公司没有移民自由?

W. Ringe
{"title":"公司没有移民自由?","authors":"W. Ringe","doi":"10.54648/eulr2005033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The freedom of establishment for companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC Treaty) includes the right to choose the company's seat in any Member State of the EC. However, in recent years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seems to have interpreted those articles as being relevant only to the recognition of foreign companies, whereas the right to leave the company's country of incorporation has not come within the scope of this freedom. The purpose of this paper is to question this distinction between \"departure\" and \"arrival\". It is argued that the ECJ's point of view is inconsistent in itself, creates logical problems and is incoherent in light of its interpretation of other fundamental freedoms. Arguably, the Court has created a \"trap\" for itself by insisting on the differentiation between \"exit\" and \"entry\" and by putting much effort into maintaining this differentiation over the last years. The article ends with an appeal to reassess the application of the freedom of establishment to companies and to find the courage to overcome the artificial differentiation.","PeriodicalId":106641,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Freedom of Emigration for Companies?\",\"authors\":\"W. Ringe\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eulr2005033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The freedom of establishment for companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC Treaty) includes the right to choose the company's seat in any Member State of the EC. However, in recent years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seems to have interpreted those articles as being relevant only to the recognition of foreign companies, whereas the right to leave the company's country of incorporation has not come within the scope of this freedom. The purpose of this paper is to question this distinction between \\\"departure\\\" and \\\"arrival\\\". It is argued that the ECJ's point of view is inconsistent in itself, creates logical problems and is incoherent in light of its interpretation of other fundamental freedoms. Arguably, the Court has created a \\\"trap\\\" for itself by insisting on the differentiation between \\\"exit\\\" and \\\"entry\\\" and by putting much effort into maintaining this differentiation over the last years. The article ends with an appeal to reassess the application of the freedom of establishment to companies and to find the courage to overcome the artificial differentiation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2005033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2005033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

公司的设立自由(《欧共体条约》第43和48条)包括在欧共体任何成员国选择公司所在地的权利。然而,近年来,欧洲法院(ECJ)似乎将这些条款解释为仅与承认外国公司有关,而离开公司注册国的权利并不在这一自由的范围之内。本文的目的是质疑“出发”和“到达”之间的这种区别。有人认为,欧洲法院的观点本身是不一致的,造成了逻辑问题,并且与它对其他基本自由的解释不一致。可以说,法院坚持区分“退出”和“进入”,并在过去几年中竭力维持这种区分,为自己制造了一个“陷阱”。文章最后呼吁重新评估设立自由对公司的适用,并找到克服人为分化的勇气。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No Freedom of Emigration for Companies?
The freedom of establishment for companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC Treaty) includes the right to choose the company's seat in any Member State of the EC. However, in recent years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seems to have interpreted those articles as being relevant only to the recognition of foreign companies, whereas the right to leave the company's country of incorporation has not come within the scope of this freedom. The purpose of this paper is to question this distinction between "departure" and "arrival". It is argued that the ECJ's point of view is inconsistent in itself, creates logical problems and is incoherent in light of its interpretation of other fundamental freedoms. Arguably, the Court has created a "trap" for itself by insisting on the differentiation between "exit" and "entry" and by putting much effort into maintaining this differentiation over the last years. The article ends with an appeal to reassess the application of the freedom of establishment to companies and to find the courage to overcome the artificial differentiation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信