Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

European Company and Financial Law Review

Ed. by Bergmann, Alfred / Drescher, Ingo / Fleischer, Holger / Goette, Wulf / Harbarth, Stephan / Hommelhoff, Peter / Krieger, Gerd / Merkt, Hanno / Teichmann, Christoph / Vetter, Jochen / Weller, Marc-Philippe / Wicke, Hartmut


CiteScore 2018: 0.22

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.262
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.159

Online
ISSN
1613-2556
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 6, Issue 1

Issues

Freedom of Establishment for Companies: the European Court of Justice confirms and refines its Daily Mail Decision in the Cartesio Case C-210/06

Veronika Korom
  • *dr. iur. (Budapest), Lic. droit (Aix-Marseille), MJur (Oxford), LLB, PhD candidate, Centre de Droit Economique, Université Aix-Marseille III, France; START-Projekt 2, Institute for Business Law, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Austria.
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Peter Metzinger
  • **dr. iur. (Pécs), LL.M. (Université René Descartes Paris V), PhD candidate, University of Pécs, ügyvéd (attorney at law), Budapest, Legal counsel to Cartesio before the ECJ.
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2009-05-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ECFR.2009.125

On 16 December 2008 the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the case C-210/06 Cartesio Bt. It is the latest case in the line of company law cases on freedom of establishment. While closing a chapter opened with Daily Mail some 20 years ago, the Court raises many new questions. Following Daily Mail, Centros, Überseering and Inspire Art, the referring Hungarian court wanted to know whether national company law provisions which prohibit a company, constituted in Hungary under Hungarian company law and entered in the Hungarian Companies Register, to request the transfer of its seat to another Member State of the European Union while remaining governed by Hungarian law, are compatible with Community law. Advocate General Maduro took the view that Articles 43 and 48 EC preclude national rules which make it impossible for a company constituted under national law to transfer its operational headquarters to another Member State. However, against all expectations and the AG Opinion, the European Court of Justice confirmed that in the absence of uniform Community legislation national law decides whether a national company can rely on the freedom of establishment enshrined in Art. 43 EC. The pro-freedom of establishment attitude of the Court witnessed in recent years seems to have yielded to a more conservative approach, upholding the distinctions between outbound v inbound and primary v secondary freedom of establishment.

About the article

Published Online: 2009-05-13

Published in Print: 2009-04-01


Citation Information: European Company and Financial Law Review, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 125–161, ISSN (Online) 1613-2556, ISSN (Print) 1613-2548, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ECFR.2009.125.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Junghwan Jeon and Gyoung-Gyu Choi
Asia Europe Journal, 2016, Volume 14, Number 3, Page 297
[3]
Filip Jenné and Marieke Wyckaert
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in