJ-case law on freedom of establishment uncertainty in practice is nowadaysmostly the result of uncertain national laws and less because of lack of harmonization. Member States are free to determine the connecting factors and should respect each other’s choices. Since it will be more and more difficult to determine where the real seat of an internationally operating company is located, harmonization will probably follow bottom-up over time into the direction of the incorporation theory. After Überseering, e.g. Germany changed to the incorporation theory and Belgium followed in 2019. In any case, in light of the topic – cross border conversions, mergers and divisions all in one directive – and the numerous weaknesses, e.g. the provision on ‘artificial arrangements’, especially the adoption of the proposal for cross-border operations the next year is a big achievement of the European legislator. After – too – many years, the internal market will finally have harmonized and similar rules for the three operations. For Member States 2019 also meant the deadline for implementing the Revised Shareholder Rights Directive and the impact on national laws was in many cases probably bigger than the implementation of the original Directive. Although I have put forward some criticism on the three proposals on several occasions (mainly in Dutch journals), as a European law professor I am happy that after years of lack of ambition from the European Commission in the field of company law, the train is finally running again!
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2020年的欧洲公司法:流动性和可持续性
1.2019年:公司法的重要一年回顾2019年12月底,我得出结论,今年是欧洲公司法重要的一年。2018年4月欧盟公司法一揽子计划公布后,2019年通过了《数字工具和流程使用指令》和《跨境运营指令》。正如本杂志其他社论所述,第一个对“数字化”定义狭窄的提案不够雄心勃勃,而第二个提案在某些方面可能被认为过于雄心勃勃。这当然与《公司法》一揽子计划中缺失的一个主题无关,即法律冲突规则,该规则被描述为“一个大漏洞,使其在一个非常重要的方面不完整”然而,我认为欧盟委员会做出了一个明智的决定,不将这些规则纳入一揽子计划。当时,收养不仅变得更加困难,甚至可能不可能,而且在实践中应用欧洲法院关于设立自由的不确定性的判例法,现在主要是国家法律不确定的结果,而不是因为缺乏协调。会员国可以自由决定相互联系的因素,并应尊重彼此的选择。由于确定一家国际经营公司的实际所在地将越来越困难,随着时间的推移,协调可能会自下而上,朝着公司合并理论的方向发展。在Überseering之后,例如德国在2019年改变了公司合并理论,比利时也紧随其后。无论如何,鉴于这一主题——跨境转换、合并和分立都是一项指令——以及许多弱点,例如关于“人为安排”的规定,特别是明年通过跨境业务提案,这是欧洲立法者的一大成就。多年后,内部市场将最终为这三种操作制定统一和相似的规则。对成员国来说,2019年也意味着实施修订后的《股东权利指令》的最后期限,在许多情况下,对国家法律的影响可能比实施原始指令更大。尽管我曾多次(主要在荷兰期刊上)对这三项提案提出过一些批评,但作为一名欧洲法学教授,我很高兴在欧盟委员会多年来对公司法缺乏雄心之后,这列火车终于又开始运行了!
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
33.30%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Book Review: A. Seretakis: Regulating Hedge Funds in the EU. Wolters Kluwer, 2022. The Development of the Board Observer in Dutch Companies Sustainable Decision Making and Directors Duties Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Blockchain Editorial: Editorial European Company Law June 2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1