首页> 外文期刊>International and Comparative Law Quarterly >CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - II. EUROPEAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF COMPANIES AFTER CARTESIO
【24h】

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW - II. EUROPEAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF COMPANIES AFTER CARTESIO

机译:最新动态:国际私法-II。欧洲Cartesio公司国际私法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently delivered another landmark judgment concerning the compatibility of the real seat theory1 with freedom of establishment. The judgment in Cartesio addresses the question of whether Community law allows a Member State to stipulate that a company incorporated under its law must retain its operational headquarters within its territory. The factual context of the judgment was an attempt by Cartesio, a limited partnership constituted under Hungarian law, to transfer its registered office from Hungary to Italy. It was prevented from doing so because the application of the real seat theory required that companies established under Hungarian law retain their operational headquarters in Hungarian territory. Cartesio felt that its freedom of establishment had been unlawfully restricted and a Hungarian court of appeal referred the matter to the EC J for interpretative guidance. The Court of Justice found that there had been no breach of Community law since the relationship between a company and the State in which it is incorporated is not subject to the right to freedom of establishment. The conclusions and the reasoning of the Court are neither uncontroversial nor completely persuasive, particularly when considered in the light of the ECJ's own jurisprudence. Moreover, the judgment adds new inconsistencies to an already inconsistent body of case-law and, as such, may be harmful to legal certainty.
机译:欧洲法院(ECJ)最近就真实席位理论1与建立自由的兼容性提出了另一项具有里程碑意义的判决。 Cartesio案中的判决涉及共同体法律是否允许成员国规定根据其法律注册成立的公司必须在其领土内保留其运营总部的问题。判决的事实背景是Cartesio(根据匈牙利法律成立的有限合伙制)试图将其注册办事处从匈牙利转移到意大利。之所以不能这样做,是因为采用实际席位理论要求根据匈牙利法律成立的公司必须将其运营总部保留在匈牙利境内。 Cartesio认为其建立自由受到非法限制,匈牙利上诉法院将此事移交给欧洲法院,以寻求解释性指导。法院认为,由于公司与公司所在国之间的关系不受设立自由权的约束,因此没有违反共同体法律。法院的结论和推理既没有争议,也没有完全说服力,尤其是根据欧洲法院自己的判例考虑时。此外,该判决为已经不一致的判例法增加了新的矛盾之处,因此可能对法律确定性有害。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号