Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-09-Speech-1-137"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-03-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Statute for a European private company - Cross-borders transfers of companies' registered offices - Small Business Act - Workers' participation in companies with a European Statute (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090309.18.1-137"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-03-09-Speech-1-1382
lpv:speaker	lp:Kurt Lechner2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2007-03-28--2009-07-13)3 member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, many Members have raised the subject of participation. I do not wish to go more deeply into this now, but I do want to point out in this connection that our Member States’ company law also has the function of defending the interests of public policy, such as creditor protection, security of the legal system and consumer protection, a function that is safeguarded in the Member States by administration of preventive justice, for example by means of form and register provisions. There are major differences between Member States in this regard. The decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs take account of this in many places – which is to be warmly welcomed – by leaving Member States’ options open. Ultimately, however, these things are counteracted, or at least can be counteracted, unless we do something about the fact that the registered office and the actual seat – that is, the actual place of business of the company – are allowed to differ, as this ultimately renders these safeguards meaningless. The company can locate its registered office practically at will, and thus evade the requirements of the country where it really does business. In my opinion, Member States thereby although not lose a great deal of sovereignty over their company law and its regulatory function, as these can be invalidated. I wish to add that this will – or rather could – also jeopardise the reputation of the European private company, at least in the Member States with stricter requirements of their own. One could suggest that we wait and see what happens and then make the necessary adjustments, and I would agree with them if this development were not reinforced by the procedures and the unanimity. That is my greatest concern. There is no reason for this course of action. The case-law of the European Court of Justice is only a stopgap measure because we do not have a directive on the transfer of company seats; but, in the form currently envisaged, this European private company would basically reinforce this disintegration – enshrining it in Community law once and for all. For this reason, I would ask the Council to reconsider this issue very carefully."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"de facto"1 "de jure"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph