Die 5. EU-Gesellschaftsrechts- und Corporate Governance-Konferenz am 28.6.2007 in Berlin begann mit einer scharfen Kontroverse zwischen EU-Kommissar McGreevy und dem Europaabgeordneten Lehne über die weiteren Schritte im europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht. MdEP Lehne bekräftigte entschlossen das Vorhaben einer Europäischen Privatgesellschaft. Das Europäische Parlament hat zu Jahresanfang die Kommission zu einem Vorschlag aufgefordert. McGreevy äußerte sich gestern weiter sehr zögerlich:
„The devil lies in the detail. The Commission has often been criticised for making grand proposals based on theoretical problems delivering little by way of practical results. This is one of the reasons why the EU is out of touch with its citizens. This is not my style. I am a pragmatic man who wants to be judged on practical results. This is why I have decided to study the issue further before submitting a proposal. I have asked my services to collect all evidence necessary for a detailed economic impact analysis in order to assess factually whether there is a real case for the European Private Company Statute (EPC).”
Daraufhin drohte Lehne für das Europäische Parlament:
„We have set a deadline in the report to the end of this year. If the Commission is delaying the legislative procedure on the Statute without good reason, I shall certainly recommend to the Legal Affairs Committee an action against the Commission for failure to act. Parliament’s right — based on Article 192 of the EC-Treaty — to ask the Commission for legislative proposals must be flanked by some judicial rights. Otherwise, it will become null and void.”
Neben dem EPG-Projekt beschäftigten sich die ca. 300 Teilnehmern dieser internationalen Konferenz mit der Frage: Company Mobility — Does Europe offer the right framework?, ferner mit dem Thema: One share – one Vote. Proportionality between ownership and control?
Was die Mobilität von Gesellschaften in Europa betrifft wurde beklagt, dass die Kommission trotz anderslautender Ankündigung noch keinen Vorschlag für eine 14. Richtlinie (Sitzverlegung) vorgelegt hat. Kommissar McGreevy wird das in diesem Jahr auch nicht mehr veranlassen, er setzt auf eine weitere Klärung durch ein für Herbst 2007 erwartetes EuGH-Urteil. Dazu kritisch Dr. Silja Maul (KPMG):
„The fact that the Commission has stopped work on the Transfer of Registered Office Directive and now intends to await the judgement in the Cartesio case, which concerns the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a limited partnership from Hungary to Italy, is not acceptable. Even less so, if this means the cessation of the work. This case, which will undoubtedly develop the judgements of the ECJ to a certain extent, will not, due to its individual character, provide a secure basis in practice for how mergers are to be conducted. Important questions, e.g. how is co-determination to be dealt with, will not be clarified by this judgement. I am sure that no major German company will transfer its registered office on the basis of such an individual judgement.”
Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar