Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-393"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081118.31.2-393"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this report is part of the simplification package on company law. It is very important that in the European Union we try to simplify the environment for companies to flourish and to create growth for the European economy. The aim is to diminish administrative burdens as regards publication and translation obligations of certain types of companies. The proposal is part of the wide-ranging administrative burden reduction exercise; it would free up and redirect business resources and thus enhance the competitiveness of European economies.
In the report we introduced some amendments to clarify the practical implementation of the provisions relating to publication costs and translation provisions, and we also introduced some technical amendments in order to ensure correct cross-referencing with the Second Company Law Directive.
The Committee on Legal Affairs introduced three compromise amendments tabled by several colleagues to the effect that these additional publication requirements may be permitted if they are well-grounded, but we put them into recitals – they are not in the articles. I think it is very important that there is a recommendation in the recitals for the Member States to use this flexibility, but we do not call on them to do so. If the Member State feels that its companies really need to have this publication in the national gazette – and this is really something that Member States wants – they can do that, but we have not put any call to this effect into the articles.
The second issue is that I, personally, tried to introduce a transition period, which I still think would be a very good way forward. During the transition period these publication requirements would be there, but once the transition period is over we would have only the electronic database. I think this kind of proposal for a transition period would also be in line with the issue of internet penetration, namely that some Member States have better internet penetration than others; maybe after the transition period we could then make sure that there is enough distribution of information in all Member States. In this way we could take into account the fact that internet penetration in all the Member States is not at the same level.
Nowadays, under the First Company Law Directive, companies need to publish certain information in the national gazettes that has to be entered into the Member States’ commercial registers. In most cases, publication in the national gazette entails additional costs for the companies without providing any real added value. The objective of this proposal is therefore to remove any additional publication requirements in national law that cause additional costs to the companies.
Anyhow, the Commission leaves flexibility for Member States concerning these additional publication requirements. It is still possible for Member States to have additional requirements, but these should be covered by the single fee proposed for the new electronic platform.
Member States should all have electronic platforms containing the full information and providing access to this information in the companies’ electronic file in the register. This would be a cost-effective and easily accessible way of providing all the necessary information regarding the companies. Some Member States already have these electronic registers and databases, but others do not have this kind of digital database.
The most important thing is to introduce the single fee set by the Member States that covers all the costs related to the publication and administration requirements. This single fee should also cover any additional national requirements for the publication of information in local and regional newspapers as well.
However, the Committee on Legal Affairs also wanted to introduce some flexibility regarding these costs and we now say that, if there are well-founded reasons, it would be possible for Member States to have additional fees.
Regarding the 11th Company Law Directive, this proposal deals with the translation requirements for documents to be filed in the registers of company branches. When registering a branch, companies also have to file certain information in the register of the company branch. This often leads to significant additional costs for companies as they not only have to ensure the translation of certain documents into the language of the Member States where the branch is situated, but also have to comply with sometimes excessive requirements for certification and/or notarisation of that translation. So now we are trying to ease translation obligations by having this certification and authorisation abolished.
The objective is to reduce the costs for translation and certification to the minimum. This also leads to benefits for companies by achieving a certain reduction in costs while ensuring the reliability of the translations.
I agree with the Commission proposal and tried to keep my wording as close to the Commission proposal as possible. However, it was not possible to reach a consensus based on the Commission proposal here in Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples